Trillion Dollar Conspiracy... 9/11 Mounting Evidence...

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Did you know that Matt Tartaglia (RIP) who worked on the pile reported that nuclear decontamination protocol were in place when he worked on those "hot spots"? That he teeth began to fall out some time later? He was with the Perkasie PA Fire Co #1 and was sent to NYC to help. His teeth began to fall out in 2005, and I assume that today he is dead from radiation poisoning.

Did you know that in terms of types of cancers shown, and levels of appearance of those cancers, the men who worked "on the pile" show the same sort of epidemiology as do the survivors of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl?

a reply to: Salander

Good post, but Cardsfan won't listen. He will tell you that your comments are a lie.

Liquified steel was reported at the core. That is impossible with a jet fuel and building fire. It had to have been something that packed a bit more of a punch.

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
Liquified steel was reported at the core.

Only by conspiracy theorists....

a reply to: Salander

nuclear decontamination protocol

How is it different than other hazardious material decontamination?
I'll bet there is no noticeable difference.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Well, a nuclear detonation wouldn't liquify steel. So, back to the drawing board for you.

a reply to: Salanders

Did you know that the severity of the aliments that Ground Zero relates directly to the amount of time they wore PPE? Those who wore it "religiously" are healthy. Those who rarely or never wore it, are sick. Hazardous waste/nuclear decontaimination protocols are virtually identical and Mr. Tartaglia's propensity to have shown up on Alex Jones...causes issues.

So, Babe Ruth....any actually evidence concerning Mr. Tartaglia? Otherwise, any answers for the fact that Geiger counters on site did not detect the types of radiation that accompanies nuclear detonations?

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Are you familiar with the term "nuclear meltdown?" Do you know what it means?

What was observed at WTC is very consistent with that phenomenon.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

We have already discussed that Geiger counters measure only a few of the various types of radiation.

That is, certain of the various radiations from a nuclear reaction ARE NOT detected by a Geiger Counter.

a reply to: Salander

Not by any stretch of the imagination did what happened at the WTC indicate a nuclear meltdown. What is your actual knowledge of nuclear weapons or physics anyway?

a reply to: Salander And now you are going to explain this mystical nuclear device that only emits certain types of radiation and suppresses others?

There are three types of radiation emitted during a nuclear reaction, alpha, beta, and gamma. Period. And, a Geiger counter will detect all three. So, another of your beliefs demolished by reality.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Are you familiar with the term "nuclear meltdown?" Do you know what it means?

What was observed at WTC is very consistent with that phenomenon.

So now a truther thinks there was a operating nuclear reactor at the WTC....

I agree that 9/11 may have been a false flag attack for all sorts of reasons that only really make sense to the elite. What I find most compelling is that one of the buildings that was NOT hit by any aircraft and suffered only minor damage also fell completely, in it's own footprint, looking as if it had been demolished.

Nice try elites but, we are on to you!!

a reply to: deloprator20000 Minor damage? You have not read what the FDNY had to say about the massive damage to WTC 7 have you?

originally posted by: deloprator20000
that one of the buildings that was NOT hit by any aircraft and suffered only minor damage

What a silly statement, why do you claim "only minor damage?
www.911myths.com...
www.dailymail.co.uk...

also fell completely, in it's own footprint,

Another silly false claim, how did parts of it finish on top of another building then?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: deloprator20000
that one of the buildings that was NOT hit by any aircraft and suffered only minor damage

What a silly statement, why do you claim "only minor damage?
www.911myths.com...
www.dailymail.co.uk...

also fell completely, in it's own footprint,

Another silly false claim, how did parts of it finish on top of another building then?

Show us ONE other steel frame buildimg that collapsed like the three 9/11 buildings.

Thr fire in 2005 in Mdrid burned for 18 hours and it remained standing.

What you fail to realize is steel buildings don't Brum for 54 minutes, and have all concrete pulverized.

Got one buliding? I don't think you do.

a reply to: Jchristopher5
Once again, the section of the Madrid Windsor Tower that most resembled the Towers, failed and collapsed from fire alone.

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
Show us ONE other steel frame buildimg that collapsed like the three 9/11 buildings.

How about you show us other high rise buildings that were hit by high speed jet airliners, or were severely damaged by a building collapse that did not collapse....

and have all concrete pulverized.

All the concrete was not pulverised.... you really do not know much about what happened on 9/11!

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jchristopher5
Once again, the section of the Madrid Windsor Tower that most resembled the Towers, failed and collapsed from fire alone.

Truthers do not like to mention that, or do not know about it, as it totally destroys their silly conspiracy theory!

a reply to: hellobruce

Hardly a silly conspiracy theory.

The official story sure is though. Nineteen hijackers overtake our air space and knock over three steel framed buildings with two planes in New York. A pilot who can't rent a Cesna make san impossible maneuver with a 757 into the Pentagon, with a spiraling, 270 degree turn, and manages to cram the plane all the way through three layers of concrete walls, in a hole much smaller than the fuselage itself. Leaving only a few convient scraps. Sure, makes perfect sense.

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
a reply to: hellobruce

Hardly a silly conspiracy theory.

No, very silly conspiracy theories - like holographic aircraft, pod carrying aircraft, missile firing aircraft, silent explosives, the Jews did it, beam weapons did it, nanoonanoo thermite was used.... all claims made by truthers.

make san impossible maneuver with a 757 into the Pentagon,

What makes you claim iy was a "impossible maneuver"?

and manages to cram the plane all the way through three layers of concrete walls, in a hole much smaller than the fuselage itself.

Any proof for that silly claim?