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.

 

9/11 Conspiracy Debunkers

page: 38
24
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

If you really had a case, you would be able to show me the radiation surveys taken by the government showing an absence of a radiation event. But you cannot, because no such surveys were taken by the government, and I know why.

So too if EPA had taken air samples, its head would not have been able to declare the air fit to breathe, as she did.

10 days later air samples WERE taken by Cahill and the group from California, and the air was the equivalent of the air leaving industrial incinerators.

You have no case.



When you make a claim, you have to provide evidence for the claim. Apparently, you missed the class on nuclear weapons. Please provide evidence of a nuclear weapon being used.
Show how the shockwave propagated through the city and the damage it caused for a radius several km. Show video evidence of a fireball that would be the result of a nuclear explosive. Explain how a nuclear explosive stayed hot for weeks only to be extinguished by firefighters. Explain why thousands did not suffer and die from radiation poisoning from the explosion and subsequent fallout. Of course, there is no evidence at all and your reluctance to admit such shows your ignorance and blind devotion to 'the cause', which is typical of the 9/11 conspiracy buffs. None want the truth; they want a version that validates their uneducated opinions.
Sorry, Sally, no nukes. Maybe Judy Wood has a theory for you to espouse that won't be so easy to debunk....




posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Debunk this: www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Flanker86




Debunk this:

Classic ignorance of physics.
1. Where's the plane impact?
2. That was an exterior fire without thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

If you can't see the differences then you are not qualified to make even a ballpark guesstimate in 911.
Perhaps you should start by explaining why expressway over passes collapse with a fire underneath.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Flanker86

Debunk what. Looks like an exterior bamboo scaffolding fire?

Can you prove the building had significant interior damage.

Had deficient fire insulation for the steel like the WTC.

Had long spans of floor trusses with no midpoint concrete supports.

Had no internal operating fire sprinkler system.

Firefighters did not apply any fire fighting water.

The building was constructed to minimize the use of concrete to reduce the cost from a traditional high rise building.

Fire in the building spread faster and broke out in numerous areas simultaneously beyond the design parameters?

Could you be any less specific?



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Flanker86

Can you debunk this...

Tehran's Iconic Plasco Building Collapses After Fire; 30 Reportedly Dead
www.nbcnews.com...



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

I have addressed this numerous times to you.

One, sampling for dirty bombs on 9/11 and after 9/11 revealed no radiation higher than normal background.

Two, asked over and over again how workers at chemical plants get cancer when not exposed to any radiation higher than back ground.

Three, the toxic dust, ash, smoke from burning / smoldering material known to cause cancer and sickness like plastic, lead, chemicals, wire insulation, building insulation, computers / electrics, jet fuel, fuel fuel, ceiling tiles more than explains the illnesses and deaths.

Four, cite actual radiation readings that where higher than normal for the area that would cause the strange illnesses and deaths associated at the rate with the toxic smoke, ash, and dust from the WTC.


I am not usually one to ask for a link or reference, but as to your claim that "sampling for dirty bombs...revealed no radiation higher than background", I would be grateful if you could supply some sort of reference as to which agency conducted that sampling, and what the results were. Did the agency keep any records? If so, were they made public?

I suspect you're bluffing because I have been looking for such records for a number of years and not been able to find any. Please help.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Flanker86

Does this mean that burning buildings behave differently in China than they do in New York City? Or that Chinese firefighters are somehow better than US firefighters?



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

You will like this article.
Link



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

I have addressed this numerous times to you.

One, sampling for dirty bombs on 9/11 and after 9/11 revealed no radiation higher than normal background.

Two, asked over and over again how workers at chemical plants get cancer when not exposed to any radiation higher than back ground.

Three, the toxic dust, ash, smoke from burning / smoldering material known to cause cancer and sickness like plastic, lead, chemicals, wire insulation, building insulation, computers / electrics, jet fuel, fuel fuel, ceiling tiles more than explains the illnesses and deaths.

Four, cite actual radiation readings that where higher than normal for the area that would cause the strange illnesses and deaths associated at the rate with the toxic smoke, ash, and dust from the WTC.


I am not usually one to ask for a link or reference, but as to your claim that "sampling for dirty bombs...revealed no radiation higher than background", I would be grateful if you could supply some sort of reference as to which agency conducted that sampling, and what the results were. Did the agency keep any records? If so, were they made public?

I suspect you're bluffing because I have been looking for such records for a number of years and not been able to find any. Please help.


Go do your own research, and provide evidence there was radiation above background.

This is the link to where in this thread I asked if anyone knew if emergency services sampled for a dirty bomb for 9/11...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


From the same thread, a link to an answer provided by firerescue....
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

The article is biased because it supports WTC conventional implosion, but sums up how ridiculous the nuke theory is... more references on background radiation at the WTC for you to research and see if you can discredit.

www.takeourworldback.com...


The absurdity of the "WTC was nuked" hoax

An excellent refutation of the "WTC was nuked" claims was provided by Dr. Steven E. Jones, entitled "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers". He summarized a few key points as:

Observation of tritium (an important component of hydrogen-bomb fuel) at WTC sites at the few nano-curie level only. This is strong evidence against the mini-nuke hypothesis.

