2,500 Ground Zero workers have cancer

a reply to: stuthealien

asbestos burning causes people to devolop cancer ,i call it false ,and here are my reasons why. in the second world war london was burning asbestos was everywhere in buildings in uk ,,guess what none of these cancer issues.

You need to read up on the history of the UK.
Most buildings in the UK during the war had zero insulation.

Even today there is a high percentage with no insulation.
I know because my mother inlaw lives there.
She lived for 20 years in an apartment in Kent. The temperature would drop to 40 F and she would freeze because the heaters could not keep up.

I looked into building codes and construction.
They are messed up big time.
If you want to renovate a building you must use the same materials and construction methods used they used at the time the building was put up. That leads to a 'Why bother" attitude.
If you put a new building in an existing neighborhood the exterior must look exactly like your neighbors.

a reply to: MysterX

"We got a problem"

"What kinda problem?"

"Them towers is full of asbestos!"

"And?"

"Well, it's gonna cost a tonne of money to get all that asbestos outta them towers!"

"Just fly some jets into 'em. Make up a story about terrorsists or something. Rig the whole lot with expolsives and bring em down. Job done"

"Are you serious?"

"Sure"

"But lots of people will get killed, and there'll be hell to pay, it could start wars an such!"

"While you're at it, blow up that 'building 7' too, I never liked the look of that one"

a reply to: BoovDawg

Dis thermite cause cancer. I don't think there have been studies on this if thermite causes certain types of cancer this could be another nail in the coffin that the building were purposely brought down.

I can see that either we've got people here posting who just NOW have decided to look into 9-11, or it's the start of a whole new generation of people who were too young when it happened to really be able to have any opinion about it.

It has been PROVEN beyond any doubt by USGS dust samples taken at the time and analyzed for constituents that the dust contained daughter products of fission (as uranium and other fissionable materials decay, which is the reason they are 'radioactive', they change into other elements in lockstep with the time elapsed.) From this, you can determine what elements were used for the fissionable material and how much time has elapsed.

There should have been no uranium in the dust samples, and a whole helluva lot of other highly toxic elements in tiny particle sizes (the tinier the particle size, the more energy required to produce them; we're talking 1/1000 of a human hair sizes).

The towers were only not brought down to get rid of asbestos white elephants, although that was a nifty byproduct since taking them down safely would have been a different kind of nightmare, and costly. The Port Authority knew all about this and there was a lot of recriminations in the months before 9-11 about how it was going to be handled. Lucky Larry Silverstein bought himself a couple derelict buildings, lightly rented and obvious terrorist targets, which in itself is suspicious. The floors picked for the plane targets (most likely guided in by remote control) were not random. Do some research and you'll find out more about that.

Anyone looking at a photograph of the towers in mid collapse who says they fell down from plane impacts (that happened an hour or an hour and a half before) or isolated fires, or gravity, is patently brainwashed, or working for propaganda sources. Gravity doesn't throw massive steel beam assemblies out laterally hundreds of feet, all the while they were trailing 'smoke' (actually, they were steaming and disintegrating at the molecular level from the neutron bombardment and residual heat from the million-degree tactical nuclear weapon they were about 100 feet away from when they blew.)

Any kind of gravity collapse would have produced a pancake effect of every floor with everything found easily from every floor. All the office contents would have been identifiable although crushed. That obviously wasn't the case.

The amount of thermite needed would have been near the amount of steel in the building, and would have taken MONTHS to bring in with a large crew working 24/7. And thermite doesn't account for the explosive nature of the collapse (were thermite charges placed up against every desk, toilet, missing person? Does thermite account for the reported heat of the dust cloud, hot enough to make cars spontaneously burst into flame, melt off door handles, melt the ladders of fire trucks parked nearby, the reports that people 'vaporized' as the cloud hit them, near in? Steven Jones is a government operative and he was used to produce a ridiculous theory that took the focus off what really, obviously, happened. He was also implicated in deep-sixing cold fusion by a 'show of hands' at a debate about it. Science by consensus and public pressure? Turns out cold fusion was a real thing... Why Richard Gage hasn't figured it out yet, I'll never know.

Read Jeff Prager's stunning seminal work on the dust and the cancers here: Far more at his FB page under 'Notes'.

