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.

 

3 Questions about 911

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 03:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
a reply to: TerryDon79

And most did 30-40 years underground in terrible conditions with no mask before getting any illness . Same with builders i never wear a mask 30 years plus smoking and still going strong



Yeah.....but do you work around radioactive dust?

I know a few guys who traveled up there for "rescue" in the days immediately following. Even with respirators, several have gotten pretty sick.




posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Enderdog

Radioactive dust link



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 03:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
And when the results come back supporting the OS, they will bury it claiming they couldn't fully model the plans.


So since you don't yet know the results, but assume you already know the answer will favor your beliefs, is that a public admission of how biased and unscientific you really are? I and any scientist would say yes indeed.

Thank you for admitting this here.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Enderdog

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
a reply to: TerryDon79

And most did 30-40 years underground in terrible conditions with no mask before getting any illness . Same with builders i never wear a mask 30 years plus smoking and still going strong



Yeah.....but do you work around radioactive dust?

I know a few guys who traveled up there for "rescue" in the days immediately following. Even with respirators, several have gotten pretty sick.


I have in the past ,Same with Asbestos , no mask and still going i must be one lucky guy to get away with what i have , but i have the lungs of a 88 year old according to my Doc



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: onehuman

Jeff Prager addresses several of the effects you discuss. Good thread here.

I suspect Prager is right--some sort of tactical nuclear devices were employed at WTC. Likely that partly explains the oddly burned vehicles on the street, and the strange damage done to building 6



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
I looked into the burning cars from the WTC years ago and found it very strange.

I can agree that some of the cars burnt from falling debris from the WTC, however Many cars and trucks that were parked many blocks away from the WTC could not have been burnt from falling debris and that is what I found very strange.

Some of these trucks that were many blocks away from falling debris had their engines melted and yet the tires and rear end were not effected by any heat or burns.

Now we are talking about extreme heat? Where did the heat come from?

Remember the official narratives of the WTC told by our government is, the WTC just pancaked down due to office firers and jet fuel.

If this story is supposed to be the truth, then again I have to ask were did this extreme heat come from at ground level that melted engine blocks, and yet on some of the same trucks the tires were not burnt.

This does not make logical since to me, and I don't believe we will ever get the truth about this strange event.



I am convinced that these flipped and strangely burned cars became that way because of that hutchinson effect.

You can find more info on this effect HERE

There was this suspicious storm developing a few days before 911 and parked its butt in front of Manhattan at the right time to deliver the static charge needed to make this effect work.

Of course do I not have proof of all this... but that unburned paper does also fit perfectly into that theory. I think some scientist has figured it out how to "summon" that effect and understand all its properties....and some covert millitairy unit applied it that dreadful black day.


edit on 30/3/2016 by zatara because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: stonerwilliam

Look at the position of WTC 6 to the North Tower nukes your ass



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: zatara

It was an office building a very high office building do you think paper would just stay in position on desks with huge holes in the walls


Whats actually happened to common sense on here



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander




I suspect Prager is right--some sort of tactical nuclear devices were employed at WTC.

So it's moved from silent explosives to silent nukes?
Nukes that do not break windows outside the WTC zone?

Do you really believe the things you say ?



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

I cant speak on behalf on Salander, but when the nuclear theory is discussed nobody is implying that a detonation similar to Hiroshima occurred. Obviously.

Moreover it opens the discussion of fission was involved in some way or cold fusion or any form of high energy based destruction.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: zatara




There was this suspicious storm developing a few days before 911 and parked its butt in front of Manhattan at the right time to deliver the static charge needed to make this effect work.


What weather was that...?

Conditions on 9/11/2001 were warm and dry with light winds and almost unlimited visibility - same condition for past
few days that week

weather - 9/9/2001 (Sunday)

www.wunderground.com...

9/10/2001 - Monday

www.wunderground.com...

9/11/2001 - Tueday

www.wunderground.com...

