It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nuke Cancer from 9/11 Revealed

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2014 @ 08:24 AM
link   
So 2 days in a row we have 9/11 articles from VT. How is it that this has been hidden for so long IF true? You would think we would have heard of all of these sick people before now.

www.veteranstoday.com...




A new and terrifying 9/11 conspiracy has hit the news. We are now confronted, not only with startling proof that 9/11 was a “nuclear event,” but that there have been thousands of unreported deaths in New York, radiation cancers and nearly 70,000 being kept alive with experimental stem cell therapy and physically devastating “chemo.”





Officials would not give a breakdown of cancer victims, but 10,800 downtown workers make up the second-largest group of registered claimants after 39,500 Ground Zero responders. There are another 16,600 in smaller categories such as residents, students, child-care and health-care workers.


Are ALL the cancers due to nuclear exposure or just toxic dust?




posted on May, 21 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   
IDK. I've read about a lot of people falling very ill but never considered it being from radiation. Are there any ill effects from thermite? Also, were any radiation readings taken right after the 911 false flag doorway to cleansing of the muslims?



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I am going to take a guess and say it is probably from dust fallout.

I mean, you might come down with cancer too if you were breathing in metal dust for months during the cleanup period.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   
It seems to be guessing, to relive some conspiracy disscusions, and i would imagine it's very difficult to hide 70.000 sick people in one town alone.



The number of victims who have thus far applied for benefits from the 2.7-billion-dollar 9/11 fund, as reported in the New York Post story, that number is 69,900.

But, do all 69,000 have that Cancer or is it varius problems.


CLICK ME


Multiple myeloma, globally, resulted in about 74,000 deaths in 2010 up from 49,000 in 1990.[28] There are approximately 71,213 people in the United States living with multiple myeloma and according to Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data an estimated 21,700 new cases of myeloma were diagnosed in 2012 in the United States. The age-adjusted incidence rate for multiple myeloma is 5.8 per 100,000 per year.

Multiple myeloma is the second most prevalent blood cancer (10%) after non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.[29] It represents approximately 1% of all cancers and 2% of all cancer deaths. Although the peak age of onset of multiple myeloma is 65 to 70 years of age, recent statistics[citation needed] indicate both increasing incidence and earlier age of onset.

CLICK ME 2


The definitive cause of multiple myeloma has not been established but research has suggested several factors may be risk factors or contribute to multiple myeloma development in an individual. A genetic abnormality such as c-Myc oncogenes and others have been associated with multiple myeloma development. Currently, there is no evidence that heredity plays a role in multiple myeloma development. Environmental exposures to herbicides, insecticides, benzene, hair dyes, and radiation have been suggested as causes but definitive data is lacking.

edit on 21-5-2014 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Mianeye

He claims it is a New York Post story but provides no link.
It does say over 90% of the cancer claimants are from within 1 mile of ground zero.
If that is true it is one hell of a cancer cluster.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: SMOKINGGUN2012

Here is what the guess is from i think, not the article but the numbers.

CLICK ME


More than 1,100 who rushed to the aid of those stricken on 9/11 have been diagnosed with cancer directly related to the September 11 attacks.
According to the Center for Diseases Control's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 1,140 people have been officially classed as suffering from a WTC-related cancer and that number is expected to grow.





As many as 65,000 people, including first responders, became sick from 9/11 exposure, according to the Centers for Disease Control.


It does say though.



Indeed, President Obama signed $4.2 billion through to legislation in January 2011 which will help meet the costs of those suffering cancer.

Which is a hell of a lot of money, and aparently only covering Cancer.

But' i still think that the "nuke part" is added to make it a conspiracy.
edit on 21-5-2014 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Here is some more numbers, but the cancer is only part of the sickness people have gotten.

CLICK ME


For many of the nearly 50,000 9/11 first responders, the wounds of the Twin Tower attacks are far from healing. According to two studies published Thursday in the British journal Lancet, these rescue workers continue to struggle with respiratory illness, depression, and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and many of them may be at increased risk for developing a number of cancers.


So the numbers are there but the cases of cancer is not, it's varius sickness that is covered within the 70.000.
edit on 21-5-2014 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: SMOKINGGUN2012

Toxic dust. The head of the EPA should have been taken out and shot for saying that the dust from 9/11 was safe. It wasn't. Asbestos and all kinds of very nasty stuff was in that dust. Nothing to do with radiation.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: SMOKINGGUN2012

I do believe that 9/11 was an inside job. However if it was indeed a Nuclear event then why was the radioactivity not detected by satellite or other ground based radiological sensors at the time?

Its not like America are the only one with this capability. All first world nations pretty much have the means to detect a Nuclear detonation and proceeding radioactive fallout.
edit on 21-5-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   

While telling their story, the New York Post revealed that 70,000 New Yorkers have applied for 9/11 victim compensation, most for cancers that can only be attributed to direct exposure to ionizing radiation from nuclear weapons.

Simple proof of that is easy. The sources of the "Ionizing radiation" from "nukes" that these cancers can "only be attributed to" typically have long half lives and will still be prevalent in the area and the bodies of the victims.

Where is that data taken from the actual radiological studies being done that show this to be true?