Jeff Prager Facebook Notes on 'Dust and Cancers'

Handy for the government that so obviously did this (By their actions, ye shall know them; just look at the aftermath, an instantaneous clampdown on constitutional rights, threats of govt issue anthrax against the Patriot Act hold-outs, endless wars of occupation in oil, resource and drug rich countries, all of which the Bush Crime Family et al has been involved in since Grandpappy Preston Bush financed the Nazis in WWII, and was only kept off of the hangman's platform because of his connections and consensus warning that 'no one of his family should ever hold office in the United States'.... )

originally posted by: IBossJekler
a reply to: BoovDawg

Dis thermite cause cancer. I don't think there have been studies on this if thermite causes certain types of cancer this could be another nail in the coffin that the building were purposely brought down.

The only products of the thermite reaction are iron and Aluminum oxide. Fe2O3 (s) + 2 Al (s) → Al2O3 (s) + 2 Fe (s) neither aluminum oxcide or iron are carcinogenic. Now if there are thousands of cases of early onset Alzheimer's or CNS deases that might point to thermite but cancer is not evidance in the slightest to point to thermite.

"Aluminum oxide is not classified as a human carcinogen, but workers chronically exposed to aluminum-containing dust or particles have developed severe pulmonary reactions including fibrosis, emphysema and pneumothorax. Inhalation effects of short-term exposure may cause eye and upper respiratory tract irritation. Long-term inhalational effects of long-term exposure may affect the central nervous system"

www.drugs.com...

a reply to: signalfire
can you post here the images/video for this? "Gravity doesn't throw massive steel beam assemblies out laterally hundreds of feet" and while your at it can you post the evidence of a nuclear device at work ie. the concussion, heat strike and proton flash of detonation locally also any radiological evidence ie. radio frequency bursts, electromagnetics and of course neutrino detection which should be available from active detectors worldwide and in orbit.

originally posted by: IBossJekler
a reply to: BoovDawg

Dis thermite cause cancer. I don't think there have been studies on this if thermite causes certain types of cancer this could be another nail in the coffin that the building were purposely brought down.

Only to someone with a confirmation bias.

originally posted by: signalfire

It has been PROVEN beyond any doubt by USGS dust samples taken at the time and analyzed for constituents that the dust contained daughter products of fission (as uranium and other fissionable materials decay, which is the reason they are 'radioactive', they change into other elements in lockstep with the time elapsed.) From this, you can determine what elements were used for the fissionable material and how much time has elapsed.

There should have been no uranium in the dust samples, and a whole helluva lot of other highly toxic elements in tiny particle sizes (the tinier the particle size, the more energy required to produce them; we're talking 1/1000 of a human hair sizes)

Can you please provide your source that fission by products where present in the aftermather? Also uranium is not a fission byproduct it is a naturaly occurring mineral in many rocks. Cs 137 and 134 and I131 are the tell tell byproducts of a nuclear reaction sense they are made in the most quantity and are easily detectable sense they emit gamma rays also Cs 137 has a 30 year half lice so it would more than likely still be detectable.

Cancer is what happens when you have thermonuclear detonations go off in 2 skyscrapers filled with asbestos, mind you larry silverstein had taken insurance out on terrorism covering air craft collision months before. Steel frame buildings that did the imposible all on the same day. ALL 3. How convenient, the towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. It was a relestate nightmare , bought by someone with the knowledge to know better or in this case get away with insurance fraud.


Pays 3.2 billion

Gets $7.1 billion payout

And not one cent gone to the cancer victims. Because killing 3000 people is not enough when you can double your billions. He "pulled it" off.

originally posted by: DarthFazer
Cancer is what happens when you have thermonuclear detonations go off in 2 skyscrapers filled with asbestos, mind you larry silverstein had taken insurance out on terrorism covering air craft collision months before. Steel frame buildings that did the imposible all on the same day. ALL 3. How convenient, the towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. It was a relestate nightmare , bought by someone with the knowledge to know better or in this case get away with insurance fraud.


Pays 3.2 billion

Gets $7.1 billion payout

And not one cent gone to the cancer victims. Because killing 3000 people is not enough when you can double your billions. He "pulled it" off.

Acctualy asbestos itself causes cancer which was known to be in the building. So in order to prove a nuclear device was detonated you would need to prove it with some other evidence. Fission products ie Cs137 or I131 would be present and easily detectable. Also the type of cancer. The first cancers to show up due to a nuclear event is thyroid cancer due to I131 this shows up 5-10 years after the event. So are there excess levels of thyroid cancer in first responders and the general public of new York?

a reply to: DarthFazer

nothing is going to happen to the people that pulled this off, it's a dead subject (so to speak), because no one has the balls to tell the truth, that has enough power to do something about it...it's done, over with, kaput. it doesn't matter what you, or I, or millions of others want, it's what the people of great wealth (read control) want.

a reply to: BGTM90

Explain the uranium ?





a reply to: jimmyx


That is the sad truth my friend , this is the world we live in now. And the people who have blood on the hands know this. And they continue to pull off false flags and the dirty laundry they leave behind does not bother them. America is suffering from stockholm syndrome , the apologists in this thread are testiment of that.

originally posted by: DarthFazer

a reply to: BGTM90

Explain the uranium ?

