The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

a reply to: Bernardo1871

Again

Funny, a site where buildings that turned to dust required heavy equipment loading rubble into around 400 dump trucks a day for three months to clean up. Rubble that was taken to fresh kills for examination. With videos and photos of steel everywhere. Something like over 1,400,000 tons of rubble was removed.

How were something like ten other buildings destroyed, or damage beyond economic repair by falling rubble. With no indication of damage from the ground up.

Funny that the steel and floor connections were examined?

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
app.aws.org...

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
app.aws.org...

If large steel columns were “evaporated” how was any of the less massive floor trusses and floor connections left without any signs of being dustified?

Why does your “theories” require blatant falsehoods, and the blatant disregard for the video, audio, seismic, metallurgical evidence?

Are you saying the other buildings at the WTC were destroyed because of an underground nuclear detonation when the damage was from falling rubble? And the slurry walls/bathtub around the twin towers was left intact and not breached?


You said something about an EMP? So what exact time was the nukes detonated on 9/11? From EMP evidence?

originally posted by: Bernardo1871
a reply to: InhaleExhale

as i already said, it's no use to argue with people who deny the nuclear attack.
how do you expect to accept that the spire of what was left of the north tower was the consequence of molecularly dissociation which turned both wtc 1 and wtc 2 into dust, lefting only residual structures, which collapsed seconds after the end of the main collapse.

that's stupid: you ask explanation for something about which, whatever i say, you will not believe it.

as if i asked you to explain how the earth was flat, but whatever you say i'll righfully keep believing that the earth planet is nothing else but a freakin' donuts! :-)

So I take it you cannot answer simple questions and will keep replying with nonsense posts like this?


flat earth?

What other nonsense can you bring up to avoid points you brought up?

a reply to: Bernardo1871

it's not the person who uploaded that video of dustification that 'tought' or 'spoon fed' me with the nuclear truth.

For the who knows how many times....


The spire is not turning into dust in that video, why do think it is?

Is it because you are told and it looks like what you are told?

i understand that you use what you call, miscall an error, ie the video of dustification, as an excuse not to look at the hot spots. i understand, you feed your cognitive dissonance with whatever can be used! :-)

Why even bring it up if you keep dodging questions and wont discuss it?

You talk about dustification and how Nukes did this and that and the one video where you show "steel turning to dust" you wont talk about.



Do you know that what you are pushing is false and are doing so for a reason, financial gain or some other benefit or are you simply just that clueless and don't want actual knowledge but simply push a narrative you believe in to feed your ego?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Bernardo1871


Yes, that the authorities invoked the term Ground Zero was a sort of Freudian Slip, dropping a clue to the clueless.

It shows how cocky the perps are.

You think that is the only meaning underlined & bold so it might sink in

ground zero
noun
noun: ground zero

1.
the point on the earth's surface directly above or below an exploding nuclear bomb.
the site of the World Trade Center in New York, destroyed by terrorists on 11 September 2001.
singular proper noun: Ground Zero; noun: Ground Zero; plural noun: Ground Zeros
a site of devastation, disaster, or violent attack.
"the pictures from Indonesia's ground zero are beyond description"
2.
a starting point or base for an activity.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Bernardo1871

ALLBAUGH: Well, you have normal debris, you know, computers, paper, you have some areas that are hot pockets because of fuel. It’s just too hot for rescuers to get into those areas. So we do not know yet what’s in those areas, other than very hot, molten material.

The quote is they don’t yet know. Now the rubble is all cleaned up, would you like to give an update.

And again. If the decay of fission products was keeping the 1,000,000 tons of rubble at 1,000 F, people would have died within minutes of arraving at the pile.

Your ignorance, or willing to post blatant falsehoods is horrifying.

Funny how so many of the fire fighters died of cancer.

9/11 firefighters ARE getting cancer at a faster rate than others, chief medical officer reveals

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Over 350 firefighters have now died from radiation poisoning. Have you heard of the Soviet nuclear intelligence officer Dimitri Khalezov

Soviet nuclear intelligence officer Dimitri Khalezov

Do you have any idea how long it took them to put out the molten pools in the sub levels.

Why are so many ill and dying if it was just a normal demoliton.

CNN - 70% of WTC first responders are ill

2,500 Ground Zero workers have cancer

nypost.com...



Wakey wakey

a reply to: purplemer


Even the Zadroga Bill excluded cancers, suggesting a cover-up.

TPTB are doing their best to keep the cancer angle under the rug, but it is fairly well exposed. I saw NBC cover it a month ago, but they never try to play detective, they never ask "why" the young first responders have cancers like the survivors of Hiroshima and Chernobyl.

