3 Questions about 911

originally posted by: samkent
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.

There is a very easy way to find out. Take a geiger counter to ground zero and around there and see if there is a spike. Radiative dust will hang around for a LONG time will still be measurable now.

The fact that no one has done this and isn't all over the media with their shocking findings tells me that there was no radioactive dust.

originally posted by: onehuman
Can someone explain to me how with all the intense heat, and buildings pulverized, there was so much paper? Paper everywhere you look. Not even appearing to be burned around the edges or anything, though I'm sure some was. Just curious as to how this is possible.

These were massive office buildings, in 2001, with tons of paper and documents in them. Not every floor was on fire, obviously. Paper does not crush like concrete, desks, phones, glass...

I find it odd that this question is even here.

originally posted by: onehuman
The second thing should be pretty easy too. Very possibly I may have just missed it somewhere along the line, but whatever happened to that photographer "Kurt Sonnenfeld?" The one that America wanted to have extradited back here for murder. Claimed he had photos that would basically upset the apple cart to put it simply.

He's hiding in Argentina fighting extradition to the US for the charge of murdering his wife in 2002.
In addition, he wrote a book about what he claims, while not revealing any evidence for what he claims.

Seems the me the man is nothing more and a suspected murderer who has no evidence of anything he claims. If he knows something, he should present it to the world. The fact that he hasn't says a whole lot, don't you think?

originally posted by: onehuman
Now the contrast here is with building 6, another office building, nothing is there. You would have no idea it was a functioning office building just hours before. If you watch the first three minutes of the video below, you will see what I mean. Again another eerie feeling from a opposite scenario.

The Pentagon was a fortified structure, unless Bldg 6 at WTC was built to withstand a military assault I think its pretty reasonable to assume that these structures would behave in completely different ways. Welcome to the basics of architecture.

As reported, bldg 6 was stuck by 2 massive pieces of debris within the first minutes of the attack, creating massive damage throughout the structure. The Pentagon was a significantly fortified structure, and surprisingly the 9/11 "truthers" use this fact to their advantage when they choose, claiming that no plane should have been able to penetrate it (which is obviously false).

So, once again with this last question, we have the 9/11 truthers unable to agree depending on what line they want to spin. If they want to compare it to damage done elsewhere they ignore the fortification of the Pentagon entirely, but if they want to claim it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon suddenly that fortification is so very important!

a reply to: Enderdog

Why don't you find out what people on here think about rense.

The amount of theories by the truther side is a total joke

a reply to: onehuman

Interesting I was just looking at this 9/11 thing because i just watched the Lone Gunman for the first time.

13 days before 9/11 the Pilot was aired in Australia and it predicted 9/11 so closely.
mysteriousuniverse.org...

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: samkent
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.

There is a very easy way to find out. Take a geiger counter to ground zero and around there and see if there is a spike. Radiative dust will hang around for a LONG time will still be measurable now.

The fact that no one has done this and isn't all over the media with their shocking findings tells me that there was no radioactive dust.

I think this may have been carried out pre 2006 !


www.reopen911.org...

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Thanks much. Yes, it is certain that significant progress and refinement of nuclear weapons have been made since 1944, but some people think there is no such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon.

To me, the only coherent explanation for all of the observed damage is some sort of nuclear event(s)

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Enderdog

Why don't you find out what people on here think about rense.

What a great idea for a thread wmd_2008 Is that site banned here

a reply to: Salander

YOU can't change how a nuclear weapon works or do YOU just not get that

The smallest practical neuclear weapon.



At the end it mentions the 3 BASIC effects of ANY nuclear weapon Blast,Heat & Radiation.

a reply to: Enderdog

Ah Chris Bolleyn - one of journalistic giants.....

Leesburg - 33 miles North of Washington ... Way to far for any radiation from PENTAGON (if any....) to reach

You are aware of BACKGROUND RADIATION ...?? result of cosmic rays from space, also many rocks contain small
traces of radioactive uranium and thorium, some contain enough to be a health hazard

All this joker does is qoute some numbers - dont know sensaiivity of equipment being, skill of operator and what normal
background count is

Totally useless, except as troll bait......

a reply to: Enderdog

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.

is unfortunate that many of the people at WTC site in day/weeks/months after are suffering - it was the dust which was
a witch's brew of pulverized concrete, drywall, glass, metal fragments (lead, cadinium, nickel and other toxic substanes)
with smoke from burning plastics . The burnt plastics generated toxic smoke of some 2000 organic compounds
including dioxins, furans and other chlorinated organic substances. Inhaling this stuff was equal to snorting drain cleaner
as was so alkaline. The toxic smoke contain many cancer causing compounds

Not radiation - just toxic dust/smoke

a reply to: Rocker2013

The Pentagon was a fortified structure,

Thats news....