Oh, those are "covered up". We just have some testimony that they exist… somewhere.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

No way it was a nuclear detonation. Far too small. Mini-nukes don't work that way.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Can you imagine if "They" did use a tactical nukes to down those towers?

Never mind invasion and occupying their countries, Afghanistan and Iraq would have been made to glow in the dark for the next few centuries.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   
The truth about a missile hitting the pentagon will come out. Same with World trade center 7 being "pulled" (Enron anyone)? And the "collapse" of the world trade towers 1&2 (thermite, directed energy weapon). This world is run by old, evil, rich bastards. This soon will come to an end. We have forgotten that this planet is really in control. She can feel all that we do to her, and each other. A re-balancing is going to happen soon.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   
These towers had tons of asbestos that was literally turned to dust and spread over the city. There is no evidence of fission or fusion based nuclear weapons on the site, first of all there would have been a very bright light at the moment of detonation thats also one of the reasons I do not believe in the thermite theory thermite burns white hot and you just don't see any evidence of that.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   
im less prone to think people would be getting radiation cancer from the dust.

however, if this were true, would it lend more credence to the theory that a direct energy weapon may have been used in the 9/11 attacks? that would account for the radiation.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Oannes

Not forgetting the explosives built into the reinforced concrete infill panels. You can see the striations as they blow out in many of the photographs.

The towers were built for destruction. They were Rockefeller's Wicker Men. Look at the Rockefeller creed on the stone not far from there. "I believe that the rendering of useful service is the common duty of mankind and that only in the purifying fire of sacrifice is the dross of selfishness consumed and the greatness of the human soul set free."

You know what that means don't you? It means the rendering of useful service is the duty of commoners and filling the two concrete and steel wicker men with useful souls will take out the competition with a big puff of soul smoke. This was a long planned sacrifice that, as usual with these things, went horribly wrong. At least they didn't get the thirty thousand souls, little video or photographic evidence and massive recruiting tool that they needed.


They would have liked to leave them standing since they hadn't managed to organise detonation within the optimum shelf life of the explosives.

The corrosion accelerated by dissimilar metals in a marine environment with ample stray electric current from the multiple elevator motors meant cladding would break off in a storm. Disaster. Also the windows would have become liable to pop out. So they had to be demolished. But it was going to cost more than building them to demolish them in an acceptable way plus there was the risk of removing the panels.

So they went with the original plan, added loads of extras, then both towers failed to detonate. Does that explain the look on Bush's face when Andy whispered in his ear? You know, during the book reading episode. The nation was under attack by people who couldn't even afford their own aeroplane and the president sat there with a look of 'We're doomed" on his face. They all hoped the second one would detonate and hide the first failure. Two failures meant we got the photographic and video evidence that has given the game away.

If you've ever wondered why they organised it that crazy way and followed up with a paper thin story, there's you're answer. They didn't organise it that way, it was a disastrous failure.

p.s. Oh sorry. Missed the dust/cancer bit. So the explosives in the panels and probably under the floor plans as well blew almost everything to dust which was then possibly partially nuked and certainly something very strange happened to much of the steel which floated off in a dust cloud visible from the space station. Wow.

Then the lied to first responders walked all over and delved down into a smouldering and disassociating mouldering mess of what no-ones ever seen before and they breathed in and absorbed it through their skin and it didn't make them into cyber robots, it gave them cancer. expletive.


edit on 21 5 2014 by Kester because: addition

edit on 21 5 2014 by Kester because: spelling

edit on 21 5 2014 by Kester because: spelling



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
So Cancer = exposure to a nuke now does it?

I don't think so.

Millions of people are diagnosed with cancers of varying form every year unfortunately, and have been being diagnosed for decades.

This suggestion is ignorance at its highest, with someone putting 2+2 together and making some absurd answer up.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore

Thorough investigation seems to point to inhalation of assorted fumes as the main poison.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: SMOKINGGUN2012

Are ALL the cancers due to nuclear exposure or just toxic dust?


I brought this up in the 9/11 forum many times. When I first saw the towers falling, I knew the dust would be a hazard, what I didn't know at the time was that the towers, a modern building, were full of Asbestos.
Asbestos in one of the most insidious killers there is, and it can take years before making it's presence known. My Mother volunteered to work in a munitions factory in England that used Asbestos in shells or some parts of artillery during WW2 as part of the war effort, before I was even born. In 1973 she was diagnosed with a chronic lung disease, and it took some time to find the cause, which was Asbestos. She died in 1975 aged 59. That's how insidious it is with relatively low contact. Those people in New York were affected by amounts of unstable Asbestos, the likes of which have never been seen before, and not just Asbestos from fire proofing, from the concrete, the Gypsum, everything that was turned to dust. Dust so fine is a prime health hazard anyway, but the likes of the Asbestos and Gypsum and concrete, getting into parts of the body like the lungs is a disaster. I wouldn't even be surprised if new types of illnesses come out of this, with all the rare metals in the electronics that were in the buildings all in the mixture.
As for the all clear given for the clean-up, that was plain madness.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: SMOKINGGUN2012

Easy enough to decide which it is. Just get a geiger counter and check a few places in NY near ground zero...




top topics



 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join