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: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
This was posted in the comments by Gordon Duff:


This is a very purposeful leak from the files of Russian intelligence. It was brought to me because no one else would understand its implications or publish it.


As I said with yesterday's article, I believe these were leaked intentionally, irregardless if they are 100% true.
If there were nukes used, I think 2 kilotons is a bit much.




posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

The asbestos was one of the reasons the corroded towers couldn't be demolished easily. After years of think tanks working on the problem the best they could come up with was encircling both towers with scaffolding and linking them up. Then dismantling them piecemeal. Far too expensive.

I'm sure you're right about new types of illness. The debris pile was a unique event.

The entire clean-up/cover-up was completed in much less than the estimated time. They got that out of the way quick. Fortunately global warming hasn't swamped Staten Island yet, almost a million tons of debris is still available for analysis. Once the issue of the fines has been dealt with. The fines being the remains of less than 1/4 of an inch thought to contain the remains of the thousand plus lost souls for whom no remains were found.

The families were told the fines, which covered about an acre I believe, would be removed to a remembrance park. Instead they were just bulldozed .

When the fines have been dealt with appropriately we can look at the average particle size of the remaining debris and say, "It was an inside job." The main part of the explosives being inside the reinforced concrete infill panels that were between the two layers plasterboard one side one layer the other in the walls of the core.

The dust analysis showed that almost everything in the towers had been powdered, some of it extraordinarily finely. But the concentrations of different components varied even in samples taken a few yards apart. So different people got different doses during the dusty time. Then later when it was more fumey they got different doses of rare fumes.

Breathing in cement is never too good,that powdered concrete was terrible. There was the glass as well. So finely powdered it couldn't be coughed out.

With the scenario I picture the intention was for a quick, clean kill, total new world order takeover and happily ever after. Instead both towers failed to detonate and it turned into a tragic farce of truly epic proportions. Which it still is.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Well since a lot of us believe that scalar weaponry and a missile from a sub was used, this would toe into that and not be very nice, the dark hats would be earning their demon wings.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Just another hoax from Iran's presstv

www.metabunk.org...


The bunk here is twofold: Firstly there are not 70,000 cancer victims. That's an entirely made up number. The NY Post story cited gives figures of: nypost.com...



o the PressTV article is total nonsense. There are not 70,000 cancer victims. There's only about 1,100. And of those, only about 200 might possibly be due to exposure of something at ground zero, and of those 200, none are thought to be from exposure to radiation. PressTV and Gordon Duff are clearly just writing baseless nonsense for propaganda purposes.


Why do some people fall for Iran's presstv hoaxes all the time?



posted on May, 22 2014 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg




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. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


It was safe-as long as you wore a filter mask. Those that choose not to wear them got sick. How can you blame the EPA for peoples stupidity.



posted on May, 22 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

I would agree that it was probably a mistake that the article states a 2 kiloton device was used, however your article does not 100% prove that 1 or more smaller devices were not used.




Of 622 cancer claims approved so far, the fund has awarded $15.5 million to 39 victims, a spokeswoman told The Post. 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.


SO FAR..........because until recently they REFUSED to allow compensation for anyone with cancer. Now that they are allowing payments for that, it's possible close to ALL of those 70,000 have cancer and will NOW be able to collect.

The first article claims nearly all who have filed claims have this cancer and your article claims very few have it. The reality is alot of people have cancer that were close to this site and very few who developed cancer are getting compensated.

We should all know by now that if this kind of thing happens again DO NOT participate in the rescue or cleanup and if you live nearby move.




Yet some officials were worried about making the connection between 9/11 and cancer too soon. When the proposal to add cancer coverage was made, experts estimated the cost would total between $14.5 million and $33 million. And while someone's cancer may have been caused by his or her work at ground zero, it might also have been a coincidence -- they may have gotten cancer anyway.


This is EXACTLY how they have gotten out of paying those who got cancer from 9/11, make the ridiculous assumption that they might have gotten cancer anyway. PLEASE.........




So the PressTV article is total nonsense. There are not 70,000 cancer victims. There's only about 1,100. And of those, only about 200 might possibly be due to exposure of something at ground zero, and of those 200, none are thought to be from exposure to radiation.


Just because they refuse to admit or compensate some who have cancer does not mean 9/11 was not the cause. Talk about total nonsense........

It's hard enough getting them to admit some got cancer from 9/11, what makes you think they would EVER admit any cases were from radiation exposure?


edit on 22-5-2014 by SMOKINGGUN2012 because: correction



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: spooky24

Please demonstrate. On second thought's don't. It will kill you. We don't want to lose you. We love your carefully though out comments.

You can't keep out fumes with a simple filter mask. That stuff is so fine it will enter through your skin.

You have mentioned peoples stupidity here. What could be more stupid than thinking wearing a filter mask will offer adequate protection in such an extreme environment?

Those with practical experience of wearing masks in testing conditions will be familiar with the issues. The lack of practical experience leads to many incredibly ignorant statements.

edit on 23 5 2014 by Kester because: change words

edit on 23 5 2014 by Kester because: (no reason given)

edit on 23 5 2014 by Kester because: Addition



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 06:28 AM
link   
The dust was contaminated and 100's of people got sick because they didn't were mask-if your talking about a nuclear bomb big enough to blow up the entire island then no a mask would not help. I guess Bush and Chaney just mopped up the residual radiation that contaminated the 10,000 people that were in lower Manhattan that morning.



