Federal Grand Jury To Hear Evidence - World Trade Center 9-11 Was Controlled Demolition.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: mrthumpy

They are not magical, though to those who can not understand it may seem like magic.

2 identical collapsing towers cannot produce the forces as recorded and as I explained.

OK, the special properties of the nuclear devices hidden below every tall high rise building to comply with top secret building regulations

Speaking of which, if they didn't use the nukes to demolish the buildings - what happened to them?

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

That's a statement of opinion.

As evidenced in this thread, it is a misinformed opinion.

The evidence stands.

I don’t think the cited source below is opinion. The below quote is verified fact.

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

www.skeptic.com...

The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

How does the above fact support your nuke fantasy? Hint, it doesn’t. It debunks the nuke theory, and shows the nuke theory is based on false narratives.

Do you have any other false narratives, or intellectually false arguments?

a reply to: neutronflux

How does that contradict it?
Elaborate, please. I never spoke about free fall speeds. Only you did in a formulaic anti truther, pre-written reply chain.

I talked about explosive underground seismic signatures being recorded prior to the collapse and other registered events in the seismic data.

That and how there are now hundreds of thousands of people with cancer and thyroid illness as would be expected in a low exposure nuclear event.

You have shown your disapproval of the subject matter and blind refusal to even see the evidence offered.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

How does that contradict it?
Elaborate please. I never spoke about free fall speeds. Only you did in a formulaic anti truther, pre written reply chain.

I talked about explosive underground seismic signatures being recorded prior to the collapse and other registered events in the seismic data.

That and how there are now hundreds of thousands of people with cancer and thyroid illness as would be expected in a low exposure nuclear event.

If a nuke detonated at the base of the twin towers, how did the structure offer resistance. And how did a nuke in the bedrock start a collapse 80 or 90 stories above the ground.

Because the carcinogenic chemicals in the WTC dust and smoke.

Again, just for you.

14 Years Later, Here's What We Know About 9/11 and Cancer

www.citylab.com...

After the Twin Towers fell, a layer of dust and debris coated Manhattan. Hidden among that cloudy air, inhaled by survivors and first responders alike, were carcinogenic particles and chemicals—asbestos, fiberglass, mercury, and benzene, among others. The Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that 300 to 400 tons of asbestos fibers were used to construct the World Trade Center.

Do you have a medical study that proves otherwise?

Flame retardants and increased risk of thyroid cancer
www.nature.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

I already cited the medical professional who's testimony was used in the official report.

A link to the study he conducted over many years after the event, while still working with the WTC health organization, is available in the link offered. Again, please read it before asking endless, already answered questions.

As far as the technical details of nuclear demolitions, that would be in the first link offered with an analysis by a nuclear weapons specialist.

It's too late to rewrite 13 pages of information that was already patiently supplied.

Especially if only to argue endlessly. You don't agree. Got it. I suspect that you're not trying to hear me out.

Edit to add:
A mod butchered this thread so it was removed when I said that I did already even quote the S and P wave characteristics of WTC 2 as outlined in an analysis offered.

Did you ever reply to that one post or go to the link? You did spam this thread asking the same already answered questions about S and P waves. As an example.

And that really just motivates me. Fair is fair or its not.

a reply to: tadaman

Again, do you have an actual medical study that concludes WTC cancer From radiation vs “carcinogenic particles and chemicals—asbestos, fiberglass, mercury, and benzene, among others”

How high would the radiation levels have to be to be a be a bigger contributor to the WTC cancer rates than all the “carcinogenic particles and chemicals—asbestos, fiberglass, mercury, and benzene, among others” at the WTC. You cannot even say the cancer rates were solely from radiation if there was proof there was radiation above background.

The annual dose for a radiation worker is around 5 rem.

a reply to: neutronflux

You asked if there was any evidence of radiation.

I cited the study made by the very medical professional who oversees 911 victims and reports to the federal government as a specialist /advisor and stated his conclusion that the levels of thyroid gland failure and cancer were nearly at Chernobyl levels in 911 victims.

There was your evidence of radiation exposure. Stop moving the goal posts.

More details could be added, but that's enough to show everyone what is in the information offered and allow you to decide if you want to read more or not.

You can disagree with the study, but you have yet to provide your own or another to disprove that simple truth.

The alternative explanation for this glaring anomaly that you offer of fire retardant materials and dust being the cause is not correlated in other mass tragedy events nor is it applicable to most of the 500,000 people affected who had no exposure to any of that.

a reply to: tadaman

I cited the study made by the very medical professional who oversees 911

Is not proof of actual radiation at the pile.

What study, do you mean opinion? Who peered reviewed the paper to complete the person’s opinion?

a reply to: neutronflux

www.newsweek.com...

FALLOUT FROM 9/11 ATTACKS ON PAR WITH FUKUSHIMA AND CHERNOBYL, RESEARCHER SAYS


With the exception of Chernobyl and Bhopal, the 9/11 attacks have affected the greatest number of people, with as many as 400,000 at risk for cancer, diseases, and mental-health illnesses, according to the World Trade Center Health Program. (This compares with 600,000 at Chernobyl and 500,000 at Bhopal, Lucchini found).