The cat is out of the bag.

a reply to: purplemer

Let’s start with this
You

Over 350 firefighters have now died from radiation poisoning

The above is a totally false argument.

Definition of radiation poisoning

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Acute radiation syndrome (ARS) is a collection of health effects that are present within 24 hours of exposure to high doses of ionizing radiation. It is also called radiation poisoning, radiation sickness and radiation toxicity.

Please specifically state cancers that can only be caused by radiation exposure?

The cancers from ground zero are from chemicals exposures.

a reply to: purplemer

You

Do you have any idea how long it took them to put out the molten pools in the sub levels.

Molten pools of what? Lead with a melting point under 650? Again, spraying water onto molten steal causes violent steam eruptions. Please state known cases of violent steam eruptions from molten steel being hit with jets of water.

Again, a mini nuke that is the size of a large suitcase is not going to keep over 1,000,000 tons of rubble hot for three months. It would take the amount and nuclear fuel concentration found in the Fukushima reactor by fission of a nuclear fuel. People would have literally turn violently ill and died working the pile in hours.

The spread thin fission products from a nuclear bomb detonation undergoing radioactive decay would not have the energy and concentration to heat the 1,000,000 tons of rubble period.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: purplemer


Even the Zadroga Bill excluded cancers, suggesting a cover-up.

TPTB are doing their best to keep the cancer angle under the rug, but it is fairly well exposed. I saw NBC cover it a month ago, but they never try to play detective, they never ask "why" the young first responders have cancers like the survivors of Hiroshima and Chernobyl.

The cat is out of the bag.

Again, please state which cancers can only be caused be radiation?

Any more false arguments by you.

a reply to: purplemer

Wakey wakey

To the fact your totally ignorant and biased.

That you shamelessly parade victims of cancer around to create a totally false narrative with absolutely zero evidence and zero science to support a nuclear device was detonated at the WTC.

a reply to: purplemer

www.mpffu.org...

Thyroid Cancer in Las Vegas Firefighters; Are We the Only Ones?
Sherri A. Wilcox
Las Vegas Fire and Rescue, Las Vegas, Nevada

Other tests have provided solid foundation evidence that there are certain chemical exposures which can increase the apparent risk of thyroid cancer (Lope, et al, 2009). Even the most widely accepted medical treatments for some other cancers have now been shown to increase the risk of developing thyroid cancer as a subsequent primary disease (Curtis, et al., 2006). For Las Vegas Fire and Rescue, this project highlighted the need for further study into the potential causes of thyroid cancer, both for itself and for other fire departments and citizens as well. As of this writing, LVFR has nine personnel who do not have a familial thyroid cancer history, have not been excessively exposed to any known source of ionizing radiation, were not previously treated with radiation therapies, have not been exposed to any of the other known chemicals which might increase their risk, and yet all present with the same papillary form of thyroid cancer. There is currently no documentation available which would indicate whether this cancer incidence is particular to Las Vegas’

You do understand that firefighters are at greater risk for developing cancers than the general population. Maybe you would like to discuss the cancer rates of WTC firefighters vs other firefighters?

And what cancers from the World Trade Center are only caused by radiation?

Thyroid Cancer Rates Are Skyrocketing From Flame Retardants
articles.mercola.com...

a reply to: Salander

Again, what cancers among the WTC first responders are solely caused by radiation?

New study links firefighters, increased risk for cancer

abcnews4.com...

Captain Gadson was diagnosed with thyroid cancer earlier this year. A new, more expensive physical that included ultrasound caught it early.

"If [North Charleston Fire Chief Greg Bulanow] hadn't come in and done this, then my detection would have gone unnoticed unless I personally asked for an ultrasound to be done," said Captain Gadson.

It opened the department's eyes.

"We didn't know what to expect the first time we did such an in depth physical like that," said Chief Bulanow.

What they found was 25 of 230 firefighters tested -- nearly one-fifth -- had nodules on their thyroids. Not all were cancer, but the chief's was.

"Certainly I want to be here to take care of my family and also do my job, but I consider myself very fortunate to have found it early," said Chief Bulanow.

Both the Chief and Captain Gadson have been fighting fires for more than 20 years. They believe those fires are even more deadly now. They're fueled not just by wood, but by plastics.

"Now it's primarily synthetic materials that burn hotter and produce very toxic smoke," said Chief Bulanow.

"It used to be a badge of honor to always have that dirty gear, that tarred up helmet and that dirty mask," said Captain Gadson. "That's the way it was. Now I know better."

It's a strange sight in the department, but a huge, $7,000 washing machine now sits in the fire house off Dorchester Road. Firefighters are not only encouraged to shower, but their gear is cleaned. The chief is even working on getting two sets of gear for every firefighter.

"This is a significant investment in the health and welfare of our people," said Chief Bulanow.

