New 911 Evidence Solves Unanswered Questions

originally posted by: szino9
a reply to: Willtell

There have been thousands of deaths related to the after effects of 911

yes, and I have a quote in my comment about the possible reasons...

How do we know those deaths aren’t a form of nuclear fallout

sickness from nuclear radiation exposure? I dunno man but I don't think that would have been possible to keep under lid. No way...

I can't find the clip, but there was testimony from one popular 911 witness who was a janitor in one of the twin towers, and the clip shows him making the argument that a bomb went off maybe 10 seconds before the first plane hit, followed by people coming up from the basement with their skin hanging off their bodies, exactly like what the victims of the Japan nuclear bombings experienced.

originally posted by: Salander
Yes, the strangely burned vehicles present a major problem for the NIST explanation. Hell, everything presents problems for the NIST explanation.

I knew there were hundreds of strangely burned vehicles, but not 1400. No surprise.

The nuclear theory is the only theory that solves all the problems, that accounts for all the damage seen, including that on FEMA photos.

911 First Responders have suffered sicknesses consistent with exposure to radiation. Jon Stewart talked about that on his show on Comedy Central. The Zadroga Bill attempted to address those statistically irregular sicknesses.

1400 was the number provide by Judy Wood. Although I don't like her arguments, she was the first to point out the dustification phenomenon to me so I respect her for that.

And a reply to: DebtSlave

Again, from the video, audio, and seismic data provide evidence of a blast with the force to cut steel.

How would the guy know when the jet hit the tower to realized two different events.

a reply to: DebtSlave

One, there is no dustification. There is no missing mass from the WTC. There was no abnormal dust produced. Even when compared to a collapse of a build after earthquakes.

And you still need to get past this..
Radio fallout would have attacked lungs and made people critically sick within fours. It would have caused contamination tracked to hospitals. It would be a super heated causing skin burns. It would be inidated with blast shrapnel that would have caused shotgun like injuries, or worse.

And more arguments based on ignorance

a reply to: DebtSlave

This was due to the radiation / fallout:

So why was no radiation detected ???

The New York City Department of Health sent a health physicist to the scene - arriving shortly before the first tower collapse

Equipped with sensitive radiation detection instruments found nothing

The FDNY HAZ MAT unit found nothing

Monitoring teams from State and federal agencies found nothing

Yet you claim the radiation and fallout were all over the area

a reply to: neutronflux

You obviously didn't watch any of the videos, for every one of your questions has been answered in them. The guy is a nuclear physicist.

Here are your EMP blasts distorting the cameras: youtu.be...

originally posted by: szino9
a reply to: DebtSlave

Forgive my ignorance as I have no time to watch the videos you provided, but if we talking about a nuclear fallout shouldn't be a lot of people sick or dead by know from the fallout? I am aware many people got cancer but that was due to other things.

There are people who refused to move away when the Chernobyl disaster happened even though it was illegal to stay.
Amazingly they have outlived the ones that moved!!

400 times more radiation that the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

a reply to: firerescue

If you aren't going to watch the videos, then there is nothing I can do for you. Your questions have already been answered.

a reply to: neutronflux

There were three "pools" of radiation underneath WTC 1, 2, and 7. It burnt down to the bedrock. There are picture of the radiation illuminating from the ruble. That's enough evidence for me.

a reply to: neutronflux

Maybe "radio active fallout" wasn't the proper term. There was indeed radioactivity within the dust clouds, so perhaps "radio active cloud" would have been a more proper term.

a reply to: neutronflux

This guy explains how the nuclear device under the towers showed up on the Richter Scale the same magnitude as a mini nuke...



For your second question:

youtu.be...

Watch a few minutes and you will hear him start talking about the victims with hanging skin.

a reply to: neutronflux

2/3 of the buildings were dustified.

a reply to: firerescue

I provided you with the video evidence. Physics does not lie, people do! The cameras all messed up when the radioactive cloud hit them. Your sources are liars!

originally posted by: DebtSlave
a reply to: neutronflux

There were three "pools" of radiation underneath WTC 1, 2, and 7. It burnt down to the bedrock. There are picture of the radiation illuminating from the ruble. That's enough evidence for me.

How do you have pools of radiation? You have a source that emits radiation through nuclear reactions. The WTC would be more radioactive than Chernobyl or Fukushima to burn to bedrock. People would have died in mass on 9/11 from radiation poisoning. People working the WTC pile would have died within hours arriving at the work sites. How do mini nuke bombs contain that much energy. The WTC foundation was dug down to and built on bedrock, nothing had to burn down to bedrock.

Any more ridiculous claims. And you still need to answer to...

And you still need to get past this..
Radioactive fallout would have attacked lungs and made people critically sick within fours. It would have caused contamination tracked to hospitals. It would be a super heated causing skin burns. It would be inidated with blast shrapnel that would have caused shotgun like injuries, or worse.

The seismic thing?

The historical seismic activity shows a building collapse is expected to transmit Rayleigh waves.

Rayleigh waves would change in amplitude as items with different masses with different kinetic energy hit the ground.

“Underground explosions would have produced strong P waves” which are not present in the WTC seismic data.

I have produced evidence a building not properly prepared for an implosion by explosives would eject shrapnel. Shrapnel that would have sprayed bystanders, the street, and adjacent buildings. There is no evidence of shrapnel being ejected while the towers under went inward bowing of columns resulting in buckling leading to collapse.

The 1993 WTC bombing of 1000 pounds of explosives blow out at least one wall and caused substantial structural damage, but did not cause detectable siesmic activity 15 kilometers at a former seismic station. But you claimed LEDO recorded seismic activity from detonations at the WTC 31 kilometers away, but there is no audio or video evidence of detonations powerful enough to cut steel columns from footage of the collapse of the WTC towers? No evidence of ejected shrapnel during the buckling of the vertical columns?

To remain relevant, the biggest pusher of controlled demolition, Architects and Engineers, abandoned the narrative of kinetic detentions brought down the towers in favor of thermal cuttting devices?

You cite a seismic narrative debunked, abandoned by the biggest group pushing WTC CD, and ridiculed by other conspiracists.

There is no seismic evidence of conventional implosions at the WTC. Get over it.

a reply to: DebtSlave

The amount of truck loads of whole concrete pieces and steel removed from the WTC proved 660,000 tons of WTC was not dustification.

a reply to: DebtSlave

That "radiation" was radiant heat from the flammable materials down below. Not from a nuclear explosion.

FFS, when a nuke goes off, you'll know it, so will all the dead folk from the heat flash, concussion wave, and the fatal radiation.

The casualty figures would have been, at minimum, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. This was Manhattan, during the work week, in the morning after the morning commute.

...and, if it was a nuke, why did the building collapse from the top down, and not bottom up??

a reply to: seagull

...and, if it was a nuke, why did the building collapse from the top down, and not bottom up??

Well if you are going to nitpick . . . .

Lets see here :
The building was 208 feet per side.
If you placed the nuke dead center at the impact floors 104 feet from glass . . .
You hit the switch . . .
Wouldn't you expect any nuke to blow out windows 100 feet from detonation ?????
Why have a nuke if it can't bust windows ?

a reply to: samkent

Sorry. I'll try hysterics next...