Russia Opens Files on Nuclear 9/11 and Israeli Proliferation

a reply to: Salander

Have you ever tried the blast simulator? You should. A 0.5 kt blast would have wiped out the entire WTC complex, as well as spreading radiation for several blocks around the site. There would have been thousands of people sickened and killed by the radiation alone, and nothing left of the building at ground zero.

a reply to: Zaphod58

No I have not tried a blast simulator.

But really, don't we have just what you describe?

As many as 70,000 afflicted with cancers identical to those found at Hiroshima and Chernobyl.

Nothing was left at GZ, except of course molten iron for 90 days and a huge hole in the ground called the bathtub.

All the damage observed, and there is much more than what we've mentioned here, could not possibly have come from burning office furnishings.

But it is very consistent with a nuclear event of some sort.

a reply to: Salander

It wouldn't be cancers, it would have been horrible deaths from radiation poisoning. Not to mention the radiation signature (not low levels). A single device would put 500 rems out to three quarters of a kilometer. That's up to 90% dead without medical treatment.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It wouldn't be cancers? Why not? Why were multiple myelomas so prevalent in the survivors of other known nuclear events?

Why did Matt Tartaglia, working at GZ, describe the use of nuclear decontamination protocols? Why did his teeth fall out a few years later?

Why did some survivors describe humans engulfed in flames? Why was the skin dripping off the workmate of Willy Rodriguez? Why were elevated levels of tritium and other radioactive elements recorded by USGS and others?

a reply to: Salander

Because a nuclear weapon releases gamma radiation, which, without treatment, would kill up to 90% of the people exposed within two weeks, not years later.

There was asbestos all through those towers, as well as other things in the dust that could cause cancers, all of which would take months or years to manifest. Gamma radiation kills fast at the levels a nuclear weapon releases. And it would have contaminated every person working the pile. There would have been people falling over sick, and dying within hours.

Tritium is common. It's used in, among other things, exit signs, watches, and a few dozen common items.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Salander

Because a nuclear weapon releases gamma radiation, which, without treatment, would kill up to 90% of the people exposed within two weeks, not years later.

There was asbestos all through those towers, as well as other things in the dust that could cause cancers, all of which would take months or years to manifest. Gamma radiation kills fast at the levels a nuclear weapon releases. And it would have contaminated every person working the pile. There would have been people falling over sick, and dying within hours.

Tritium is common. It's used in, among other things, exit signs, watches, and a few dozen common items.

And it wouldnt have been limited to just the building clean up. It would extend a half mile in every direction as people just started dropping dead.

a reply to: dragonridr

Exactly. It would throw 500 rems out that far. That's a 50-90% death rate within two weeks without treatment. And if they're getting treated, why wasn't it all over?

I'd forgotten I had these until recently but they are from a thread a did quite some time back and came out of Dept of Defense manuals for blast damage and impact within the immediate areas. It may help a little for perspective on how much should have been seen but wasn't in this case.





Nukes are nasty and very unmistakable things, even small ones. Especially at ground zero of detonation. We should have seen much much more if anything nuclear had been involved, IMO.

On the stuff which happened to workers and exposures? Who knows what was inside the building. The WTC towers had federal offices, attorneys offices and all manner of things which could have the oddest items in a safe or evidence holding of some kind or just exotic equipment that is safe enough when not crushed within a giant rubble pile with tons of other hazmat.

To me, the damage observed at WTC was impossible IF the source was burning office furnishings as NIST opined.

Burning office furniture on 8 floors could not have caused what was seen, and could not have been responsible for the multiple myeloma so common amongst the workers there.

No way.

a reply to: Salander

And it's not responsible for the myeloma. The asbestos, the fire proofing, and other contaminants that aren't normally something you'd come into contact with are responsible though.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Funny thing is that of all the pictures available of the steel beams at WTC, not one shows this asbestos coating that was supposedly present.

And I think that in the various samples taken by USGS and others, no asbestos elements were detected.

a reply to: Salander

There was talk about tearing the towers down, but they couldn't because they'd have to go floor by floor due to the asbestos.

According to various sources, asbestos was used up to the 40th floor, and other materials used higher. Over time a lot of the asbestos was replaced.

Even if you throw out the asbestos, there was the tritium, the materials used in computer monitors, and a lot of other things that will all cause myeloma. A nuclear weapon would have killed more, a lot faster, and made a much bigger mess.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well, the DELTA Group's air sampling found microparticles of concrete, gypsum and glass, and of course iron aerosols, but none for asbestos.

In April 2002 at a meeting in Orlando, the American Chemical Society discussed among other topics, "Elevated Tritium Levels at WTC". It seems to this layman that if the ACS was discussing it, there must have been some significance.

A 2 man USGS crew collected samples at 35 locations within a 1 km radius, on 17 and 18 September. Among other usual elements, they found Thorium, which is radioactive, at 6 times higher than the lowest level detected.

Of all the theories advanced over the years, I find the nuclear theory to be the most complete and persuasive.

a reply to: Salander

If it was a nuclear device, then by five days later it would have been a hell of a lot higher than that. There still would have been huge amounts of radioactive particles showing, not to mention it would have shown up on seismographs all over the world. A sub critical nuclear test in North Korea was detected hundreds of miles away if not farther.

There is so much evidence that isn't here for it to have been a nuclear device.

I don't see any plausibility in nukes.

First, in the planning I guess it would have been quickly set aside because of the obvious radioactivity.

Second, If they had envisioned nukes that did not appear to be exploding like nukes and making it obvious at first glance, but were about as weak as normal explosives, then why the unnecessary hassle.

Don't know if someone measured radioactivity afterwards, but I guess there will be some stationary measurements going on all the time. Even if that was kilometers away, it should have picked it up.

a reply to: diggsta

During French nuclear tests in the South Pacific a U-2 flying in the region several hundred miles away showed a spike in radiation and had to be decontaminated on landing. Radiation from the WTC would have affected planes in the area.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I suspect there are different qualities to different types of nuclear reactions and weapons. Different footprints, if you will.

That is, cold fusion devices may offer a different footprint. Piezofusion too.

And different types of fission devices probably produce different types of radiation and. Different elements used in a device might produce different effects.

It seems that in 50 years of research and development different weapon characteristics would have been refined.

a reply to: Salander

The signature varies based on where the weapon is detonated, but all nuclear weapons have a large radiation signature.

.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm skeptical of that claim.

Just as computers and jet engines and virtually every other technology that essentially began in 1945 have evolved and been refined, I think the same can be said of nuclear technology.

Because what was observed at WTC was NOT caused by burning office furnishings. So many of the strange events observed there are completely explained by a nuclear event of some sort.