9/11 Experiments: The Force Behind the Motion

a reply to: firerescue
radiation? cancer?

Explaining why something didn't happen when it really DID happen is something our corrupt in government and positions of authority do best. Wake up or stay asleep.. it is your choice. Just don't expect everyone to see your dreams as reality when they aren't.

a reply to: Informer1958

. . . so many first respondents and firemen died several years later from cancer in their lungs and upper respiratory problems . . .

Those living in the area were also at risk.

After a long battle with lung cancer, the proclaimed Queen of Disco, Donna Summer, died last week at the age of 63 at her home in Florida.

Summer, a non-smoker, believed that the fact she lived in Manhattan during the 9/11 attacks and was exposed to the toxic debris that rained down on the city that day and for days afterward contributed to her demise.



Read more: www.mesothelioma.com...

The EPA killed The Queen Of Disco.

a reply to: pteridine

You aren't in any position to be saying what technology in military availability is, or isn't real. Do you have a top secret clearance? Obviously not. You aren't an expert in nuclear physics, and you have no clue what kinds of nukes the military has, which is very easy to see. So give it a rest.

originally posted by: [post=20511655]MALBOSIA

It gets under my skin a bit when folks try to argue on behalf of theories that are so easily debunked..

This is a fascinating trait when talking about 9/11 conspiracies.

Some in the truth camp back an idea like this - switched planes - that others in the truth camp plainly see as ridiculous. There's no animosity within the truther camp for one another, just respectful disagreement.

Well, those in the debunker camp disagree also, so why all the animosity towards them?

a reply to: firerescue

If the EPA was as diligent about taking radiation samples as it was about taking air samples before declaring the air OK to breathe, then there were no radiation samples taken.

Likely there were no radiation samples taken, but if you have some I would be interested in reading them.

Geiger counters do not detect all forms of radiation.

a reply to: MrBig2430

Some in the truth camp back an idea like this - switched planes - that others in the truth camp plainly see as ridiculous. There's no animosity within the truther camp for one another, just respectful disagreement.

They don't throw stones because they don't have any proof for their own version.

If you were to put a 'truther' for all the different 'turther' theories is a room.
Then ask them to to boil all their pet theories into one grand scheme with who, how and how many it would look like the republican primary race.

Why use nukes if someone already wired up thermite?
Why use explosives to blow steel beams out at 80 mph if you have a space beam ?
Why talk about the 2.3 trillion if you are bowing it up tomorrow ?
Why take down 7, if you already have trucks loads of gold bullion ?

The 911 conspiracy is nothing more than a bunch of disjointed theories.
The so called 'holes' in the OS is nothing more than ignorance or refusal to accept the truth.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

No radiation casualties - there were 20 people in North Tower who survived the collapse - some with severe injuries
from being trapped in the rubble. Yet no radiation casualties among these people right at the center

Also detonating even the smallest nuclear device would not only destroy the WTC and kill everyone in and around the
building it would extend over much of Southern Manhattan

Here is Nuclear effects calculator

nuclearsecrecy.com...

Go to location - select New York from presets , use + Msymbol to blow up map, drag detonation point to WTC towers

Go to yield selection - in preset select "DAVY CROCKETT" 20 ton yield

Press red detonation button

Notice lethal radius extends for many blocks around

Blast wave would have destroyed several other buildings in vicinity, ie Verizon, World Financial Center - as well ad blowing
out windows all over Southern Manhattan

So why no casulties outside of WTC...??

No blast injuries...?? No burn injuries.....??

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: pteridine

You aren't in any position to be saying what technology in military availability is, or isn't real. Do you have a top secret clearance? Obviously not. You aren't an expert in nuclear physics, and you have no clue what kinds of nukes the military has, which is very easy to see. So give it a rest.

You aren't in any position to be saying what technology would be available or would be used. In this case nuclear devices were unnecessary, would have been obvious if used, and posed a greater danger to the populous than any benefit from an imaginary conspiracy.
Further, you do not know my expertise or background. The concept of nuclear demolitions ranks up there with the hologram planes and death rays from space and is part of the disinformation program that is being perpetrated to hide poor construction of the towers and the incompetent Bush Administration.
You have no idea what you are talking about, which is very easy to see. So give it a rest.

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: [post=20511655]MALBOSIA

It gets under my skin a bit when folks try to argue on behalf of theories that are so easily debunked..

This is a fascinating trait when talking about 9/11 conspiracies.

