New 911 Evidence Solves Unanswered Questions

originally posted by: DebtSlave

originally posted by: szino9
a reply to: DebtSlave

Forgive my ignorance as I have no time to watch the videos you provided, but if we talking about a nuclear fallout shouldn't be a lot of people sick or dead by know from the fallout? I am aware many people got cancer but that was due to other things.

When the World Trade Centers collapsed on 9/11, a cloud of toxic dust and debris blanketed Manhattan. Largely unknown to the public, this dust contained an array of carcinogenic particles. Some of these toxins included: lead, mercury, dioxins, benzene and, of course, asbestos.

I lived in NYC in 2001 worked pretty close to Ground zero for years and now 17 years later no health issues, touch wood...

I don't know how to prove a death or sickness via fallout, all I know is that physics does not lie. When those cameras got hit by the dust clouds, they all reacted the same way. This was due to the radiation / fallout:

Just click on the link and it will take you to the point I want you to watch:

youtu.be...

Radiation and fallout are 2 separate things aren't they?

The fallout is radioactive I suppose, but radiation is invisible.

a reply to: neutronflux

I don't know why I wasted so much time finding all those clips for you to watch. It's like, you make a point, I provide a counter point, and then you just reiterate your BS argument. If you aren't going to watch my sources or provide any yourself, then you aren't really arguing anything, but rather just trolling.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: DebtSlave
you are a delusinal wingnut :and thats the polite response

your claim is that at 09:45 your fantasy " EMP blast " ad the magic effect of " distorting camera "

an EMP event does not do that - but hey - it gets better

south tower collapse commences 09:58

What you actually mean is that the nuclear physicist is a wingnut, which basically makes you the wingnut.

Since you never watched the videos from my first post, you have no idea what we are actually arguing about. The nuclear physicist is arguing that a 4th or 5th generation nuclear device was what brought down each of the three buildings. There was the EMP blast that started the dustification of the building, and about 10 seconds later the weight from the top crushed the pulverized building, squirting packets of pulverized dust out various windows as the buildings crumbled.

I like your name by the way.

a reply to: seagull

Look at this picture. See the over exposure? See the blue sky to the right? This was taken during the day, and the rubble is glowing!

youtu.be...

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: DebtSlave

originally posted by: szino9
a reply to: DebtSlave

Forgive my ignorance as I have no time to watch the videos you provided, but if we talking about a nuclear fallout shouldn't be a lot of people sick or dead by know from the fallout? I am aware many people got cancer but that was due to other things.

When the World Trade Centers collapsed on 9/11, a cloud of toxic dust and debris blanketed Manhattan. Largely unknown to the public, this dust contained an array of carcinogenic particles. Some of these toxins included: lead, mercury, dioxins, benzene and, of course, asbestos.

I lived in NYC in 2001 worked pretty close to Ground zero for years and now 17 years later no health issues, touch wood...

I don't know how to prove a death or sickness via fallout, all I know is that physics does not lie. When those cameras got hit by the dust clouds, they all reacted the same way. This was due to the radiation / fallout:

Just click on the link and it will take you to the point I want you to watch:

youtu.be...

Radiation and fallout are 2 separate things aren't they?

The fallout is radioactive I suppose, but radiation is invisible.

You have to start with a source that is radioactive. That source gives off radiation. If the source remains whole, it is a point source that gives off radiation. What to limit radioactive exposure? Decrease time spent with the source, increase distance from the source, or increase shielding like a tenth thickness of lead which is 1.5 inches.

Say the source was 1 pound? Then some crazy person grinds the whole source into 1 pound of dust. Now you 1 pound of radioactive dust that could be equated to fallout. If you breath the dust in, it’s in your lungs. If it’s on your clothes and in your hair, you are leaving a radioactive trail of contamination where ever you go. You are being radiated the entire time you are contaminated. Other people that cross your trail are radiated by any contamination left behind. You can usually wash off the contamination on skin and in hair. However, now the shower drain, shower plumbing, and wash water are now contaminated.

A nuclear bomb goes off, it creates an explosion from the violence of the nuclear reactions in a split second. The explosion creates radioactive isotopes of atoms. The explosion creates isotopes which are different than if the nuclear material in the bomb underwent radioactive decay. The material used in a detonated nuclear bomb can be determined by the types of radioactive isotopes at ground zero. The produced radioactive isotopes are the fallout. Contamination composed of radioactive isotopes acting like millions of point sources, releasing radiation as they decay into increasingly stable atoms, but resulting in contamination while they are unstable.

a reply to: samkent

The entire floor lobby had all it's windows blown out. These were extremely thick windows. Watch the Naudet Brothers 911 documentary. They go into the buildings lobby, and the first thing they say is "it looked like a bomb went off.

a reply to: Salander

Maybe should read this first Gruber ……..