Pentagon was an OFFICE BUILDING...!

Walls were constructed of ordinary brick, outer (E RING) wall had facade of cut limestone (to simulate marble)
over the brick. The brick wall in interior was covered with layer plaster/stucco and painted

Can see the brick under the plaster in this shot of C Ring hole

sites.google.com...

a reply to: Salander

Did you look at the link I provided outlining effects of nuclear weapons??

nuclearsecrecy.com...

Try it out

Play with various configurations.....

Or are ignoring it because does not meet with your conspiracy.....

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: Rocker2013

The Pentagon was a fortified structure,

Thats news....

Pentagon was an OFFICE BUILDING...!

Walls were constructed of ordinary brick, outer (E RING) wall had facade of cut limestone (to simulate marble)
over the brick. The brick wall in interior was covered with layer plaster/stucco and painted

Can see the brick under the plaster in this shot of C Ring hole

sites.google.com...

Clearly, you are uninformed.

The area of impact was not only built to the original specifications which were already greatly reinforced when compared to an "office building", but it was also renovated to become even more able to withstand impact:

It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts. The steel reinforcement, bolted together to form a continuous structure through all of the Pentagon's five floors, kept that section of the building from collapsing for 30 minutes—enough time for hundreds of people to crawl out to safety. The area struck by the plane also had blast-resistant windows—2 inches thick and 2,500 pounds each—that stayed intact during the crash and fire. It had fire doors that opened automatically and newly built exits that allowed people to get out.

The building was a fortified structure, you can deny this if you want but it's the truth.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Fortified structure....??

The Pentagon's outer E Ring had blast resistant windows installed against truck bomb ala WTC (1993) or Oklahoma City (1995)

Walls had kevlar liner installed to protect against fragments

Making structure resistant against bombs still does not change its function as OFFICE BUILDING

Can say same about Freedom Tower in New York - the first 100 ft have no windows as protection against bombs,
it is also set back from street as protection against bombs.

Stairway/elevator shafts are lined with 3 feet of high strength concrete

the building has 3-foot (91 cm) thick reinforced concrete walls in all stairwells, elevator shafts, risers, and sprinkler systems. There are also extra-wide, pressurized stairwells, along with a dedicated set of stairwells exclusively for the use of firefighters, and biological and chemical filters throughout the ventilation system. In comparison, the original Twin Towers used a purely steel central core to house utility functions, protected only by lightweight drywall panels.

Still Freedom Tower is office building....

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
a reply to: onehuman

This picture of the construction of the towers still has me scratching my head , what a way to build , you know miss some floors out , and the rumors of mini nukes built into the basement as per planning request for the port authority ??

No floors missing just the distance from the buildings to the camera and the position of the sun behind them why do people on the truther side NEVER EVER make the effort to think about what they see or read .

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
a reply to: firerescue

There are 2 tower blocks currently on fire in the UAE

Lets see how it goes will they collapse into their own footprint and a 3rd tower fall in sympathy

Well make the effort to CHECK the type of construction CLUE not the same as the Towers oh and what plane crashed into that one OH that's right NONE.

originally posted by: zatara
I am convinced that these flipped and strangely burned cars became that way because of that hutchinson effect.

You mean the cars that were dumped during the clean up? Why do you think they were strangely burnt? The "hutchinson effect" is just a scam.

There was this suspicious storm developing a few days before 911

What exactly was "suspicious" about the storm?

but that unburned paper

Why should all the paper have been burnt?

a reply to: onehuman

Answer to all three questions.. it was an inside job.

a reply to: wmd_2008

As I have pointed out the fire was in the cladding on OUTSIDE of the building. The particular cladding is used on many
high raise buildings in Dubai.

Problem is the core of the cladding is highly flammable poly urethane covered by thin gauge aluminium

Looks bad, but fire is not threatening the building structure

www.thenational.ae...

Dubai government is trying to get the cladding removed from all buildings before any more fire,

There have been 3 such fires since end of December

a reply to: firerescue

I know I have read about them but when they use classic pictures of other fires they are concrete structures.