9/11 Health Effects, The Smoking Gun?, page 2

This topic is in the 9/11 Conspiracies discussion forum. (rss)

9/11 Health Effects, The Smoking Gun? << 1 2 >>

reply posted on 17-4-2006 @ 09:50 AM by bsbray11
Originally posted by ekul08 Steel barely even melts at the temperature airline fuel burns, so how can airline fueld fires that was limited to only a few floors cause subterraian fires that raged for weeks and molten pools of steel and other metals that affected people blocks away, for weeks? Steel won't melt at all from the temperatures jet fuel produces. Not even close. The argument the Roark's try to scrap up is that the rubble pile somehow turned into a big smelting furnance, despite the insane improbabilities against that working out. There would be less chance of that than thermite reactions occurring naturally in the WTC, which Roark is apparently also suggesting.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 17-4-2006 @ 11:30 AM by grimreaper797
well personally im still waiting to find another way for there to be molten pools of molten metals. molten iron and molten stell would be a definate possibility. though if steel has a melting point of less then 3000 degrees fahrenheit and thermite heats up to close to 5000 degrees, it might simply evaporate the molten steel. anyway they said the fires weakened the steel, but they know as well as anyone else it couldnt have melted it.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 17-4-2006 @ 11:52 AM by grimreaper797
alright after more research its become official, and i have made ANOTHER break through on this subject which will make it even more definate. I will post my information later on tonight.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 17-4-2006 @ 03:17 PM by Griff
You have voted grimreaper797 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month. Later tonight? Come on. Just kidding, I'm on the edge of my seat. Please post your findings. Great job in your research.
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
reply posted on 17-4-2006 @ 04:01 PM by grimreaper797
i may be extending the deadline of tonight by a bit. i want to get more information to further back it up. im working on it a great deal, ill finish as soon as i can. It seems the internet isnt even helping with a couple aspects so i have to go beyond the use of internet.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 17-4-2006 @ 10:22 PM by Griff
Grim. Thanks for your time in researching this.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 17-4-2006 @ 10:38 PM by grimreaper797
im trying to get first hand help from firefighters who were in the clean up to show better proof, and also talking to a chem professor to get some more help. Im taking this very serious and hope to get some results to either support or put to rest my claim. Ill keep all updated on my finds to confirm this by long term effects.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 19-4-2006 @ 10:01 AM by gordonross
WATS award for some class, original research. Good angle. If you want the Scholars to see this I can put it on the st911 forum. Looking forward to the updates. Gordon
copyright & usage

reply posted on 19-4-2006 @ 08:39 PM by Regenmacher
Here's a few more links: •Enviro-Health Links - Lingering Airborne Hazards from the Collapse of the World Trade Center •The World Trade Center Medical Monitoring Program •CDC Physical Health Status of World Trade Center Rescue and Recovery Workers and Volunteers •9/11 ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION Recent news: NYC’s ‘Official’ Position On Deaths of Rescue and Recovery Workers Who Toiled at Ground Zero Does Not Square with the Medical and Scientific Evidence Date Published: Sunday, April 16th, 2006 • Babies born to women who were living within 2 miles of the WTC in the month following 9/11/01 were on average 5 ounces lighter than babies born to women who lived further away. • Babies born to women who were living near the WTC in the month following 9/11 were on average 1/3 of an inch shorter at birth than babies born to women living further away. • All women were full term, however; women in their first 13 weeks of pregnancy on 9/11 (regardless of their distance from the WTC) had a shorter pregnancy by an average of 3.6 days compared to women who were in a later stage of pregnancy on 9/11. Babies born to mothers with shorter pregnancies had smaller head circumference than other babies. Please visit the link provided for the complete story. •Autopsy Spurs Calls for 9/11 Health Care •Death of Detective Tied to Toxic Fumes From Ground Zero
copyright & usage

reply posted on 20-4-2006 @ 07:56 AM by Griff
Those birth rates sound very similar to birth rates of women who smoke cigarrettes during pregnancy. I guess that would make sense with all the toxins in cigarrettes. Interesting.
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
reply posted on 20-4-2006 @ 04:15 PM by Vitchilo
A website that claims they have put an end to the conspiracy... www.popularmechanics.com... Maybe you should send them your finds to challenge them to put an end to your proof.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 20-4-2006 @ 07:31 PM by bsbray11
PM's article has been set straight since not long after it came out, and the magazine has some close links to high officials with Homeland Security. I forget the names but the article is a good example of a disinfo job. Here's a link to 9/11 Review addressing the article: 911review.com... And 9/11 Research addressing it: 911research.wtc7.net...
copyright & usage