Nuke Cancer from 9/11 Revealed

a reply to: audubon

I do not think that R&D changes the laws of physics. That you would say that suggests some level of desperation.

What I do think is that R&D frequently changes our understanding of the laws of physics.

Can you handle that? Isn't that why we do R&D? To better understand the details and incorporate our understanding into improved machines?

originally posted by: buddha
the twin towers were full of asbestos!
that gives you Asbestosis Disease, Lungs!

It would have cost them 10's Millions to clean the buildings of it.
More money He made!

Where are the cases of asbestosis in those who worked at GZ? I would be forever grateful if you could help me with that.

Maybe I've missed references to those men having asbestosis, but there are numerous stories regarding the rare cancers in those young men. Asbestosis takes years to manifest, and likely steady exposure. These cancers, not so much.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: audubon

I do not think that R&D changes the laws of physics. That you would say that suggests some level of desperation.

What I do think is that R&D frequently changes our understanding of the laws of physics.

Can you handle that? Isn't that why we do R&D? To better understand the details and incorporate our understanding into improved machines?

I like how you can only use innuendo and not state any actual examples. Like to form a credible, logical argument with specifics. Or just carry on your thread to thread rant? Dodging question after question leveled at your impossible theories.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: buddha
the twin towers were full of asbestos!
that gives you Asbestosis Disease, Lungs!

It would have cost them 10's Millions to clean the buildings of it.
More money He made!

Where are the cases of asbestosis in those who worked at GZ? I would be forever grateful if you could help me with that.

Maybe I've missed references to those men having asbestosis, but there are numerous stories regarding the rare cancers in those young men. Asbestosis takes years to manifest, and likely steady exposure. These cancers, not so much.

Why not actual follow this thread, and cite actual WTC cases of cancers solely caused by radiation.......

a reply to: neutronflux

If they were really impossible, you would not be so concerned.

The nuclear theory is the only one that explains all the damage caused and observed, including air samples and USGS findings.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

If they were really impossible, you would not be so concerned.

The nuclear theory is the only one that explains all the damage caused and observed, including air samples and USGS findings.

You have no understanding of radiation....

Waiting your rebuttal....

Let's count the evidence against nuke devices....

One: no evidence of blasts that resulted in over pressure events, or enough sound energy, that indicates enough energy was released in the form of a shock wave to cut steel columns. No windows blown out?

Two: no deaths on 9/11, or after, from radiation poisoning or burns.

Three: no proof of individuals with radiation burns.

Four: no evidence of an electromagnetic disturbance that would have created noise in WTC broadcasts and video recodings.

Five: no evidence of metals activated by radiation at the WTC.

Six: no spreading of contamination by first responders or WTC clean up crews to hospitals, equipment, homes, resultants, fire stations that would indicate radiation contamination/levels that would cause cancer.

Seven: no proof of any radiation above background period. No proof of contamination with radiation above background.

Eight, no proof of abnormal ratios of radioactive isotopes that would be evidence of a nuclear reaction.

The truth movement has a theory of a super secret nuke weapon that produces no measurable radiation above background, but release enough radiation/ contamination to produce abnormal cancer rates?

If the bomb was detonated in the basement, then the building would have fell bottom up. Or a ripple up the building. Or a simultaneous drop in all floors.

If the bomb was detonated at the site of jet impact, how was the vertical columns and walls pulled inward? No windows blown outward?

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

a reply to: Salander

And you claim a super secret nuke created no detectable radiation during the blast but was radioactive enough to keep steel molten for 90 days? And there is no proof of molten steel, or the pile was ever hot enough to support molten steel.

To create molten steel for 90 days, the radiation would have to be higher than Fukushima. People would have dropped dead after uncontrolled puking within an hour of being at the WTC.

a reply to: Salander

At least answer what nuclear process would keep steel molten for 90 days and not kill everone within hours of working at the pile. Never mind being detected by every radiation detector within miles of the WTC when the wind blew the dust around.

a reply to: Salander

The nuclear theory is the only one that explains all the damage caused and observed, including air samples and USGS findings.

Are we back to the silent nukes again?
Any blast make a loud noise.
No noise means no blast.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: audubon

I do not think that R&D changes the laws of physics. That you would say that suggests some level of desperation.

What I do think is that R&D frequently changes our understanding of the laws of physics.

Can you handle that? Isn't that why we do R&D? To better understand the details and incorporate our understanding into improved machines?

Is this meant to be a serious argument? I don't know whether to laugh or weep.

For the last time: It is not possible to produce a critical mass disintegration without producing a simultaneous radiation burst. The reason that it is not possible is the same reason that nuclear weapons are possible in the first place - the conversion of mass into energy. Without the conversion of mass into energy, there isn't a nuclear explosion at all.

What you are suggesting is not possible. Not "possibly achievable", not "more research is needed", not "they've done it but kept it secret" - it. is. not. possible. by. definition.

a reply to: audubon

Anything less would just be a dirty bomb powered by conventional explosives?

a reply to: neutronflux

Well, OK then. A dirty bomb... but there's no record of any radiation being emitted. So: just a regular bomb perhaps. But there's no evidence of bombs being planted at the exact spots where the planes hit the towers.

Is there another way that huge non-nuclear explosions might be generated at the exact spots where the fuel-laden planes hit the towers at enormous speeds? Well, duhhhh....