If talking about hurricane ERIN - storm was 1000 miles out to sea, closest it approached land was 100 miles
as it went by Bermuda out in the Atlantic

As for video - all I see is whack job babbling about his electrostatic theory

In what scientific journal did he post his theory...???




edit on 30-3-2016 by firerescue because: miss spelling



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed




Moreover it opens the discussion of fission was involved in some way or cold fusion or any form of high energy based destruction.

So he's talking about make believe.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Just one problem - the burned cars were on Barclay St and West Broadway. They would have bee shielded by WTC 7,
Verizon (140 West St) and 90 Church St (Post Office)

Explain why there were no radiation casualties in area

As this nuclear calculator shows even the smallest nuclear weapon developed would have delivered lethal radiation over
Southern Manhattan

nuclearsecrecy.com...

Go to #1 - select target in this case New York

USE Plus (+) sign to enlarge map

Drag detonation point to WTC site

Go to #2 - use preset to select "DAVY CROCKETT" 20 ton yield

Press RED DETONATE Button -

Notice lethal radiation (Green radius) covers most of Southern Manhattan

Now explain why there were no radiation casualties ?? Why no casualties outside of WTC complex..??



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

youtu.be...

This video touches on cold fusion AND it's connection to Steven E. Jones.

Ironic right? One of the men at the forefront of the nanothermite theory having a past that involved squashing the attempts of 2 scientists to patent cold fusion.

Hmmm.... Do the math.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

rense.com...



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Enderdog


rense



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Enderdog

The radiation levels mentioned in that rense article are far to low to be the result of a nuclear detonation.
From your link:


a doctor with years of experience working with radiation issues found elevated radiation levels on 9-11 of 35 to 52 counts per minute (cpm) using a "Radalert 50" Geiger counter.

That equates to .052 mrem.(millirem)

Below is a rem effect chart.
Note it's rem not mrem (1/1000 rem).
5-20 Possible late effects; possible chromosomal damage.
20-100 Temporary reduction in white blood cells.
100-200 Mild radiation sickness within a few hours: vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue; reduction in resistance to infection.
200-300 Serious radiation sickness effects as in 100-200 rem and hemorrhage; exposure is a Lethal Dose to 10-35% of the population after 30 days (LD 10-35/30).
300-400 Serious radiation sickness; also marrow and intestine destruction; LD 50-70/30.
400-1000 Acute illness, early death; LD 60-95/30.
1000-5000 Acute illness, early death in days; LD 100/10.
So you are taking orders of magnitude lower than damaging radiation.

Quit searching conspiracy sites for your information.
You will only get conspiracy information.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008
Yeah. I don't actually know what you want from me. My statement was based on several guys I worked with, who went to NYC immediately after to participate in ground zero search and rescue. They are all having some pretty serious health issues now, including cancer.

I googled one link for you that seemed to have some stats. But I can see that you are really only interested in defending the official report. So have fun and soldier on.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Thanks for the info. I am not really all that fussed about any of this stuff. I do not believe most of the official story. But, I also do not claim to know what all happened, or how it was carried out. I was a first responder for 25 years, and on the job when the towers came down.

However assumptions about nukes that there has been no progress in 30 or 40 years rings a little hollow with me. I remember a lot of fuss when I was a teenager about neutron bombs, which were designed to just kill people by radiation burst, but leave infrastructure largely intact, and reusable. But, we haven't heard anything about that in decades. So maybe they just scrapped that project and put it on the shelf. Anyway....

Be well.

edit on 31-3-2016 by Enderdog because: typo



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Enderdog




My statement was based on several guys I worked with, who went to NYC immediately after to participate in ground zero search and rescue. They are all having some pretty serious health issues now, including cancer.

I think what is being said to you is that the cancer(s) your friends have is due to breathing particulates not from ionizing radiation from a nuclear blast.
I don't think anyone on here believes the responders are faking their illnesses.
There is just no proof for nuclear radiation.

I too watched the smoke from the ongoing fires and heard the reports that the air was safe to breathe.
But I did not believe those reports from day one.
The responders and clean up crews should not have worked on those piles without full breathing equipment.
I think most of them knew the truth too. Why they soldiered on is beyond me.




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join