The U.S. government has spent the past six years pouring millions of dollars into researching deadly diseases linked to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. But it has never officially warned people who lived and worked in Lower Manhattan during 9/11 that the attacks turned the area into a breeding ground for cancer.

In his study, Lucchini compared the findings of health programs established around the world in the aftermath of major environmental disasters. His analysis began with a chemical accident in Seveso, Italy, in 1976. “Only in Seveso was the number of exposed individuals known with reasonable certainty,” he said. Most of the major incidents he looked at, like the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster in Pennsylvania in 1979 and the gas leak at a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India, in 1984, stemmed from major industrial slip-ups, resulting in tougher regulations and better efforts at prevention, he said.

What made 9/11 different, Lucchini noted, was that the environmental disaster stemmed from a terrorist attack.

Chernobyl also led to cancer within the surrounding population, he noted. Because the incubation period can take years, doctors say it is possible Fukushima will eventually result in elevated cancer rates when more time passes.

Related:

www.newsweek.com...

www.citylab.com...

a reply to: tadaman

Can you quote from the study where he cites radiation as the cause of WTC cancers?

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

No, this has been addressed. The two spikes happen before the registered collapse of the towers.

The nuclear theory is the only theory that explains all the observed damage at WTC. And it explains the radiation sicknesses so prevalent in the first responders.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

No, this has been addressed. The two spikes happen before the registered collapse of the towers.

The nuclear theory is the only theory that explains all the observed damage at WTC. And it explains the radiation sicknesses so prevalent in the first responders.

It doesn’t explain anything at the WTC. Magical nuclear weapons detonated in the bedrock that some how magically produced no S or P waves, magically created no evidence of a shockwave from the bedrock up the twin towers, and somehow magically caused the inward bowing and buckling some 80 floors up to magically initiate buckling. A magical bomb that some how created noticeable structural failings and leaning of the twin towers before the supposed detonation. Some how a magical upward shockwave wave that only produced down ward motion and down collapse of the floor system that left the core columns standing in its wake before toppling from loss of lateral support.

a reply to: neutronflux


It explains things you are unable to perceive or understand. I think like a police investigator, you think like Lester Holt.

NM

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


It explains things you are unable to perceive or understand. I think like a police investigator, you think like Lester Holt.

Here is is again. The linked to thread below contains the video of the inward bowing of WTC 2 outer columns leading to buckling and initiating collapse. There is no evidence of a force from the base of the tower emitting upward.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

How does the collapse initiation support the fantasy of nukes at the WTC.

There is not even evidence of a dropped core below the points of jet impacts. The cores offered resistance all through the complete collapse of the floor systems for WTC 1 and 2. The cores fell last.

www.skeptic.com...

The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

originally posted by: tadaman
NM

What? That you tried to cite a study that never mentions the WTC cancers were related to radiation from fission or the decay of fission products as proof of a nuke at the WTC?

Because you don’t understand there is also chemical “fallout” in addition to radioactive “fallout”. As there is chemically toxic dust vs dust that is radioactive?

a reply to: neutronflux

Actually, it was a PDF download to yet another 911 seismic study and a quoted section concerning P and S waves you say were lacking, which is not possible since they were in fact registered seismic events.

You didn't read it like anything else offered, since you think it was related to the cancer study. Lame. Which is why I removed it. You refuse to read anything and just babble on.

Fallout is a general term for the aftermath of a natural or manmade disaster.

The numbers of affected people in the area and surrounding areas are indicative of what these experts in many fields are saying happened. Yes.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

Actually, it was a PDF download to yet another 911 seismic study and a quoted section concerning P and S waves you say were lacking, which is not possible since they were in fact registered seismic events.

You didn't read it like anything else offered, since you think it was related to the cancer study. Lame. Which is why I removed it. You refuse to read anything and just babble on.

Fallout is a general term for the aftermath of a natural or manmade disaster.

The numbers of affected people in the area and surrounding areas are indicative of what these experts in many fields are saying happened. Yes.

Would you like to provide links and quotes.

Again,

Forensic Seismology

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

Seismograph stations around the city recorded the signals generated by the aircraft impacts and the subsequent collapse of the two towers of the World Trade Center (the Lamont-Doherty Cooperative Seismographic Network provides a rich collection of datasets of the seismic activity around N.Y.). The collapse of the south tower generated a signal with a magnitude of 2.1 and the collapse of the north tower, whit a signal of magnitude 2.3, was recorded by 13 stations ranging in distance from 34 to 428km.
Also these seismograms show a distinct pattern if compared to the pattern caused by a natural earthquake. There are no P or S Waves, but the impacts of the buildings on the ground generated a sudden peak of short-period Rayleigh Waves.

“There are no P or S Waves, but the impacts of the buildings on the ground generated a sudden peak of short-period Rayleigh Waves.”

Below Paper shows there was no P and S waves from the WTC collapse.

Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center, New York City.
www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

And the below article outlines no seismic evidence of detonations at the WTC

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT
By Brent Blanchard
August 8, 2006
c-2006 www.implosionworld.com

www.implosionworld.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

Good thing I can paste the actual quote here in the thread.

a reply to: tadaman

So, you cannot cite an an actual medical study that links WTC cancers to radiation from fission or fission decay products.