'Dust lady' of 9/11 Marcy Borders dies of cancer at 42

The image of Marcy Borders leaving the World Trade Center covered in dust was captured by photographer Stan Honda and is held as one of the iconic images of the 9/11 attacks.
Ms Borders died from stomach cancer which she put down to inhaling dust during the attack , the attack that effectively ruined her life and health until she passed today.

"I can't believe my sister is gone," her brother Michael Borders wrote on Facebook. Her cousin John Borders called her a "hero" and said she had "succumbed to the diseases that [had] ridden her body since 9/11".
"In addition to losing so many friends, co-workers and colleagues on and after that tragic day ... the pains from yesteryear have found a way to resurface," he added.

On 11 September 2001, Ms Borders was just one month into a new job at Bank of America on the 81st floor of the north tower when the plane hit.
"The building started quaking and swaying. I lost all control, and I went into a frenzy. I fought my way out of that place," she told the Daily Mail in 2011.
Defying instructions from her boss to stay put, she fled down the stairway and into the lobby of an adjacent building where she was photographed by Stan Honda.
www.bbc.co.uk...

A sad reminder if one were needed that the fallout from that dreadful day is still being felt by the people who lived through it and the families that love and support them.

Rest in peace Ms Borders.

Juist playing devils advocate, but there is no proof that the cancer was due to the dust she breathed in. I know people like to find patterns and link things together, but that does not make it true. Thats neither here nor there of course.

I dont really have anytrhing else to say about her. Its sad for her family, thats it. There is no greater meaning or symbolism to her death IMO.

a reply to: gortex

Hearing of these cases of so called survivors (so called because they are not really survivors) getting terrible cancers and in such numbers has made me question whether micro nuclear devices were used that day. It is not the only explanation, but my goodness it fits. Small nuclear devices are a fact. Whether they were used to bring about a controlled demolition in the case of the towers is highly speculative. Whatever it was it was damned powerful and highly controlled.

originally posted by: Revolution9
Hearing of these cases of so called survivors (so called because they are not really survivors)
...

How is she not a survior? Did she die that day and we did not know about it?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Revolution9
Hearing of these cases of so called survivors (so called because they are not really survivors)
...

How is she not a survior? Did she die that day and we did not know about it?

You know what I mean. She has died as a result of what happened that day. If a person is grievously wounded by someone and later dies then the one who did that is a murderer and the one who died a victim of murder. Is that plain enough for you?

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Juist playing devils advocate, but there is no proof that the cancer was due to the dust she breathed in.

Not yet but she wouldn't be the first.

As of August 2013, medical authorities concluded that 1,140 people who worked, lived, or studied in Lower Manhattan at the time of the attack have been diagnosed with cancer as a result of "exposure to toxins at Ground Zero"
en.wikipedia.org...

Perhaps the post-mortem will shed some light on the cause.

a reply to: Revolution9

No, it is not. You claimed there were no survivors and now coupled with your absurd second comment implies everyone who was not killed on 9/11 will somehow die from the event.

originally posted by: Revolution9
a reply to: gortex

Hearing of these cases of so called survivors (so called because they are not really survivors) getting terrible cancers and in such numbers has made me question whether micro nuclear devices were used that day. It is not the only explanation, but my goodness it fits. Small nuclear devices are a fact. Whether they were used to bring about a controlled demolition in the case of the towers is highly speculative. Whatever it was it was damned powerful and highly controlled.

First of all, tiny nuclear devices are fact? Proof please that they exist small enought to be used for "demolition"

Second, this year only: My father in law has contracted colonic cancer, my mother has gotten bladder cancer, my wifes mothers friend has bowel cancer, My wifes sisters husband has gotten cancer (not sure what kind) and my brothers best friends mother died very rapidly of cancer she was diagnoised with months ago.

Cancer is out there with a vengeance. Im not suggesting that no one has contracted it from ground zero, but to suggest that because so many people there that day have gotten it, that nukes HAD to be used is absolutely ridiculous.

a reply to: gortex

...and the EPA declared the dust from 9/11 wasn't a danger. It now makes you question government statements during catastrophic events.

a reply to: WeRpeons

Just during catastrophic events?

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: gortex

...and the EPA declared the dust from 9/11 wasn't a danger. It now makes you question government statements during catastrophic events.

well, obviously you guys wont believe anything anyone in government ever says...

Oh wait, unless it backs up your beliefes, in which case their word is gospel.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

During the time when the World Trade Center was planned and constructed, asbestos was a very prevalent building material. It was highly heat resistant, easy to incorporate into a number of materials and relatively inexpensive. As a result, asbestos-containing products like insulation, drywall, steel and fireproofing materials were incorporated into a number of structures within the World Trade Center buildings. An estimated 400 tons of asbestos were used.

