If Someone Proved one point Would Accept the rest?

a reply to: skyeagle409

I don't think Salander is just trying to blindly push the nuke theory to be a contentious 'truther', skyeagle409. They obviously have questions in their mind that this best fits to answer. Take a second to think if instead of just saying that it's debunked yet again, maybe you could help present the evidence in a more conversational manner to help them understand why you feel it's so thoroughly debunked.
Yes, I do see you posted quotes and links to this end, but interspersing them with accusations of intentionally spreading mistruth is severely lessen the change that they'll be read. If you truly believe in your side of the issue, which I don't doubt you do, it should be far more effective to discuss it rather than shout it.

a reply to: pfishy

In regards to the nuke story, let's take a look here.

WTC Nuke Hoax

The Duff - Khalezov kaput view of conspiracies

According to Dimitri Khalezov and Gordon Duff, 150 kTon thermonuclear "demolition devices" were installed beneath the Towers when they were built, the Nixon administration was in on it and managed to cover it up until Khalezov "exposed" it 35 years later, the choice of 150 kTon - which must have been settled before December 1972 when the North Tower was completed - was determined by the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty for which negotiations began in Moscow on October 7, 1974 and were concluded in April 1976 with the Treaty becoming legally enforceable on December 11, 1990, Rudy Giuliani and the New York authorities were tricked by the 9/11 perpetrators into detonating three 150 kTon thermonuclear devices in Manhattan in an attempt to prevent potential devastation to the City of New York from suspected nuclear warheads that might or might not have existed on crashed planes that in reality had been "faked" and were lying a quarter of a mile above two of those alleged 150 kTon devices, after a "missile" with a "nuclear" warhead was fired into the Pentagon...

www.takeourworldback.com...

Now, let's take a look at these photos of a crater created by a nuke that was of a smaller yield than those claimed by disinformation agents.

Photo 1: Nuke Bomb Crater

Photo 2: Nuke Bomb Crater

Photo 3: Nuke Bomb Crater

The fact that no such crater was created beneath the WTC buildings is a clear indication that the WTC nuke story is as ridicules as it gets.

a reply to: skyeagle409

No need to convince me, but rather than post several links with some commentary, talk the evidence out. Yes, your links do get your point across, but instead of just saying "look at this, it proves that wrong", try explaining the evidence in your own words. It both strengthens your standpoint in a debate, and carries a greater possibility that you might make something click for someone else.
But whatever you choose, don't lose your passion. If I could bottle that stuff and convert it into kinetic energy, you and Labtop could get me to Alpha Centauri and back.

a reply to: C46driver

And if they had they probably would be able to pull off a survivable landing by the use of automatics, as all planes used 9/11 were CATIIIB capable.

Not many people are aware that airliners can land themselves and that their altitudes and airspeed can be preset.

a reply to: pfishy

I was not thinking of removal of any EVIDENCE regarding a nuclear event, but rather removal or destruction of any REPORTS regarding that. IOW, the detection of signs of nuclear event may or may not have happened, but I wonder about the official, at higher levels, suppression or even destruction of any records about that.

Using Christy Wittman's actions regarding air quality as an example, why would she make a statement that the air was OK to breathe when her agency had not even tested the air yet? That is, were samples taken that showed poor air quality and she just ignored them or destroyed them, or was she so damn incompetent that such samples were never taken?

Pardon my cynicism, but I suspect the former. When DELTA Group set up its monitoring system, the results were astounding and made public.

So, did a similar process happen regarding nukes? Were some official readings suppressed? Will we ever know?

The presence of the Zadroga Bill in New York, talked about by Jon Stewart of all people, suggests that strange sicknesses, appearing to be radiation sickness, were present. The sheer force required to launch big pieces of steel hundreds of feet sideways, to bend those columns like pretzels, cannot have been provided by office fires and gravity. The strange damage to hundreds of vehicles cannot be explained by office fires.

a reply to: Salander

I misunderstood you then. I did think you were talking about physical removal of evidence, not suppression of it. But while I'd imagine that the government could easily tell any of it's agencies or state and local governments not to release information regarding radiation readings that conflict with the official narrative, what about regular citizens who could have detected the radiation for themselves? There's absolutely no shortage of people putting forth evidence for conventional explosives. Where are the people saying they detected radically higher radiation levels in the area. As I pointed out earlier, survey meters are not terribly rare. You can buy one yourself for about $500. Maybe even less these days. There's no license or permit required. I own one myself, actually.
Even without hard documentation, it makes no sense to me that there aren't a small army of people who detected much higher readings than the background norm in the New York and New Jersey areas after 9/11, if nukes had been used.

a reply to: Salander

I was not thinking of removal of any EVIDENCE regarding a nuclear event, but rather removal or destruction of any REPORTS regarding that. IOW, the detection of signs of nuclear event may or may not have happened, but I wonder about the official, at higher levels, suppression or even destruction of any records about that.