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: SMOKINGGUN2012

One would think that before the head of the EPA told those at Ground Zero that the air "was OK to breathe" she would have actually tested the air, but she did not, and there is a reason for that.

We would have heard of those sick people if there had not been a full court press going on to suppress the facts and truth.



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I don't see any evidence that this is from nuclear radiation. It's just made up by Fetzer.
a reply to: SMOKINGGUN2012



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: cantonear1968

No, it's not just made up by Fetzer, it is REPORTED by Fetzer and others.

The Zadroga Bill was a formal acknowledgment by the authorities that the situation existed. Close examination of the data shows the epidemiology to be very similar to that found at Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Before long, Fukushima.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: cantonear1968

No, it's not just made up by Fetzer, it is REPORTED by Fetzer and others.

The Zadroga Bill was a formal acknowledgment by the authorities that the situation existed. Close examination of the data shows the epidemiology to be very similar to that found at Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Before long, Fukushima.



And this is where?



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: cantonear1968

A good place to start is with Jeff Prager's ebook, America Nuked, or something like that.

Unfortunately, it is not available in print form, at least to my knowledge. It took forever to read the ebook, but it is very well documented.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: BGTM90
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.


Have a watch of this yt clip for metal running at 2000 degrees for 8 weeks later




posted on May, 28 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: cantonear1968

A good place to start is with Jeff Prager's ebook, America Nuked, or something like that.

Unfortunately, it is not available in print form, at least to my knowledge. It took forever to read the ebook, but it is very well documented.



Are you telling me that Prager's book documents the medical evidence that these cancer's are from radiation poisoning?

Surely there must be some documented evidence you can link to that supports Prager's claims. Some statistics to prove your claim of similarities to Chernobyl et al.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: cantonear1968

It's been many months since I read it, but I did take a few notes.

Leukemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and multiple myeloma have increased dramatically in the sample that is the workers at GZ. The Zadroga Bill was the presumed legislative remedy, though as I understand it the bill did not cover cancers at first. Apparently it has since been changed to include them, and in April the NY Post reported that many workers in the financial sector, Wall Street area, are also reporting these cancers that are common with those exposed to radiation.

Not gamma radiation, but neutron radiation is the likely culprit.

Prager's piece is very well documented, and contains many photos that were released to the public early on, but subsequently withdrawn.

The obvious blast damage cannot have been caused by burning office furnishings as NIST and others have claimed.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: douglas5

originally posted by: BGTM90
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.


Have a watch of this yt clip for metal running at 2000 degrees for 8 weeks later



Ok a couple things first I never said anything about melted metal, I said there was no bright emissions of light because All thermite reactions cause bright emissions of light, second most of the building was made from steel. steel, melts at 2500 degrees C now assuming your also talking about Celsius, how is the metal running at 2000 degrees? How did the train cars pulled out from the rubble survive and not melt? You would think a liquid would flow through the paths of least resistance a large subway tunnel would certainly provide vary little reactance. where is the large piece of solidified metal? If there where huge pools of molten metal they must have cooled down and solidified molten metal doesn't simply disappear. Also your video doesn't show one drop of molten metal it simply shows fuming.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: BGTM90

This liquid was special--it was metal and not water or milk. So its behavior is very much effected by the exact location that liquid metal is.

Released to normal ambient temperature conditions, that liquid quickly solidifies to steel. The only thing that keeps it in a liquid state is massive amounts of energy and big cauldrons.

Burning office furnishings cannot provide sufficient energy to keep steel in a liquid state for 3 months, it's impossible. Something provided such energy. Indeed 'hot spots' were observed by sensors on passing satellites including our own. Workers on site talked about hot spots.

Matt Tartaglia described working there and said nuclear decontamination protocol was in force. A few years later his teeth fell out and he eventually died from his radiation poisoning.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

The smouldering office fire smothered by tons of powdered concrete somehow became America's longest burning structural fire. www.pbs.org... "...a federal crime scene, a hazardous disaster zone, and the site of America's longest burning structural fire all rolled into one."

For what it's worth my own view is, standard and out of date explosives built into the reinforced concrete infill panels between the steel beams and columns of the core, plus a combination of energy weapon, thermite and min nukes. The left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing resulting in the observed overkill. Some of the nukes not detonating efficiently resulting in ongoing reactions.

Then to cap it all off a false truth movement setting proponents of different theories against each other, as if it couldn't have been a combination.

Anyway. We have the forty acres of evidence between fifteen and twenty feet deep on the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island. Just deal compassionately with the 1,000 plus peoples remains in the 'fines', the debris of less than 1/4 inch that was bulldozed over the other remains after the grieving families were told they would be moved to a respectful site.
Then we can get on with analysing the evidence and taking whatever action is appropriate.
edit on 8 6 2014 by Kester because: remove word



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Kester

Yes, I agree. The video clip you provided reminds me of some notes I took some years ago, after the NYC Medical Examiner released his report. Probably not his only report, but one of them:

19906 human remains were recovered.

4735 of those have been identified, and about 200 of those remains belong to the same person.

1401 individuals were identified, 673 on DNA alone.

293 intact bodies found.

If one person was blown into 200 pieces, it seems to me some sort of explosive force did that.




top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join