Nuke Cancer from 9/11 Revealed

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430


There were no passengers on the planes that hit the towers.

You're nuts if you honestly think that.

The only alternative to that is you don't believe that and are lying.

There is no third alternative.

Your opinion is meaningless, Ryan's opinion is informed because he worked in the business at Underwriters Laboratory for a number of years. His is an informed opinion with valuable information in it, your opinion is uninformed.

Lol.

You have zero ability to evaluate information sources.

I don't know why you think a water quality chemist would have an opinion on a structural engineering issue, but it just proves just how far down the conspiracy rabbit hole you've fallen.

a reply to: MrBig2430


I'm not really nuts. Neither you nor the government can prove that those flights were hijacked OR that those were the aircraft which struck the towers.

A person is nutz if they believe stories that cannot be proved, and that are told by known liars. If the shoe fits Mr. Big, you get to wear it.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I would sooner believe that a energy weapon fired from a satellite destroyed the towers before I believe a nuke did it. I watched the 2ed one fall. The radiation from a nuke no mater how small would still be there.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430


I'm not really nuts. Neither you nor the government can prove that those flights were hijacked OR that those were the aircraft which struck the towers.

A person is nutz if they believe stories that cannot be proved, and that are told by known liars. If the shoe fits Mr. Big, you get to wear it.

You choose to disregard logic, personal accounts, cell phone calls, radar evidence, missing airframes, physical evidence, cockpit transmissions, family lose, DNA evidence, missing persons, and why human piloted jets passing ground inspections would purposefully crash.

Time to state a more credible explanation than hijackings with supporting evidence.....

a reply to: andy06shake

Not detected because it DIDN'T happen a nuclear explosion results in HEAT, BLAST WAVE and EMP none of which happened.

originally posted by: Kester
a reply to: Oannes

Not forgetting the explosives built into the reinforced concrete infill panels. You can see the striations as they blow out in many of the photographs.

What reinforced concrete infill panels

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430

Neither you nor the government can prove that those flights were hijacked OR that those were the aircraft which struck the towers.

Ummmm, you made the positive statement that there were no passengers on the planes without any evidence AT ALL, let alone anything approaching proof. And it's all based on your personal distrust in anything gubmint.

Thats nuts.

A person is nutz if they believe stories that cannot be proved, and that are told by known liars. it.

Then that would be you on both counts, cuz you believe a wide range of garbage that can't be proven, or even have supporting evidence, told by known liars.

And you yourself have lied here on this forum when you first state the the piles were kept hot by something related to a nuke popping off but not radiation driven. The proof of that lie occurs when you say you are aware that heating from a nuke event comes from radiation.

If you can't hold yourself to any kind of standards then why would you require that from others?

a reply to: MrBig2430

What evidence is there that passengers were on the airplanes that struck the towers? The passport that Bernie Kerick miraculously found on the sidewalk? What evidence is there that the first tower was struck by AA11?

Government say so? Pardon me, but I'm very skeptical of "government say so".

After reading the Commission Report, Senator Mark Dayton in August 2004 called NORAD and the pentagon liars because the testimony they gave the commission was so conflicted and changed so many times.

Why should I believe what they say?


Why do YOU believe what they say?

a reply to: Salander

What proof have you offered to the contrary?

Have you discredited air traffic controllers that talked to some of the hijackers? Herd struggles over the radio. Radar and transponder data.

Persons receiving calls from the jets?

The local cops that recovered evidence and human remains?

The forensic sciences that conducted DNA matching.

The coroner's office that over saw the testing and released remains to families and death certificates.

What do you mean government? Local? City? County? State? Fire fighters? Police? State police? City hall? NIST? Air traffic controllers? Transportation safety board?

Then you have the insurance investigations?

A government you claimed murdered people in the towers pulled the passengers off the jets? Why?

a reply to: neutronflux


Your repetition of OCT talking points does not make them true. It simply highlights them as falsehoods, and makes you appear to have some sort of diarrhea of the mouth and total absence of analytical thought.

In 2001 cell phone technology did not allow the phone calls you refer to. They were staged for the benefit of the gullible, of people who did not understand the cell system.

All the DNA stuff at the pentagon and Pennsylvania were done by the pentagon, the same folks who brought us The Pentagon Papers, which revealed just how mendacious they can be there in the swamp.

You are certainly entitled to your illusions as told by propagandists, but I'll pass on that.

a reply to: Salander

It's has been discussed.

I have quoted experts in threads you were part of that cell towers could receive calls from jets in 2001. Find the quotes and post your rebuttals. Or post rebuttals to those quotes now.