Some in the truth camp back an idea like this - switched planes - that others in the truth camp plainly see as ridiculous. There's no animosity within the truther camp for one another, just respectful disagreement.

Well, those in the debunker camp disagree also, so why all the animosity towards them?

Maybe if you stopped classifying people into camps you would better understand. Im not in a "camp".

Beat it.

a reply to: Salander

Geiger counters do not detect all forms of radiation.

Which is why they use different types of detectors - aka scintillation meters which detect different forms of
radiation, alpha particles, neutrons, beta/gamma radiation

Detectors are designed to have one or two scintillation materials, depending on the application. "Single phosphor" detectors are used for either alpha or beta, and "Dual phosphor" detectors are used to detect both.

A scintillator such as zinc sulphide is used for alpha particle detection, whilst plastic scintillators are used for beta detection. The resultant scintillation energies can be discriminated so that alpha and beta counts can be measured separately with the same detector. This technique is used in both hand-held and fixed monitoring equipment, and such instruments are relatively inexpensive compared with the gas proportional detector.

These counters can also measure the energy levels of radiation detected giving indication of what material is involved

Measuring the radiation fallout left from such an explosion can tell what fissile fuel used (uranium vs plutonium, if
deutrium/tritium boosting or thermonuclear (fusion) reaction took place. By analyzing such radiation debris
can get estimate of yield from device.

New York Board of Health sent one of their health physicists equipped with sensitive detectors to test area

This is standard protocol to test for radiation from "dirty bomb"

You lose again......

a reply to: pteridine

You seem to be perpetually confused. RV may work but to claim it is always accurate is not correct.

I read this much of your post and had to stop reading the rest.

Apparently you completely ignored my post in my response to you.

I am not going to continue discussing this topic with someone that can only ridicule and name calling.

The fact is, this method of attack is mostly used when someone cannot debunk a claim.

I have shown proof that RV is very real and if done by a professional in a controlled environment will have accurate results.

In my above post I showed where RV were able to read the name tags of people in a secrete base, including seeing a locked safe and the RV was able to see inside the safe and read the secrete documents. This was all confirmed by the CIA after a five year investigation.

Yet in your best attempts to debunk this, the only thing you can say is call me "confused", and the fact is, there is nothing confusing about the story period.

**ATTENTION**

Please discuss the topic not each other.

T&C violations in the 911 forum result in permanent account bans.

If you are unable to discuss the topic with tact, please do not post.

~Tenth
ATS Super Mod

a reply to: firerescue

I don't lose until you show me a link or some other annotation as to where that information was published by the government.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

You seem to be perpetually confused. RV may work but to claim it is always accurate is not correct.

I read this much of your post and had to stop reading the rest.

Apparently you completely ignored my post in my response to you.

I am not going to continue discussing this topic with someone that can only ridicule and name calling.

The fact is, this method of attack is mostly used when someone cannot debunk a claim.

I have shown proof that RV is very real and if done by a professional in a controlled environment will have accurate results.

In my above post I showed where RV were able to read the name tags of people in a secrete base, including seeing a locked safe and the RV was able to see inside the safe and read the secrete documents. This was all confirmed by the CIA after a five year investigation.

Yet in your best attempts to debunk this, the only thing you can say is call me "confused", and the fact is, there is nothing confusing about the story period.

When I read your statement about being confused, I merely agreed.
It doesn't matter what you showed about remote viewing. The results of remote viewing are not proof, per se. All of what you have shown had to be confirmed by other methods or no one would have known whether it was true. In this case, no nuclear device was detonated so the remote viewing was NOT confirmed. See how this works, yet?

a reply to: pteridine

It doesn't matter what you showed about remote viewing. The results of remote viewing are not proof, per se.

Thank you for your "opinion", but I have to kindly disagree with you.

I have shown you proof that RV does work.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: pteridine

You aren't in any position to be saying what technology in military availability is, or isn't real. Do you have a top secret clearance? Obviously not. You aren't an expert in nuclear physics, and you have no clue what kinds of nukes the military has, which is very easy to see. So give it a rest.

You aren't in any position to be saying what technology would be available or would be used. In this case nuclear devices were unnecessary, would have been obvious if used, and posed a greater danger to the populous than any benefit from an imaginary conspiracy.
Further, you do not know my expertise or background. The concept of nuclear demolitions ranks up there with the hologram planes and death rays from space and is part of the disinformation program that is being perpetrated to hide poor construction of the towers and the incompetent Bush Administration.
You have no idea what you are talking about, which is very easy to see. So give it a rest.