The fact that radioactive iodine concentrations were actually lower in the upper/WTC debris-filled layers.

Radioactive hot-spots in NYC were found to be due to radium, which is traceable to industrial uses (not bombs). This in itself does not rule out mini-nukes, but these data certainly do not support the mini-nuke hypothesis.

Lioy et al. report that radioactivity from thorium, uranium, actinium series and other radionuclides is at or near the background level for WTC dust.

Nuclear activation or residual "fall-out" radioactivity (above background) was NOT observed, in tests performed by the author on actual WTC samples. This result is consistent with the low Iodine-131 measured by independent researchers (point 2 above) and the low radionuclide counts (point 4 above) and again provides compelling evidence against the mini-nuke-at-Towers hypothesis.

No fatalities due to radiation "burning" were reported near ground zero. William Rodriguez survived the North Tower collapse.
No observed melting of glass due to the collapse-process of the Towers.

One more: The mini-nuke idea fails completely for WTC 7 where vertically-directed plumes of dust were absent during the collapse, and the building fell quite neatly onto its own footprint. (Molten metal was observed under the WTC7 rubble as well.)

Some promoters of the "nuclear demolitions" baloney, such as Gordon Duff, cite as 'evidence' a claim that 9/11 first responders have been dying from "radiation sickness".



I would note that I do not believe there are any credible accounts of molten steel / iron at WTC 1,2, nor 7.
edit on 12-6-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording

edit on 12-6-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording


I also do not support the political views of the reference article. But would state it is an example of 9/11 conspiracy lunacy all around...
edit on 12-6-2017 by neutronflux because: Added more notes



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   
The biggest problem with truth movement and debunkers is we're forced into a "false dichotomy" type of debate. Both sides insist things must either be one thing, or its perfect opposite.

Well, since both sides are arguing a logical fallacy, it should be no surprise the discussion never goes anywhere.






originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: bloodymarvelous










rather than partially supporting the structure long enough to pad the collapse.

Didn't you see the tower fall through first?
How much "pad" time is enough to say it wasn't instant failure of all supports?


Pad time isn't the same thing as support time.

When a structure fails due to gradually increasing stress, it isn't usually going to fail completely in an instant. Go from not falling to immediately falling at free fall speed.

It's going to fail the same way as how an elephant sits down.

The elephant is relaxing its muscles in its legs in a way that causes them to offer less than sufficient support, so it can gradually lower its buttox onto whatever surface it intends to sit on.

It's the difference between swinging a hammer hard to hit something, and laying the hammer down on the counter when you are done with it.


The hammer effect question never gets discussed in these discussions, of course. Because one side is taking the position that the whole building must have been rigged floor by floor. And the other side takes the opposite extreme position that the building fell due to only the planes and the fires.


But.... to academic physics, the hammer effect is the WHOLE QUESTION. Nothing else is up for any kind of serious debate.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous




When a structure fails due to gradually increasing stress, it isn't usually going to fail completely in an instant. Go from not falling to immediately falling at free fall speed.

Why do you keep ignoring the tower falling through first?

That's like saying Hiroshima had a mysterious explosion and ignoring the plane.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous



When a structure fails due to gradually increasing stress


What gradually increasing stress are we talking about here?



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 03:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

And why does anyone need to prove anything to you when you cannot even layout a credible argument how a small nuclear bomb with a yield less than 20 tons would have kept the WTC pile hot for 90 days? You cannot even back your own conclusions?

You don't even know the difference from heat of decay vs residual heat vs heat produced by smoldering material?



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Are you for real it's EXACTLY the same with the conspiracy side.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg
So if a conspiracy claim is WRONG it should be ignored on mobile just now when at home tonight I will list a few and you tell us all what you think .



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 05:40 AM
link   
Watch this at 27:15..... He makes a huge discovery about 9/11


Supporting evidence. This is another person who has come to the same conclusion. That it is connected to Baal / ancient egypt

edit on 14-6-2017 by bob234arley because: added another video



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 06:28 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Thank you for that link. I never seriously considered the nuclear theory until I read Jeff Prager's work, complete with many FEMA photos since removed from the public view.

To me, the only theory that accounts for all things observed there is the nuclear theory.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: bob234arley




Watch this at 27:15..... He makes a huge discovery about 9/11

That's not evidence.
That's mysticism.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: D8Tee

Thank you for that link. I never seriously considered the nuclear theory until I read Jeff Prager's work, complete with many FEMA photos since removed from the public view.

To me, the only theory that accounts for all things observed there is the nuclear theory.




Other than not being able to tie it to the video which shows the actual inward bowing of one or two floors of WTC 2, and the buckling at just the affected area.

Or no proof of radiation above back ground.

Or how a nuke less than 20 tons TNT equivalent whould keep 1,000,000 plus tons of debris hot for 90 days.

Or no deaths from radiation poisoning.

Or the moment of collapse at the tower is specifically inward and down?
edit on 14-6-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording


Or no material is pushed away from the tower until the tower is well into collapse.

edit on 14-6-2017 by neutronflux because: Added last sentence



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join