The WTC DNA tests were conducted by the pentagon? Testing that found remains from flight 11 and Flight 175. Where many of the hijacker remains have been identified by DNA testing.

The coroners responsible for the releasing of the death certificates of those that died at the pentagon are still responsible for oversight of the DNA testing. And you have never answered what remains were released to the surviving family members of the passengers and crew of flight 77.

What government is lying. The persons that were civilians that took the cell phone calls?

Civilians in scores that attest to a large passenger jet hitting the pentagon.

The local government and first responders? City cops, pentagon cops, local firefighters? County government, the coroner's department, forensic teams, the sheriffs departments. State troopers, state trooper explosives experts, and state trooper bomb squads.

The insurance companies that conducted WTC and 9/11 investigations. Insurance companies VS WTC 7 owners.

Airport staff? The network of air traffic controllers that talked with hijackers and heard by radio cockpit struggles.

Explain how DNA, human remains, and personal effects from the crews and passengers ended up at all corresponding crash sites.


FYI, passport that survived passenger jet hit with missile....

www.dailymail.co.uk... s-personal-possessions-NINE-MONTHS-jet-blown-sky.html
EXCLUSIVE: Why are Flight MH17 victims' personal possessions STILL lying at crash site? Families' fury as charred passport is among items found nine months after jet was blown from the sky

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

If they were really impossible, you would not be so concerned.

The nuclear theory is the only one that explains all the damage caused and observed, including air samples and USGS findings.

I love the contradictions.....

When asked why the towers didn't blow out before or during collapse initiation, no audible explosion, no evidence of radiation or contamination, and no evidence of radiation poisoning and burns, the response?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: wmd_2008

I can easily remember that in US Army training in the 60's, the US Army was in possession of "tactical nukes" such as Davey Crockett. I know that a "suitcase nuke" was shown to members of congress way back when, including Barry Goldwater.

You can pretend all you wish that such things did not exist, but I know better. By 2001, one can only imagine what kind of progress has been made in tactical nuclear devices.

So the WTC collapse only looks like a super secret imagined nuclear bomb explosion that does no create an audible sound picked up by audio of video recordings, not heard by crowds, no detectable EMP, no over pressure event, no detectable radiation, no detectable contamination, and by a core too small to physically reach critical mass to create a nuclear explosion from the process of fission?

And radiation bellow background still caused record cancer rates years later? Nothing to do with toxic dust?

a reply to: Salander

By salander
www.abovetopsecret.com...


USGS did gather some samples in 35 different locations within 1km radius of WTC, and some of those samples showed Thorium at 6 times the lowest levels detected, so there is a case for some sort of nuclear event.

Six times lower than detectable?

By Salander

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The reason USGS found high rates of thorium and other by products of nuclear fission is because nuclear fission had taken place there.

Would you like to talk about thorium and how you think it is a signature of a nuclear bomb? Is it too little or too much?

I don't see thorium as a fission product?

en.m.wikipedia.org...

More narratives by you based on false information.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430

What evidence is there that passengers were on the airplanes that struck the towers?

Ummm whoa there turbo. You made the statement that there were no passengers. Don't flip the script now let's see your evidence of that.

Naaah. We all know you don't have any except for your go to "out" - that everything the goobermint says is a lie.

Rational people wouldn't call that very convincing, but hey, you do you....

The passport that Bernie Kerick miraculously found on the sidewalk?

Oh my goodness. Such a silly boy you are.

What evidence is there that the first tower was struck by AA11?

The evidence is out there. You list it and tell us all why it's fake.

Government say so? Pardon me, but I'm very skeptical of "government say so".

Yes,we know.

After reading the Commission Report, Senator Mark Dayton in August 2004 called NORAD and the pentagon liars because the testimony they gave the commission was so conflicted and changed so many times.

Yep, they shoulda been fired.

But again, politics.

Why should I believe what they say?

You shouldn't until you do some research. It's pretty obvious you haven't.

Why do YOU believe what they say?

Cuz I've done my own research, found what they say mostly feasible, found truther challenges to the guv evidence severely lacking, and truthers alternative explanations - like nukes and switched planes and no planes - to be laughable and a source of entertainment, all while being an interesting insight into mental illness on the internet.

a reply to: MrBig2430


Thank you for the demonstration of failure to prove any passengers were onboard whatever it was that struck both the north tower and the south tower.

Remember the old saying, one cannot prove a negative.