But I am indeed in a position to be saying what technology was used, since technology leaves traces to be later found, and they were found. As plain as day, and as plain as the eye can see. I am also in a perfect position to say what you give an example for as far as what you know about it, and I can tell you really have not looked at the evidence. Or flat out ignored it, which is common place when political views take precedence over fact. Since you mention hologram planes and death rays is also a dead giveaway that you really don't have any argument of any substance about the facts and the evidence either way.

a reply to: pteridine

In case you didn't know, there are tons and tons of peer reviewed papers on the validity of remote viewing at the farsight institute's website. Care to take a look? A truly unbiased and honest person would look.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

It doesn't matter what you showed about remote viewing. The results of remote viewing are not proof, per se.

Thank you for your "opinion", but I have to kindly disagree with you.

I have shown you proof that RV does work.

You have this backwards. Someone says that they see something during a remote viewing session. No one knows if it is real. Later, actual viewing says if it is correct or not. That is the only way to know.

In this case, remote viewers claimed that they saw nuclear demolitions at the WTC. When actually viewing the collapse, nothing that looked like nuclear demolitions were actually seen. No effects of nuclear demolitions were noted. What we must conclude is that this was a miss, remote viewing-wise. Remote viewing is a 'maybe' and doesn't always work.

Do you believe that Farsight has NEVER missed?

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: pteridine

You aren't in any position to be saying what technology in military availability is, or isn't real. Do you have a top secret clearance? Obviously not. You aren't an expert in nuclear physics, and you have no clue what kinds of nukes the military has, which is very easy to see. So give it a rest.

You aren't in any position to be saying what technology would be available or would be used. In this case nuclear devices were unnecessary, would have been obvious if used, and posed a greater danger to the populous than any benefit from an imaginary conspiracy.
Further, you do not know my expertise or background. The concept of nuclear demolitions ranks up there with the hologram planes and death rays from space and is part of the disinformation program that is being perpetrated to hide poor construction of the towers and the incompetent Bush Administration.
You have no idea what you are talking about, which is very easy to see. So give it a rest.

But I am indeed in a position to be saying what technology was used, since technology leaves traces to be later found, and they were found. As plain as day, and as plain as the eye can see. I am also in a perfect position to say what you give an example for as far as what you know about it, and I can tell you really have not looked at the evidence. Or flat out ignored it, which is common place when political views take precedence over fact. Since you mention hologram planes and death rays is also a dead giveaway that you really don't have any argument of any substance about the facts and the evidence either way.

No, you have no idea of what technology was used because no traces of any sort of demolitions were found. You have no idea of what I looked at or didn't, nor do you know my background and expertise.
I have looked at the many claims of demolition and found them all lacking. Some are beyond ludicrous, such as the "dustification" and nuclear shaped charge stuff. Many people get things backwards; a remote viewing claim may or may not be true. The proof is in the actual viewing. I'm sure that farsight has many testimonials on their website; they are there to convince people that the concept works but we all know it doesn't always work. Remote viewing is not proof.

If you have new claims you wish to bring forward, I am open to them.

a reply to: pteridine

The debris was graded. The average particle size indicates extraordinary demolition. Some of it was far smaller than that which we see here. This is of course the material which didn't blow away on the wind. There was so much solid material in the dust cloud it was visible with the naked eye from the space station.

Rosemary Cain, mother of George Cain, a firefighter who died:
"When an infant is dumped in a garbage dump and somebody finds an infant or a baby wrapped in a garbage bag, the whole city is outraged that somebody dumped a baby in a garbage dump. Well, my baby is in a garbage dump, and nobody cares . . .

As I understand it the families are asking for the 'fines', the material less than 1/4 inch across that was in two piles covering approximately one acre, to be moved to a respectful burial site. As was agreed at the time before the two piles of fines were suddenly bulldozed over the rest of the graded debris then buried. They hid it because it proves extraordinary demolition. The only serious calculation I've seen concludes it would theoretically take between one and two hundred years for a gravitational collapse to reduce the buildings to the size of particles evident. If such an event were possible.

The standard media lie is these silly people haven't come to terms with their loss and want us to dig the whole lot up again. It's just the fines on top that are thought to contain the pulverised, missing remains.

Closure. It's a good thing.