nuclearweaponarchive.org/

Describes phyics of nuclear weapon and their effects

For someone who has been screaming about nuclear weapons destroying the WTC are surprisingly ignorant

There is prompt radiation - radiation emitted at tome of detonation

Comprised of very short wave Electromagnetic radiation . Mostly Xrays and gamma rays . Some is absorbed by air molecules and re emitted in infrared spectrum as the thermal or heat pulse . Rest travels out from center of detonation

Also emitted at detonation time are high energy neutrons which travel out from detonation

Fallout is lingering radiation composed of fission by products (even a fusion bomb aka hydrogen weapon requires a fission
primary to trigger the fusion process ) mixed with dirt and debris from ground sucked into nuclear cloud

The high energy neutrons strike common elements in the vicinity and transmute them to other radioactive elements

As the nuclear cloud cools radioactive debris "falls out" from the cloud Heavier particles first then the lighter particles
as travels downwind

This nuclear effects calculator will give lethal radius of prompt radiation for weapons yield . Also can create fallout map
for the weapons

nuclearsecrecy.com...

Go ahead, play with it to show effects of various types of weapons ……..

a reply to: Salander

That's what I'm saying, I'm not a nuclear physicist, you are not a nuclear physicist, why not just watch the videos? I don't know how to explain this argument as well as the nuclear physicist. I'm not the expert. I can't get all the terminology right.

originally posted by: DebtSlave
a reply to: seagull

Look at this picture. See the over exposure? See the blue sky to the right? This was taken during the day, and the rubble is glowing!

youtu.be...

If the rubble was glowing from energy released by nuclear reactions, the person taking the photo would have died with in days from radiation poisoning. If the pile was releasing that much radiation you could see it glow, it would mess up normal 35 mm film.

And why would the pile glow exactly in daylight?

Do radioactive things glow in the dark?

education.jlab.org...

The short answer to your question is "no," radioactive things do not glow in the dark - not by themselves anyway. Radiation emitted by radioactive materials is not visible to the human eye. However, there are ways to"convert" this invisible energy to visible light. Many substances will emit visible light if "stimulated" by the ionizing radiation from radioactive material. These materials are known as "fluors" or "scintilators." So, by mixing some radioactive material with such a fluor, you can make a substance that glows. This kind of material has been used in things like the faces of clocks, watches, and instruments on ships and airplanes to make them visible in the dark. This is why most people think of glowing things when they think of radioactive materials.

It is also possible to "trick" radioactive material into creating visible light. This is called Cherenkov radiation. This happens when the radiation from the radioactive material goes into a material such as glass or water. Because the speed of light in this material is relatively slow (compared to the maximum speed of light in a vacuum), the radiation is actually traveling faster than light can travel in that material, and so it gives off light as it slows down. But to actually see this glow, it usually takes something which is very radioactive, such as the internal parts of a nuclear reactor. Weak Cherenkov light can be made from smaller amounts of radioactivity. Usually, sensitive devices have to be used to detect it.

a reply to: DebtSlave

Do you mean the material in the rubble was smoldering like the process to create charcoal?

The Science of Charcoal: How Charcoal is Made and How Charcoal Works

amazingribs.com...

How charcoal is made
Charcoal is mostly pure carbon, called char, made by cooking wood in a low oxygen environment, a process that can take days and burns off volatile compounds such as water, methane, hydrogen, and tar. In commercial processing, the burning takes place in large concrete or steel silos with very little oxygen, and stops before it all turns to ash. The process leaves black lumps and powder, about 25% of the original weight.

As the ruble was removed at the WTC, this basically happened.

Making Your Own Charcoal (a.k.a. Lump Charcoal)
www.instructables.com...
If you remove the lid before the wood is done smoldering, this will just add air to the embers and start the burning again

originally posted by: DebtSlave
a reply to: samkent

The entire floor lobby had all it's windows blown out. These were extremely thick windows. Watch the Naudet Brothers 911 documentary. They go into the buildings lobby, and the first thing they say is "it looked like a bomb went off.

Because the jets tore into the elevator shafts, and the fire ball from the impact explosion impacted the breached shafts.

Was there bomb fragments or distinctive demolitions shrapnel recovered from the people injured in the lobby?

a reply to: neutronflux

Forget what I say, pay attention to the nuclear physicist.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: DebtSlave
a reply to: samkent

The entire floor lobby had all it's windows blown out. These were extremely thick windows. Watch the Naudet Brothers 911 documentary. They go into the buildings lobby, and the first thing they say is "it looked like a bomb went off.

Because the jets tore into the elevator shafts, and the fire ball from the impact explosion impacted the breached shafts.

Was there bomb fragments or distinctive demolitions shrapnel recovered from the people injured in the lobby?

If you would watch ANY of the videos I posted for you, you would already know, by the thermal video I found for you, that no gas fireballs went down any elevator shafts. On top of that, the elevator shafts were split so you had to get off one elevator and on to the next to make it to the top floor. No way jet fuel made it to the lobby!

