Nuke Cancer from 9/11 Revealed

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy

They come across to readers as your reckonings...

Vs your pseudoscience and fantasies?

The truth stings, for some. For others, it soothes and calms.

originally posted by: Salander
The truth stings, for some. For others, it soothes and calms.

You care to actually cite evidence? Or you just full of innuendo?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy

They come across to readers as your reckonings...

OK. I clearly said the information could be looked up but whatever

a reply to: mrthumpy

Yeah, and you clearly do not want to look it up, do not want to post it here.

a reply to: Salander

And clearly you have no evidence to support your fantastical delusions but never mind.
Just keep on going regardless.
Just sad, really.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy

Yeah, and you clearly do not want to look it up, do not want to post it here.

I could post it for you to dismiss or you could look it up and dismiss it. Same result either way but doesn't change the facts that ANYONE can look up for themselves

a reply to: mrthumpy

Now. Don’t contradict a conspiracist’s fragile hold on facts and science. Or they will go on a rant using innuendo it’s all lies and call you a paid government agent. Instead of actually citing sources and facts. They might even post some random picture out of context and ask you some ambiguous question. Like does the picture of a dog look like a rabbit, inside job.

wow -this takes cherry picking to new depths

using cancer statts as " proof " of nuclear weapons use

while blithley ignorng the utter absence of any direct evidence of weapons use

a reply to: ignorant_ape

While blithely for 18 years ignoring the fact that there is no proof whatsoever to back up the claims of the official narrative.

While blithely ignoring that the government's own commission heads noted it had been set up to fail, pretending that they never said it.

While blithely ignoring that the commission noted 60+ times that "we found no evidence" to support one element or the other of that official story.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: ignorant_ape

While blithely for 18 years ignoring the fact that there is no proof whatsoever to back up the claims of the official narrative.

While blithely ignoring that the government's own commission heads noted it had been set up to fail, pretending that they never said it.

While blithely ignoring that the commission noted 60+ times that "we found no evidence" to support one element or the other of that official story.

The collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 are on video / audio with no indication of controlled demolition.

With no indication the twin towers fell through the path of greatest resistance.



With no indication WTC 7 fell straight down.

Attention Please

This tit for tat and rudeness needs to stop before it leads to Posting Bans. Be warned.

Do not reply to this post.

Those pictures clearly show that the cause of the damage observed was NOT from gravity and office fires.

originally posted by: Salander
Those pictures clearly show that the cause of the damage observed was NOT from gravity and office fires.

How? Especially when the claim by AE 9/11 truth is WTC 7 fell straight down in its own footprint.

And the pictures of WTC7 shows sections of WTC 7 leaned outward, or fell outward. Has nothing to do with explosives.

And WTC 1 and WTC 2 falling through the path of greatest resistance is a blatant falsehood by Richard Gage.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Thank you sir. The simple truth is that neither of us can prove our claims.

But when it comes to evidence, you who support the official story have no evidence to support it. Even the government's own commission noted 60+ times that "we found no evidence" to support various claims of that story.

I on the other hand, have ample evidence that the official story cannot be true. Mainly the laws of physics and the absence of an airliner at the pentagon and in the countryside in Pennsylvania. Not to mention the facts discovered by many private investigators like Christopher Bollyn.

Of course the testimony of William Rodriguez is also evidence regarding the failure of the narrative you defend.

a reply to: Salander

You

I on the other hand, have ample evidence that the official story cannot be true. Mainly the laws of physics and the absence of an airliner at the pentagon and in the countryside in Pennsylvania. Not to mention the facts discovered by many private investigators like Christopher Bollyn.

In other words, you only have debunked truth movement talking points. And have nothing worth posing other than your ramblings.

a reply to: Salander

wow - and that sets new lows for evasiveness

care to actually address the absence of any primary evidence of nuclear weapons use ?

that is what this thread is about

i CBA going over the entire MOD Edit: SNIP farce again - but find these sillier threads amusing

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: wmd_2008

Thanks for the reply. To which registry do you refer?

Here you go

Asbestos Exposure and 9/11

a reply to: Salander

I refere you to the following extracts from a thread I started re Aircraft Impacts.

So back to a time when people did not have the interweb/facetube/youbook to create sites/pages or channels to peddle BS on what they don’t understand, we have a similar event the date Saturday July 28 1945 the B-25 Bomber Crash in heavy Fog.

Normal gross weight around 27,000 lbs max speed just over 300mph as you can see many similarities with events at 9/11

The bomber was flying relatively slowly and quite low, seeking better visibility, when it came upon the Chrysler Building in midtown. It swerved to avoid the building but the move sent it straight into the north side of the Empire State Building, near the 79th floor.

Upon impact, the plane’s jet fuel exploded, filling the interior of the building with flames all the way down to the 75th floor and sending flames out of the hole the plane had ripped open in the building’s side.

Now although this plane had a maximum of 974 gallons if fully loaded with fuel (not 10,000) it still managed to cause fires over 4 floors in a building that wasn't open plan like the Towers. Now how many times has it been claimed on here by the truther side that ALL the fuel would be burnt in the explosion so as we can see they are WRONG.

While the 78th and 79th floors bore the brunt of the damage, one of the B-25's engines fell down an elevator shaft and set off a major fire in the basement. The other engine hurtled across the building and tore through seven walls before emerging from the 33rd Street side of the tower. The debris crashed through the roof of a thirteen-story building across the street where another fire erupted. Other heavy wreckage, including the landing gear, also caused damage to the Empire State and nearby buildings while Stan Lomax reportedly saw part of a wing catapulting towards Madison Avenue.

An engine snapped an elevator cable while at least one woman was riding in the elevator car. The emergency auto brake saved the woman from crashing to the bottom, but the engine fell down the shaft and landed on top of it. Quick-thinking rescuers pulled the woman from the elevator, saving her life.

So elevator cables damage, same happened at 9/11 although again many truthers would say that can't have happened.

Also can you imagine if we had the internet back then if people read this below.

The body of the Navy hitch-hiker Albert Perna was found two days after the crash at the bottom of an elevator shaft

How many conspiracies would be built around that fact.

More info HERE

Now this report is VERY interesting from NPR

Gloria Pall worked for the United Service Organization's headquarters on the 56th floor.
"I was at the file cabinet and all of a sudden the building felt like it was just going to topple over," Pall said. "It threw me across the room, and I landed against the wall. People were screaming and looking at each other. We didn't know what to do. We didn't know if it was a bomb or what happened.

So above we have a quote of a person who did not know it was an aircraft thinking it was a bomb now I am sure I have heard claims of bomb sounds from 9/11 the difference with the above NO interweb/facetube idiots to put a false slant on it

Nuclear weapons ALWAYS have heat, blast wave and EMP care to those to us.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

There is plenty of solid evidence for nuclear events at WTC that day. Jeff Prager's book America Nuked, along with the included FEMA photos discusses much of it. Small pieces are USGS surveys showing the products of nuclear fission like Thorium, Tritium, Uranium and others.

The presence of hot spots photographed from satellites overhead including AVIRIS. Those hot spots and nuclear decontamination protocols described by Matt Tartaglia, now deceased. By 2005 Tartaglia's teeth were falling out from radiation poisoning and he died.

The presence of molten iron in the lower levels, unable to be extinguished even by Pyrocool. That was the first time ever that Pyrocool failed to put out fires.

The strangely burnt automobiles and other vehicles in the area.

The data gathered by DELTA Group, showing boiling iron present.

Of course none of this was discussed by the mainstream media, for obvious reasons.