You are attempting to defend the claim that passengers were onboard those aircraft. You cannot prove your claim, and neither can the government. The claim fails until somebody can prove it.

a reply to: Salander

Thank you for the demonstration of failure to prove any passengers were onboard whatever it was that struck both the north tower and the south tower. Remember the old saying, one cannot prove a negative.

saying the plane was empty and proving it isn't trying to prove a negative.

You made the claim there were no passengers so prove it or at least give reasonable hypothesis that isn't "you cant trust the GubMent"

You are attempting to defend the claim that passengers were onboard those aircraft.

No,

no one is trying to do that.

You said there ware no passengers on the planes, remember?

You said posters need to prove there were passengers.

Its not proof, but its mountains more evidence than you will conjure up

A passenger plane is built for what, to transports what?

Passengers.

There is evidence that there were passengers on the plane.

Do you have any logic that is as simple that points to passenger planes don't carry passengers?

You cannot prove your claim, and neither can the government. The claim fails until somebody can prove it.

No one in this thread made that claim.

So the government needs to prove that passengers fly on passenger planes because delusional paranoid idiots on the internet cant grasp this fact.

Yes its such ludicrous claim that people fly on passenger planes designed to fly passengers.

Insanity, Ludicrous.

Passengers flying on passenger planes

Who would have thought of such nonsense

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430

Remember the old saying, one cannot prove a negative

And yet, you're claiming a negative - that there weren't any passengers - as a fact.

Bet you don't see the irony there cuz you just shot yourself in the head.

The planes and passengers stand as the truth until you can provide contrary evidence. Your personal distrust of the guv is irrelevant cuz it isn't rational. Your standard of proof is nonsensical.

I'm willing to bet that you don't even know what it would take to convince yourself that you're wrong, do you?

a reply to: InhaleExhale


I must admit to being a little surprised at how desperate some americans are when it comes to the rules of logic in such a discussion.

Saying the plane was carrying passengers and not being able to prove it is simply a claim. You cannot prove your claim, and neither has the government proved it.

Indeed, from the very beginning the story was compromised when the passenger list released to the public did not contain the names of the "hijackers", making them fictional. The lists had to be "amended" to include those names just as so much of the pentagon testimony in front of the 911 Commission had to be "amended" that Senator Mark Dayton referred to NORAD as a bunch of liars. Easy to understand, the proof is in the pudding.

The rules of civil discourse say that if someone claims that American 11 had 81 passengers, 9 flight attendants and 2 pilots, that person, government or individual, must be able to prove it. In this case it has not been proved. Exactly which airplane it has not be proved, as nobody has been allowed to inspect and verify exactly which airframe was involved.

Apologies, but I'm skeptical of such claims. If the evidence cannot be examined, who is to say it's not all made up?

Hint: it is all made up.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: InhaleExhale


I must admit to being a little surprised at how desperate some americans are when it comes to the rules of logic in such a discussion.

Saying the plane was carrying passengers and not being able to prove it is simply a claim. You cannot prove your claim, and neither has the government proved it.

[snip]

The rules of civil discourse say that if someone claims that American 11 had 81 passengers, 9 flight attendants and 2 pilots, that person, government or individual, must be able to prove it. In this case it has not been proved. Exactly which airplane it has not be proved, as nobody has been allowed to inspect and verify exactly which airframe was involved.

Since this isn't one of your positive claims about a conspiracy, I'm going to address it.

What you are unaware of here is the principle of prima facie - that is, that something is accepted as correct at first encounter.

This isn't some kind of legalistic licence for irresponsibility, because it is every bit as logical as more complex logical principles.

One of the big underpinnings of logical thought is that of continuity. That is, things will remain the same unless something happens to change them. We all rely on this a million times every day.

You don't go out for the day, and expect to come back to find that all your furniture has been rearranged, because that would be crazy. On the other hand, if you did come back and find that your furniture had been rearranged, you could confidently deduce that someone else had entered your home while you were absent.

Similarly with the passenger lists for the 9/11 flights. These people boarded aeroplanes at given times, their names appear on manifests of those flights, some of them called relatives during the flights (so the relatives are confident that they spoke to their own flesh and blood), these people all disappeared on the day of the WTC attacks, along with the aircraft they are recorded as having boarded, and some of them were later identified by DNA evidence from the four crime scenes.

Prima facie, these people were killed when their flights were hijacked, and died during the subsequent impacts on the various locations involved on 9/11.

The onus isn't on anyone to prove this (although lots of it has been proved); the onus is on anyone claiming that the above is not true to prove that it is not true. This is not an impossibility, no-one is being asked to prove a negative - they are being asked to disprove a positive.

How you go about that is your own prerogative, and no-one is stopping you. So go ahead.