It's an investment the chief and others hope will pay off for generations to come.

How Modern Furniture Endangers Firefighters
www.theatlantic.com...

In 2012, Shaw had paramedics draw the blood of 12 firefighters after they responded to a fire. Their samples contained three times the level of flame retardants as the general population. Their blood levels of perfluorinated chemicals, which are used as non-stick coatings, were twice as high as those of the World Trade Center first responders.

a reply to: Salander

glad to see that some others conspiracy nuts (no offense, it's ironic) have been able to cross the nuclear rubicon regarding the 9/11 false flag attacks!

now that Nuked York City is a solved, it remains the question of the planes at Nuked York City and at the Pentagon. if only the FBI did not confiscate the videos around the Pentagon!

a reply to: wmd_2008

obviously, the second entry has been added only after 9/11. quite the obvious here, isn't it?

so, what actually matters is the meaning of 'Ground Zero' from August 6, 1945 (!) to September 10, 2001.

September 10, the day before the nuclear attack in New York City, which has become Nuked York City..

a reply to: Bernardo1871

obviously, the second entry has been added only after 9/11. quite the obvious here, isn't it?

NO


to post what you just have along with numerous things you have posted only one thing is obvious

I will readers be the judge of that.

a reply to: Bernardo1871

And still not answers to

Again

Funny, a site where buildings that turned to dust required heavy equipment loading rubble into around 400 dump trucks a day for three months to clean up. Rubble that was taken to fresh kills for examination. With videos and photos of steel everywhere. Something like over 1,400,000 tons of rubble was removed.

How were something like ten other buildings destroyed, or damage beyond economic repair by falling rubble. With no indication of damage from the ground up.

Funny that the steel and floor connections were examined?



Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
app.aws.org...

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
app.aws.org...


If large steel columns were “evaporated” how was any of the less massive floor trusses and floor connections left without any signs of being dustified?

Why does your “theories” require blatant falsehoods, and the blatant disregard for the video, audio, seismic, metallurgical evidence?

Are you saying the other buildings at the WTC were destroyed because of an underground nuclear detonation when the damage was from falling rubble? And the slurry walls/bathtub around the twin towers was left intact and not breached?


You said something about an EMP? So what exact time was the nukes detonated on 9/11? From EMP evidence?

a reply to: InhaleExhale

how could the second meaning of 'ground zero' have existed before 9/11 false flag?

it iss the us government which decided to name 'ground zero' the area where the towers were turned to dust.

do you dare to claim that, on september 10, 2001, the before september 11, 2001, ground zero meant anything else that 'the point on the earth's surface directly above or below an exploding nuclear bomb'?

do you dare, dummy-slave? do you?

a reply to: neutronflux

you are a flooder, besides a denier. what would be stupid is to keep answering to you. die with your false belief. too bad for you that you will never admit to be wrong! you can't now, not anymore, too late! :-)

stick with JET FUEL CANT MELT STEEL BEAMS.

a reply to: Bernardo1871

how could the second meaning of 'ground zero' have existed before 9/11 false flag?

time traveling aliens of coarse.

Jeez

don't you know anything.


You sound like a very nice person asking random people on the internet to die because the don't share your delusions.

die with your false belief.

you must be really sick in the head.

stick with JET FUEL CANT MELT STEEL BEAMS.

seeing as its only you that is mentioning this your advice is taken in good nature

a reply to: Bernardo1871

In terms of nuclear explosions and other large bombs, the term "ground zero" (also known as "surface zero"[1]) describes the point on the Earth's surface closest to a detonation.[2] In the case of an explosion above the ground, ground zero refers to the point on the ground directly below the nuclear detonation and is sometimes called the hypocenter (from Greek ὑπο- "under-" and center).

Generally, the term "ground zero" is also used in relation to earthquakes, epidemics, and other disasters to mark the point of the most severe damage or destruction.

As you can see the term is used for an ABOVE ground explosion or the centre of a disaster.

The bulk of the dust you see on 9/11 vidoes is the building materials which could turn to dust.

Sparayed on fire protection
Thousands of m2 of sheetrock
Paint
Glass
Paper
Plastic

If there had been a Nuclear blast where was the heat wave

The "Little Boy"that exploded in Hiroshima had a huge damaging effect. The temperature of this fission reaction was about 300,000 kelvin at the center and about 6000 kelvin on the ground below.

The detonation happened at an altitude of 1,968 ± 50 feet (600 ± 15 m)

300000 k is 299726 c So if a detinantion below ground happened IN New York where is the crater

Even 2000 feet below detination point temp was 6000 k or about 5726 c

Do you really think people in New York would have survived those temperatures.

No Blast wave or EMP so NO NUCLEAR explosion.