Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10
poppet

America Nuked 9/11

2,270 posts in this topic

Copy and paste the data here.

Can you copy & paste data from an E Book? I've never used one of things, so I wouldn't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...False! There was no evidence of any kind that an explosive demolition occurred at ground zero.

Nota bene: Except, of course, for the two jetliners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you copy & paste data from an E Book? I've never used one of things, so I wouldn't know.

Depends on the e-reader software. The problem here is BR is quoting information on a book not scientifically published journals. I have yet to see any qualifications Jeff Prager has in regards to Nuclear Physics, Epidemiology, or a Medical Degree to make such asinine assertions.

It was much the same as listening to DRG try to explain physics of collapsing buildings, or Harriett et AL talk about forensic analysis of dust. It usually ends up a hilarious failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What besides radiation effects cause multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and leukemia at the rates we see in those who worked on the pile?

The tons of toxic material (a veritable chemical soup) that were in the pile?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Copy and paste the data here.

If not successful with the copy and paste, I will at least provide the footnotes from CDC and other sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tons of toxic material (a veritable chemical soup) that were in the pile?

That would seem to be a likely answer, but the data does not bear it out, at least according to Prager.

Asbestosis is offered as another possible reason, but asbestosis does not bring those rare cancers. Restricted pulmonary efficiency, but not rare cancers.

And even more interesting, it seems that the DELTA Group and USGS samples are very very low in asbestos readings. That is, afterwards there was not very much asbestos present there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If not successful with the copy and paste, I will at least provide the footnotes from CDC and other sources.

Yes please. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would seem to be a likely answer, but the data does not bear it out, at least according to Prager.

Asbestosis is offered as another possible reason, but asbestosis does not bring those rare cancers. Restricted pulmonary efficiency, but not rare cancers.

And even more interesting, it seems that the DELTA Group and USGS samples are very very low in asbestos readings. That is, afterwards there was not very much asbestos present there.

Let's do a review because I think you missed the boat on this one.

Fallout: 9/11 and the Risk of Ground Zero

The attack on the World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11, 2001 obviously had many affects on the life of New Yorkers. More than 2,500 lives were lost on that day and in the days that followed the attacks. But now, nearly half a decade later, more WTC casualties are coming to the attention of the general public and the nation’s health officials.

First responders and New York City residents are dying of

mesothelioma and being sickened with other asbestos-related disease. Doctors and scientists have long predicted that, in years to come, we’d be seeing an onslaught of mesothelioma cases in greater New York City, caused by thetons of asbestosthat rained down on fire fighters, police officers, paramedics, and those who lived and worked near the World Trade Center.

http://www.mesotheli...jobsitesWTC.php

Hazardous Materials at Ground Zero

Ground Zero Workers File Billion-Dollar Health Lawsuit

MONDAY, Sept. 13 (HealthDayNews) -- Nearly three years to the day of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, lawyers for more than 800 "Ground Zero" rescue and clean-up workers announced Monday a billion-dollar class-action lawsuit against owners of the World Trade Center for exposing the workers to allegedly toxic conditions.

Contained in this "toxic waste pile," according to Sawyer and Worby, were:

  • 200,000 pounds of lead from the estimated 50,000 personal computers in thousands of World Trade Center offices
  • mercury contained in the towers' more than half a million fluorescent lights
  • dioxin from oil and fuel
  • 2,000 tons of asbestos
  • benzene from more than 91,000 liters of burned jet fuel
  • cadmium, PCBs, and up to 2 million pounds of toxins known as polycystic aromatic hydrocarbons.

All of these contaminants have strong links to pulmonary, skin or immune system ailments, as well as cancer, Sawyer said. He predicted that long-term cancer rates among clean-up workers could rise to five to seven times the norm during the coming decades.

http://news.healingw...news1&id=521197

So once again, you are proving to us that you are not on the same page as Mr. Reality.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes please. Thanks

Here are a few, done the old-fashioned way with pen and paper:

USGS Open File Report 01-0429

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429

Aerosol Science and Technology, Volume 38, Issue 2, 2004

Analysis of Aerosols from WTC Collapse (by DELTA Group)

http://www. tandforline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02786820490250836

From the ICCF 14, International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, 2008 in Washington, D.C.

Theory of Low-Energy Deuterium Fusion in Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Grains and Particles

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KimYEtheoryoflo.pdf

Multiple Myeloma, A CDC STudy of K25 workers

www.cdc.gov/niosh/oerp/pdfs/k25_7-06-09.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are a few, done the old-fashioned way with pen and paper:

USGS Open File Report 01-0429

http://pubs.usgs.gov...001/ofr-01-0429

Aerosol Science and Technology, Volume 38, Issue 2, 2004

Analysis of Aerosols from WTC Collapse (by DELTA Group)

http://www. tandforline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02786820490250836

From the ICCF 14, International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, 2008 in Washington, D.C.