To answer your second question, again, the mini nuke that went off left people with skin hanging off their bodies.. Conventional weapons can't do that!

a reply to: DebtSlave

Was the video shot while the fireball went down the shaft and ruptured the elevator doors? Elevator shafts how many feet into the building?

So the camera shot the exterior of the towers where cool air was rushing in to the building to replace the air pushed out by the heat of the fires?

Fire balls from ignited fuel leaves skin hanging off people.

Exploding bombs produce shockwaves and demolitions shrapnel that produces cuts, abrasions, impale body parts, amputations, and decapitations.

a reply to: DebtSlave

Again, cite from the audio, video, seismic record evidence of a detention with the power to cut steel.

Again, the link below contains the video the moment WTC 2’s collapse was initiated.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

How does a underground bomb cause the outer columns in an isolated band 77 stories above ground to bow inward and then buckle inward, causing the floors above the 77 story to crash down into the tower? Without a ripple up the tower, or any thermal camera evidence?

And all this with no shockwaves, or audio of a blast indicative of being powerful enough to cut steel?

Without the resultant radiation that should have made people critically sick within days and hours of 9/11.

While you claim:

Look at this picture. See the over exposure? See the blue sky to the right? This was taken during the day, and the rubble is glowing!

Which would require radiation levels greater than chernobyl or fukushima which means people would have literally dropped like flys a few hours after being at the WTC rubble. All people that got within a hundred foot of the rubble.

And all that radiation would require a source more than what a nuclear reactor holds in a mini nuclear bomb?

You need to stop listening to nuclear charlatans that contradict themselves, and their pseudoscience.

a reply to: DebtSlave

False argument by you?

On top of that, the elevator shafts were split so you had to get off one elevator and on to the next to make it to the top floor. No way jet fuel made it to the lobby!

There were express elevators that went from the lobby to a sky-lobby at the 78th floor.

The cited source below also shows an express elevator from the lobby to the top. Is that false? The source also claims the elevators held 55 people? Not exactly small?

World Trade Center Elevators
science.howstuffworks.com...

More details:

sites.google.com...

There were 99 passenger elevators in each tower, arranged in three vertical zones to move occupants in stages to skylobbies on the 44th and 78th floors. These were arranged as express (generally larger cars that moved at higher speeds) and local elevators in an innovative system first introduced in WTC 1 and WTC 2. There were 8 express elevators from the concourse to the 44th floor and 10 express elevators from the concourse to the 78th floor as well as 24 local elevators per zone, which served groups of floors in those zones. There were seven freight elevators, only one of which served all floors. All elevators had been upgraded to incorporate firefighter emergency operation per American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) A17.1 and Local Law 5 (1973).wtc.nist.gov... (PDF pg. 50)

There were two express elevators (#6 and #7) to Windows on the World (and related conference rooms and banquet facilities) in WTC 1 and two to the observation deck in WTC 2. There were five local elevators in each building: three that brought people from the subterranean levels to the lobby, one that ran between floors 106 and 110, and one that ran between floors 43 and 44, serving the cafeteria from the skylobby. All elevators had been upgraded to incorporate firefighter emergency operation requirements.

In addition to the passenger elevators, there were seven freight elevators in each tower; most served a particular zone, while Car 50 served every floor.
* Car #5: B1-5, 6, 9-40, 44
* Car #6: B1-5, 44, 75, 77-107 wtc.nist.gov... (PDF pg. 72)

Yes, both towers did have elevators that ran the whole length of the tower as one straight shaft.

Anymore false arguments?

a reply to: DebtSlave

Well since you mention EMP. If there had been a nuclear detonation, the news networks, would have had all of their cameras/sound equipment etc... die. That, did not happen. So, no nuclear detonation.

originally posted by: DebtSlave
a reply to: neutronflux

Forget what I say, pay attention to the nuclear physicist.

Ok.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Jones earned his bachelor's degree in physics, magna cum laude, from Brigham Young University in 1973, and his Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University in 1978. Jones conducted his PhD research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (from 1974 to 1977), and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.[1]

Article below made by guy above.

Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used
on the WTC Towers
Letter, by Dr. Steven E. Jones
28 Sept 2006 (Updated Jan. 2007, peer-reviewed, accepted for publication 7 Jan 2007. Appendix A added 16 January 2007.)
Introduction

www.journalof911studies.com...

Which conspiracists charlatan has the truth.......

Trick question, none of them...

a reply to: DebtSlave

It tends to do that when it's hot. ...and since there were fires burning underneath it, guess what, they might, indeed, glow!!

Radioactive materials, or things that have been radiated, don't glow, at least not by themselves. Radioactive materials, such as you're positing, do not make things glow. Heat from fires down below, however, can make things glow.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

We're ignoring that, apparently. ...and the tens of thousands of radiation cases, both fatal and not, that didn't happen.