I did explain the uranium it is a natural mineral in many rocks and sea and ground water its all over the place.

geoinfo.nmt.edu...

If you want to prove a nuclear detonation happened by a chemical signature you need fission products of uranium Cs 137 & 134 and I 131 are the most common and are easily detectable as I stated above.

a reply to: BGTM90



Cs 137 & 134 and I 131 are the most common and are easily detectable as I stated above.

The most common. There is they key word. IMO it was no common nuke something not privy to the public. As many members have stated previously the levels of uranium were much higher. Can you explain why the levels of uranium were life threatening ?

See here www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thermite does not cause cancer. Nuclear fallout does. a reply to: jhn7537

originally posted by: DarthFazer
a reply to: BGTM90



Cs 137 & 134 and I 131 are the most common and are easily detectable as I stated above.

The most common. There is they key word. IMO it was no common nuke something not privy to the public. As many members have stated previously the levels of uranium were much higher. Can you explain why the levels of uranium were life threatening ?

See here www.abovetopsecret.com...

Any fission reaction will produce Cs 137 and I 131 as the most common product its physics no matter how uncommon you say this nuclear device was it did not break the laws of physics. Can you please post your source on the levels of uranium and the dangers of the level please then I will reply to that statement.

NOTE: For technical reasons I can't cut and paste everything from another thread. Please follow the link below for the post in its entirety.

This addresses the issue of uranium in the WTC dust. It's from Possible Solution to the Khalezov, Deagle 9/11 Nuclear Demolition Theory. It is on page seven of the thread. Other issues like radiation detection at the site of the WTC etc. are discussed as well, but the following quote refers specifically to the USGS findings and their meaning.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: ipsedixit
Here in tabular form, Chemistry Figure 1, is the USGS breakdown of what was found in the dust from the WTC.

The methodologies used to arrive at these findings are explained at the following link. Suffice it to say that a number of dust samples from different parts of ground zero and from other locations in lower Manhattan were were gathered to arrive at an overall representative sample of the WTC dust.

pubs.usgs.gov...

On the evenings of September 17 and 18, the field crew collected samples of dust and airfall debris deposits from 33 outdoor locations within a 1-kilometer radius of the WTC; this sampling occurred after a major rainstorm on September 14. Two samples of indoor dust deposits unaffected by rainfall, and two samples of material coating a steel beam in the WTC debris close to Ground Zero were also collected.

One of the interesting things about this list and other more detailed expositions of what was found in the dust of the WTC, issued by the USGS, is that they are not exhaustive and complete.

Don't get me wrong. They went a country mile for America in publishing what they did publish.

However, they themselves acknowledge that their study is not the whole story. (All emphases in the following are mine.)

pubs.usgs.gov...

The trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment. Further detailed SEM studies of dust and beam coating samples are needed to develop a better understanding of the residences of metals in the samples. A detailed review of the materials used in construction, and the elemental composition of materials commonly found in office buildings would also be useful to understand more completely the potential sources and compositions of the materials in the dusts.

Let us take one of the elements from Chemistry Figure 1, above and do our best, as laymen, to come to a better understanding of what the table is or is not telling us about the element in question.

Let's look at the element Uranium.

The first thing to note about it, on the list in the table, is that the exact isotope or, nuclide, of uranium found in the WTC dust is not given.

What are isotopes and nuclides? They are basically different names for the same thing. A good explanation is given on the following Wikipedia page.

en.wikipedia.org...

Isotopes are variants of atoms of a particular chemical element, which have differing numbers of neutrons. Atoms of a particular element by definition must contain the same number of protons but may have a distinct number of neutrons which differs from atom to atom, without changing the designation of the atom as a particular element. . . .

A nuclide is an atom with a specific number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example carbon-13 with 6 protons and 7 neutrons. The nuclide concept (referring to individual nuclear species) emphasizes nuclear properties over chemical properties, while the isotope concept (grouping all atoms of each element) emphasizes chemical over nuclear.