Considering that the WTC nuke story was a hoax in the first place, there was no need to look for signs of a nuclear detonation.

Debunking the WTC was Nuked Claim

* No nuclear flash generated during the collapse of the WTC buildings

* No nuclear fallout from the collapse of the WTC buildings

* No radiation at ground zero that can be attributed to a nuclear bomb

* No EMP, which is evident by the fact that computers, vehicles, and even video cameras continued to operate normally AS the WTC buildings collapsed.

* No shock wave attributed to a nuclear detonation

* No radioactive residue attributed to a nuclear detonation

* No evidence of a nuclear detonation in the rubble

* The fact that cleanup crews were not properly dressed to work in a nuclear-contaminated site, proves that there was no nuclear detonation in New York City.

* No seismic data generated for a nuclear explosion, much less from 3 nukes.

* No mushroom clouds generated from a nuclear explosion in New York City

* No evidence that the WTC steel was subject to temperatures anywhere near the melting point of steel much less explosed to temperatures of millions of degrees that's normally generated during a nuclear detonation.

The nuke theory was one of the most absurd claims to hit the Internet and yet, there are those who took the 'WTC was nuke' hoax and ran away with it.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Also, no evidence of radiation sickness or radiation poisoning among the population, and no evidence of the types of cancers associated with fallout exposure. Such as thyroid cancer, bone cancers, etc, beyond the normal rates.
Plenty of evidence of asbestosis, asbestos-related lung cancers, silicosis, etc. though. Plus the other conditions and toxicities that would be expected from inhalation of and exposure to finely pulverized construction materials and the combustion products of massive building fires.

Salander, I'm not trying to argue for either side of the issue, nor am I trying to insult you or diminish your credibility or contributions to the discussion. Nor am I trying to side with Skyeagle409, except where our points line up on this particular theory. But nuclear weapons have completely unmistakable hallmarks and byproducts. Even Neutron bombs, as I have seen discussed elsewhere as the possible culprit, are still atomic bombs. They are just designed to inflict massive amounts of radiation damage with a smaller overall explosion. But there's still a nuclear explosion. No matter the size or design of the weapon, there is simply no getting around the fact that there will be a nuclear detonation, and it will leave distinct and unmistakable signs and byproducts.

a reply to: pfishy

My guess is that the average citizen does not possess radiation detection devices in their home. I do not. That you do is commendable.

As for what happened on 911, as far as I'm concerned the average government worker, city state or federal employee, is an honest and truthful person. Of course we're dealing with humans and not angels, but most folks do their job in an honest manner.

If you are curious about this particular matter, you should acquaint yourself with the DELTA Group from California and one of their employees, Thomas Cahill. They took air samples at WTC, starting a week or 10 days after the actual event. EPA had taken no air samples, and its administrator told the public the air was OK, and she had not even tested the air.

Is that misfeasance or malfeasance of office?

a reply to: pfishy

Thank you so much for your statement. No sir, I do not take it personally. No two men agree on all things. The actual number may be as low as 3 or 4.



I do respect your style here at ATS. Very rare.

a reply to: Salander

Oh, I don't doubt whatsoever that the air was EXTREMELY unhealthy. Besides the fact that it is Manhattan, so the baseline is crap to start with, there were ridiculous amounts of hazardous particulates in the air after that.
As for me owning a survey meter, I used to do contract Radiation Safety Officer work for a few different places, so it was a necessity. I just never got rid of it afterwards. I don't just own it for no good reason. I even keep up with the twice-yearly calibrations, in case I ever decide to get back in the business.

a reply to: Salander

And thank you for the compliment.

I'll add this, too. In reference to the OP, if someone could prove to me that any sort of radiological weapon was employed in Manhattan on 9/11, I would certainly change my mind about a lot of things. Even a sub-critical weapon or a dirty bomb.

On a side note, I had the opportunity to visit Manhattan in early November of last year. The new Tower is absolutely breathtaking, and the Memorial made me weep like a baby. I haven't experienced something so powerful since I got to visit Omaha Beach in 94.

a reply to: pfishy

During the 80's I visited the towers several times, including dinner in Windows On The World. The place always gave me the creeps for some reason.

