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.
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.
Debunk this:
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.
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.
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".
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?
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.
originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
When a structure fails due to gradually increasing stress
Watch this at 27:15..... He makes a huge discovery about 9/11
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.