I suppose, as his next tactic in his theory, Salander could claim that the planes weren't planes, but missiles equipped with his magical radiation-free nuclear warheads. In fact, the only surprising thing about such an argument would be that no-one has attempted it before.

a reply to: Salander

USGS did gather some samples in 35 different locations within 1km radius of WTC, and some of those samples showed Thorium at 6 times the lowest levels detected, so there is a case for some sort of nuclear event.

Thorium is present in many rocks, especially igneous rocks, concentration depends on type of rock

Also Thorium is commonly found associated with rare earth minerals - the rare earths are used in phospors for color TV and CRT monitors

Some much so that the waste piles after extracting the rare earths are a significant hazard

Care to guess how many TV and CRT were in those buildings ?? - even tiny traces of thorium in the rare earth materials
were have left a trail

a reply to: Salander

Here is calculator for nuclear weapon effects

www.nuclearsecrecy.com...

Can see that even the smallest nuclear device detonated in WTC would irradiate much of southern Manhattan

In addition the blast effect would have leveled many of the buildings in the area - was there last week

Fire House 10 (quarters of FDNY LADDER 10/ENGINE 10) is still there - as are the remaining buildings on Liberty St

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Kester

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

My uncle and I drove by a very recent accident aftermath where a Monte Carlo, with five occupants, had just run head on with a full size RV at full speed on a interstate highway. The car was estimated going at 80 plus mph. The occupants in the car were pulverized into small chunks. Think hundreds of zip loc baggies.

On the road we saw unwound intestinal parts, guys scooting along with no torso just upper chest and arms eyes wide open still, a foot with a shoe on still and those were the ones that had it easy. Others had to be scraped off of the road and inside fenders and the RV's axl.

The car looked like straws of hay scattered all over or a box of matches strewn all over. The front of the the car was sitting a little far off away from the scene, like it broke off clean at first impact, almost undamaged considering what it went through.

The highway department guy who takes pictures of accidents couldn't finish up. He had to call someone else in.

So yea 911 was probably a meat grinder.

a reply to: wickd_waze


Yes, considering that at least one person at WTC was blown into 200 different pieces according to the NYC Coroner 10 years ago, those office fires sure had a meat grinder effect. Special, they were.

And internet censorship is running at full throttle, as www.nucleardemolition.com... used to be a link to an excellent website on this subject, but now it gives "account suspended". When humans have something to hide, censorship is a handy tool.

originally posted by: Salander
Yes, considering that at least one person at WTC was blown into 200 different pieces according to the NYC Coroner 10 years ago, those office fires sure had a meat grinder effect. Special, they were.

Are you now claiming that no explosions of any kind took place at the WTC?

I have to admit, I wasn't expecting such a coup de theatre. Let me just grab my popcorn.

a reply to: Salander

Another false argument by you with no supporting evidence.

If the site was nonsensical as you, the site probably didn't receive enough foot traffic to justify its existence. Or right out shamed offline by people with critical thinking skills.

And still waiting for you to answer questions leveled at you.

Still waiting for a rebuttal to these items....

Prove the pile was ever hot enough to support molten steel.

For molten steel to exist do to a nuclear reaction in you false narrative of 90 days, the pile would have radiation levels and nuclear reactions similar to Fukushima. The radiation would be obvious by people at the pile plagued by uncontrolled puking, radiation poisoning, radiation burns, and death after an hour or two at the WTC.

Let's count the evidence against nuke devices....

One: no evidence of blasts that resulted in over pressure events, or enough sound energy, that indicates enough energy was released in the form of a shock wave to cut steel columns. No windows blown out?

Two: no deaths on 9/11, or after, from radiation poisoning or burns.

Three: no proof of individuals with radiation burns.

Four: no evidence of an electromagnetic disturbance that would have created noise in WTC broadcasts and video recodings.

Five: no evidence of metals activated by radiation at the WTC.

Six: no spreading of contamination by first responders or WTC clean up crews to hospitals, equipment, homes, resultants, fire stations that would indicate radiation contamination/levels that would cause cancer.

Seven: no proof of any radiation above background period. No proof of contamination with radiation above background.

Eight, no proof of abnormal ratios of radioactive isotopes that would be evidence of a nuclear reaction.

The truth movement has a theory of a super secret nuke weapon that produces no measurable radiation above background, but release enough radiation/ contamination to produce abnormal cancer rates?

If the bomb was detonated in the basement, then the building would have fell bottom up. Or a ripple up the building. Or a simultaneous drop in all floors.

If the bomb was detonated at the site of jet impact, how was the vertical columns and walls pulled inward? No windows blown outward?

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

a reply to: audubon


Get two boxes while you're at it.

No sir, I'm not claiming no explosions took place. Very much to the contrary.

Numerous explosions took place there, as reported by at least dozens of witnesses including firemen. Some firemen even described scenes they described as "like a foundry."

Numerous explosions, the first being described in detail to the 911 Commission which chose to not include references to them in the final report. Got Cover-Up?

a reply to: Salander

Yes, it is documented jet fuel poured down the elevator shafts and ignited. And that when the elevator cables were severed, they made explosive sounds when crashing to the ground.

No noise of a shock wave with enough energy to cut steel is audible any video. No evidence of an over pressure event capable of cutting steel.

How does a nuclear reaction take out a tower without radiating?