As for a really good piece, with pictures, on the nuclear issue at WTC, try to find Jeff Prager's ebook. The photos alone will give you the creeps. The narrative will help to understand how it is HIGHLY LIKELY that R&D in nuclear weapons has been making huge strides, as one would expect. Miniaturization of weapons, and different ignition and fuel properties are also covered.

The nuclear theory is the only complete one. The only one to explain ALL the observed damage and events.

a reply to: Salander

The nuclear theory is the only complete one. The only one to explain ALL the observed damage and events.

The WTC nuke story was a hoax and fabricated to discredit the Truth Movement. In fact, the nuke hoax was so ridicules that even Steven Jones didn't take the nuke hoax seriously and that is saying a lot. Check out.

Steven Jones on the WTC Nuke Hoax

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.)

www.takeourworldback.com...

Who has helped push the WTC nuke hoax? We can take a look here as well.

A promoter of the WTC "nuclear demolitions" was Gordon Duff. Now, let's take a look here because it seems that you are unaware of the rest of the story regarding Gordon Duff.

Gordon Duff of Veterans Today Admits To Writing 40% False Information

Gordon Duff of Veterans Today in his own words. He admits To Writing 40% False Information and that at least 30% of the information on Veterans Today is false as well.

______beforeitsnews/power-elite/2012/11/gordon-duff-of-veterans-today-admits-to-writing-40-false-information-2440410.html

And you posted that WTC nuke comment that was known to have been a hoax for years. The fact there were no blinding flashes nor explosions, or even the slightest hint of a sound of a nuclear detonation and the fact that there was no residue radiation from a nuke, no fallout, nor EMP nor even a huge crater or detection by seismic monitors in the area, should have told you that the WTC nuke story was a hoax.

a reply to: Salander

In the spirit of fair and informed debate, I will do just that. But could you possibly give me the name of the book you mentioned, as well. You said 'try and find it', which makes me think it isn't simple to get a copy of. So the more information I have for the search, the better my chances.
Though, to be fair, I will tell you that I'll be reading it through a skeptical eye, and I'm not promising I won't pick it apart thread by thread when I'm done.

a reply to: pfishy

The "book" is actually an ebook, and as far as I know, it is not available in paper form, which I don't like. Maybe it is by now. I read it several years ago on the computer, which is difficult for me--hard on the eyes etc.

Anyway, Jeff Prager is the author, the FEMA photos are amazing and the footnotes are copious. I think the actual title is something like "911: America Nuked" Though difficult, it is most informative regarding nuclear processes.

I know it can be found on Google.

a reply to: Salander

, Jeff Prager is the author, the FEMA photos are amazing and the footnotes are copious. I think the actual title is something like "911: America Nuked" Though difficult, it is most informative regarding nuclear processes.

Jeff Prager was caught lying and changing his story, which is no mystery considering that the WTC nuke story was determined to be a hoax in the first place.

Let's take a look at Jeff Prager.

VETERANS TODAY IS DISINFO & JEFF PRAGER

Veterans Today used to be a great source for information but over the last several years, they have really changed their position on 9/11 and now many suspect them of infiltration and deliberately spreading disinformation into the movement. Founder Gordon Duff and others like James Fetzer, Dmitri Khalezov, Donald Fox, and Jeff Prager are just a few editors at Veterans Today that strongly support that “Mini Nukes” brought down the towers after the “Holograms” hit them.

Veterans Today are strongly against the 2300+ Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and do not agree with the theory of controlled demolition theory via Nano Thermite and Explosives. Which has been scientifically proven and is the general consensus within the Truth Movement.

JEFF PRAGER

In 2011, Jeff Prager started promoting the underground nuke (Khalezov) theory. When that theory was refuted Prager jumped on board with the Duff, Fetzer and Fox and changed his theory to the mini-nukes. In his own words, Jeff Prager promotes the WTC No Plane theory and spreads hates towards Steven Jones and AE911, calling them “frauds”.

Gordon Duff (Senior Editor at VT) has publicly admitted that 40% of everything he publishes on Veterans Today is “patently false”. My question is how can people still consider VT to be a credible source when the founder himself admits to spreading false information? Ever since James Fetzer joined VT, it has gone to the #s and my new slogan for Veterans Today is “Mini Nukes and Jews”.

kendoc911.wordpress.com...

You should have done a background check on Jeff Prager before you decided to use him as a reference.

a reply to: Salander

Still trying to find a download that doesn't try to install Spyware with the link...