In very basic terms an element like uranium can have several isotopes or nuclides and still be considered uranium.

There are three, naturally occurring nuclides of uranium. They are listed in this useful article on uranium from Wikipedia.

en.wikipedia.org...

In nature, uranium is found as uranium-238 (99.2742%), uranium-235 (0.7204%), and a very small amount of uranium-234 (0.0054%).

The average person, knowing this, would say to himself,

"Well, they must have found Uranium 238 in the WTC dust, since that is by far the most common naturally occurring nuclide of uranium. There is a 99.2742% chance that they found U238. Hey, they might have found all three nuclides in naturally occurring amounts."

That takes us back to the table. How much uranium did they find in the dust?

The table is a little hard to read, but it would appear that uranium was found in the WTC dust in an amount between 7 and 10 parts per million (ppm). One commentator I read on the web put the figure at 7.75 ppm. He represents himself as a nuclear physicist, but since I am a layperson, I'm going to err on the side of caution and use the figure 7 ppm of uranium found in the WTC dust by the USGS study.

7ppm. Is that natural? Does everything contain 7ppm of uranium?

The short answer is no.

Antiques can be a source of small amounts of radiation because they were manufactured before the hazards of radioactive materials were well understood.

These figures are so called "vaseline" glass, which contain uranium as a colorant and glow a yellowy green under black light.

epa.gov...

Although uranium can be found almost everywhere in trace amounts, even in our bodies, the amounts for naturally occurring environmental uranium are significantly below 7ppm and more in the range of 1 to 3 or 4 ppm or even lower ppm.

Here is a list of some common building materials and their naturally occurring amounts of uranium, thorium and potassium in parts per million (ppm) and also in amounts of radiation released per gram.

It is the amount of uranium in parts per million, in which we are interested.

www.physics.isu.edu...

If you put a million "parts" of each one of these materials into a blender and then checked the blended mixture to see how many ppm of uranium were present, in the mixture, it should equal the total number of ppm in the table, divided by the number of materials in the table, as follows:

total ppm of uranium in mixed materials / number of materials = ppm of uranium in mixture

Total ppm in mixed materials (35.65), divided by number of materials (10) equals ppm of uranium in mixture (3.565).

If the dust of the WTC were composed of these ten building materials and if, as the USGS says, the WTC dust contained 7 ppm of uranium, then we could say that there is almost exactly twice as much uranium in the WTC dust as there should be.

At that point we could legitimately, and with serious concern, ask,

"Where did the extra uranium come from?"

edit on 28-7-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

You are wrong. You don't know what you are talking about. Most of the fallout was absorbed by the iron structure of the building. Radioactive waste does not move far from an explosion contained in a large iron superstructure. They would have had to get samples from directly above ground zero to see off the chart levels of radioactive elements.

You could read for yourself at Veterans Today Veterans Today - Slam Dunk

a reply to: BGTM90

Continuing:

Did it come from depleted uranium shaped charges for example?

We know that uranium exists in trace amounts in the environment and in building materials and human bodies, but the trace amounts are much less than 7 ppm.

Where did the extra uranium come from?

But of course the number crunching above is based on an artificial situation. In reality there would be more of some materials than others in the mix and this would alter the ppm of uranium present.

Let's look at the table again.

Clay brick, at 8.2 ppm and "By-product" gypsum, at 13.7 ppm, if present in sufficient quantities might act to boost the ppm of uranium in the mixture of building materials up to 7ppm.

That situation would serve to account for the USGS findings in a way that implied no unusual circumstances at all with regard to the presence of uranium.

Was there a lot of clay brick in the WTC, or rather, I should ask, was there clay brick in the WTC in sufficient quantities to overwhelm the volume of concrete and other building materials plus other environmental sources of uranium, as the predominent factor determining the amount of uranium in the WTC dust?

I think not. I think there was little clay brick in the WTC. Undoubtely some, but my guess would be that clay brick usage in the WTC was very small, practically negligible, when compared to other materials to be found there.

Consequently, clay brick probably had almost no effect on the ppm figure for uranium in the WTC dust, as determmined by the USGS.

What about "By-product Gypsum" (at 13.7 ppm) and what the heck is by-product gypsum anyway, and, most important of all, was it used extensively in the WTC, . . . enough to make a significant difference in the ppm total for uranium?

It turns out that those questions lead to an interesting little niche of information that is not well known by the general public.

In our table of building materials, above, there is listed "Dry wallboard" (1.0 ppm uranium), "By-product gypsum" (13.7 ppm uranium) and "Natural gypsum" (1.1 ppm uranium).