The effects of asbestos are well understood and confirmed to be dangerous to human health , the amount of asbestos in the air that day would have been significant and along with other contaminates could well account for the numbers of people suffering after the event.

These asbestos products did not pose a health concern until 9/11, when asbestos fireproofing materials from 20 stories of the towers came showering down on New York City. According to reports from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the implosion of the towers "pulverized asbestos to ultra-fine particles" and scattered the debris over Lower Manhattan
www.asbestos.com...

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: gortex

...and the EPA declared the dust from 9/11 wasn't a danger. It now makes you question government statements during catastrophic events.

Christie Todd Whitman is alive and well and thriving, of course.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: 3danimator2014

During the time when the World Trade Center was planned and constructed, asbestos was a very prevalent building material. It was highly heat resistant, easy to incorporate into a number of materials and relatively inexpensive. As a result, asbestos-containing products like insulation, drywall, steel and fireproofing materials were incorporated into a number of structures within the World Trade Center buildings. An estimated 400 tons of asbestos were used.

The effects of asbestos are well understood and confirmed to be dangerous to human health , the amount of asbestos in the air that day would have been significant and along with other contaminates could well account for the numbers of people suffering after the event.

These asbestos products did not pose a health concern until 9/11, when asbestos fireproofing materials from 20 stories of the towers came showering down on New York City. According to reports from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the implosion of the towers "pulverized asbestos to ultra-fine particles" and scattered the debris over Lower Manhattan
www.asbestos.com...

I wasnt suggesting that the government was telling the truth here...just that ATSers have a habit of pickign and choosing when they trust them or not.

As for asbestos..last time i checked, that doesnt give you cancer. But i could be wrong about that.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
As for asbestos..last time i checked, that doesnt give you cancer. But i could be wrong about that.

From the American Cancer Association:

Does asbestos cause cancer?

Evidence from studies in both people and laboratory animals has shown that asbestos can increase the risk for some types of cancer.

When asbestos fibers in the air are inhaled, they may stick to mucus in the throat, trachea (windpipe), or bronchi (large breathing tubes of the lungs) and may be cleared by being coughed up or swallowed. But some fibers may reach the ends of the small airways in the lungs or penetrate into the outer lining of the lung and chest wall (known as the pleura). These fibers may irritate the cells in the lung or pleura and eventually cause lung cancer or mesothelioma. Source

a reply to: 3danimator2014

I have been a Realtor forever it seems. lol

We have the understanding asbestos as well as lead are harmful to your health and can indeed cause cancer.

Inhaling the smoke and or dust at Ground Zero seems to me like a common sense kinda thing. Smoke = Cancer

Maybe I'm wrong? I don't think so though.

I've studied/researched cancer causing agents for a long time due to my step son passing at the age of 15 in 1999.

For 6 years he was at Vanderbilt Hospital in Tennessee. They are a huge research hospital whereas I spent many days and nights in their library going over one research paper after the other.

Ever had Mononucleosis? They found there are viruses such as the one just mentioned that may cause cancer as well.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

As for asbestos..last time i checked, that doesnt give you cancer.But i could be wrong about that.

While the term “asbestos cancer” most often refers to mesothelioma, a number of other cancers are associated with asbestos exposure. Lung cancer can be directly caused by asbestos exposure, and some studies have suggested a link between exposure and other types of cancer. Elevated risks for a number of other cancers continue to be investigated. According to the World Health Organization, approximately half of all deaths from occupational cancer are caused by asbestos.
www.asbestos.com...

My grandfather used to demolish old houses before the days of health and safety , he died of asbestos related cancer.

Such a haunting and tragic photo! My heart goes out to her family.

a reply to: MamaJ

Yes I think it was most likely the asbestos and other toxins that caused the cancers and will continue to do so for some time yet.

I can not accept the official version though. I have studied this and the official explanation does not fit. My eyes and reasoning can not accept that two jets were able to bring down two huge sky scrapers in such a uniform way. There is other technology that fits much better as a means.

I have read about nuclear sky scraper demolition and how it can be carried out with little release of radiation into the air. I know that when they put the plans in for approval of the construction of the building they would have had to provide a plan for the demolition. I would love to know what that plan was. Built into the structure of these building would be a means of demolition.

Nuclear demolition is a fact. What ever explosion happened that can turn steel to dust that fine was not TNT and it was not jet fuel.

It takes anywhere from 10-20 years for asbestos related cancer to show up.

Steve McQueen died from asbestos related lung cancer 20 years later after working in the military doing repair work around asbestos everyday for a few years. This poor woman most likely inhaled ten times as much within minutes.

I think it's safe to assume there was probably megatons of asbestos particulates mixed in with the concrete dust.

Sadly, I think we're going to be seeing a lot more of these survivors and first responders dying of the same type of related cancer in the near future.