Most people are quite familiar with "Dry wallboard". Basically it consists of sheets of what looks like plaster sandwiched between layers of paper. It is a substitute for lath and plaster construction in the finishing of interior walls in houses and is screwed into sheet metal (formerly wooden) "studs" to create the wall surfaces of rooms. The hardened substance in the middle of the paper is gypsum.

I haven't consulted experts but I am assuming that "Natural gypsum" is the powdered form of dry wall gypsum. This would be used to make old fashioned "plaster of paris" and other materials applied with trowels or poured into molds.

"By-product gypsum" is the most interesting of the three.

www.enotes.com...

Gypsum produced as a byproduct of the flue-gas desulfurization process at electric power plants provides an economical, environmentally sound raw material for making high-quality gypsum board.

In other words "by-product gypsum" comes out of the smoke stacks of coal fired power plants.

The relatively (within the terms we are discussing) high quantity of uranium found in it (13.7 ppm) originates in the coal. (See link below.)

pubs.usgs.gov...

Now we know what "by-product gypsum" is and we know that it is used to make wallboard. Surely, there was a lot of wall board in the WTC?

Some people might say no. The WTC was mostly "open concept" office space with few partitions and consequently not much wallboard, certainly less per square foot of floor space than the average bungalow.

Others might say, "You're wrong. There were gypsum containing ceiling tiles, a significant amount of gypsum wallboard for interior rooms and a massive amount of gypsum board used as fire retardant material lining the core of the building.

It is true. There was a large amount of gypsum board used in the core of the buildings as fire retardant material, lining the walls and covering girders.

How much wallboard was used in the towers? Here is what one knowledgeable poster on a physics forum said about the materials used to build the towers. (Emphasis mine.)

www.physforum.com...

I have certainly never seen a detailed calculation of the mass of WTC 1 or 2; but there are plenty of references on the web for the weight of the materials used in the construction of the WTC Towers. For example, the weight of structural steel used in each Tower is generally reported to be 96,000,000 kg and the weight of concrete is said to be 48,000,000 kg per Tower. I have also seen the weight of aluminum cladding reported to be 2,000,000 kg, and the weight of wallboard quoted at 8,000,000 kg per Tower, giving a total weight of structural materials of 154,000,000 kg per Tower.

The above quoted figure for gypsum wallboard in each tower is obviously not exact. I don't even know where the poster got the figure. But if it were accurate and if the figure for concrete were accurate, it would mean that the mass of concrete in the towers was six times the mass of the wallboard. The ppm uranium of the concrete could be multiplied by six, added to the ppm uranium of the "by-product gypsum" and the result divided by seven to give a ppm of the mixture that is still less than 7 ppm uranium in the WTC dust, determined by the USGS.

And that is not including other materials that would dilute the ppm uranium even further.

But it gets worse.

According to an overview of the gypsum building products industry published by The Athena Sustainable Materials Insititute in Canada,(Page 2-9)

www.athenasmi.org...

Use of by-product, chemical gypsum is new to the North American continent. In the U.S., by-product gypsum represented only 3.6% of the total gypsum supply in 1994.

And this:

www.gypsum.org...

Prior to the 1980s, virtually all the gypsum used to manufacture gypsum board and gypsum plaster was natural gypsum. While the technology to create synthetic ("by-product"-ipsedixit note) gypsum was developed in Europe in the 1930s and scattered references to its existence are found in industry records prior to World War II, the wholesale use of synthetic gypsum to manufacture gypsum board did not occur in the U.S. until the 1980s.

Thus the likelihood of "by-product" gypsum at 13.7 ppm uranium even coming into the calculations at the outset is diminished to near zero.

Upgrades of fire protection, in later years may have included "by-product" gypsum boards at 13.7 ppm uranium, but these would have been in the minority compared to standard gypsum wallboards rated at 1.0 ppm uranium.

Overall, the mathematics is against by-product gypsum boards at 13.7 ppm of uranium having enough of an effect to lift the ppm uranium of the WTC dust even over the level of 5 ppm uranium and that is leaving a lot of diluting factors out of the calculations.

We have already found, earlier in the thread, that Boeing 757s and 767s never used depleted uranium as balancing weights. So. . . .

Where did the extra uranium come from?

You're biggest fail is assuming the US govt would do an accurate assessment of a terrorist event they perpetrated. All the rest of your charts and data are meaningless. a reply to: ipsedixit