Theory of Low-Energy Deuterium Fusion in Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Grains and Particles

http://lenr-canr.org...Etheoryoflo.pdf

Multiple Myeloma, A CDC STudy of K25 workers

www.cdc.gov/niosh/oerp/pdfs/k25_7-06-09.pdf

Nothing there to support a nuke detonation at ground zero. The presentation of the USGS Open File Report 01-0429 does not support a nuclear detonation at ground zero.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion is waaayyyy too sophisticated for you Spameagle.

And even funnier, it's not really all that sophisticated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion is waaayyyy too sophisticated for you Spameagle.

And even funnier, it's not really all that sophisticated.

Apparently, you have shown us that the debate is far too sophisticated for you. For an example, you posted the following:

No, horizontal displacement of debris, in particular the horizontal displacement of large sections of the exoskeleton with sufficient force to impale, could be caused by well placed high explosive devices other than nuclear, but considering all the other evidence--pulverized and calcined concrete, iron microspheres in the air and a list of other elements related to nuclear explosions (strontium, tritium and such), the most likely candidate would be nuclear.

When PR responded, you then posted this:

OK RB, I stand corrected. I think I already corrected myself on some other thread.

You also posted this:

What besides radiation effects cause multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and leukemia at the rates we see in those who worked on the pile?

You automatically attributed signs of leukemia with radiation because you didn't know better so now, it's time for a recap as a reminder.

Hazardous Materials at Ground Zero

Ground Zero Workers File Billion-Dollar Health Lawsuit

MONDAY, Sept. 13 (HealthDayNews) -- Nearly three years to the day of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, lawyers for more than 800 "Ground Zero" rescue and clean-up workers announced Monday a billion-dollar class-action lawsuit against owners of the World Trade Center for exposing the workers to allegedly toxic conditions.

* benzene from more than 91,000 liters of burned jet fuel

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benzene and Leukemia

A substantial number of epidemiologic studies have provided estimates of the relation between exposure to benzene at work and the risk of leukemia, but the results have been heterogeneous. To bridge this gap in knowledge, we synthesized the existing epidemiologic evidence on the relation between occupational exposure to benzene and the risk of leukemia, including all types combined and the four main subgroups acute myeloid leukemia (AML), acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).

Conclusion: Our study provides consistent evidence that exposure to benzene at work increases the risk of leukemia with a dose-response pattern. There was some evidence of an increased risk of AML and CLL. The meta-analysis indicated a lack of association between benzene exposure and the risk of CML.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20584305

Leukemia Risk Associated With Low-Level Benzene Exposure

Conclusions: We found an excess risk of leukemia associated with cumulative benzene exposures and benzene exposure intensities that were considerably lower than reported in previous studies. No evidence was found of a threshold cumulative exposure below which there was no risk.

http://journals.lww....Benzene.11.aspx

Benzene Exposure: Warning Signs of Leukemia

Benzene is a recognized carcinogen that poses severe health warnings to workers and others who are exposed to it. There is a scientifically-proven link between benzene and leukemia; in fact benzene is a recognized cause of leukemia and other blood cancers, including multiple myeloma, Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and aplastic anemia.

Benzene has also been associated with Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML), which can be potentially deadly and Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS), which truncates one’s stem cells and kills healthy white blood cells.

As you can see, there was plenty of benzene at ground zero to cause leukemia and no radiation residue was found that can be attributed to a nuclear detonation. To sum it up, you do not even understand what you are posting. :no:

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its just sad that people cannot understand the simple fact on what Happened that day ! They must not of been born before that date? I feel that its like trying to tell someone that the Sun Is hot,but they will stand right in front of you and say No it isn't. I cant even touch it !

But then you take a magnifying glass out and fry a hole thru there hand and they say That is was the government that did that !

Well To each there own in here. I`ll stick with the Facts. 9/11 was four aircraft,NO NUKES ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its just sad that people cannot understand the simple fact on what Happened that day ! They must not of been born before that date? I feel that its like trying to tell someone that the Sun Is hot,but they will stand right in front of you and say No it isn't. I cant even touch it !

But then you take a magnifying glass out and fry a hole thru there hand and they say That is was the government that did that !

Well To each there own in here. I`ll stick with the Facts. 9/11 was four aircraft,NO NUKES ! :tu:

BR is just here for fun and games and cannot be taken seriously. Other 911 truthers have had to set him straight which pretty much sums it up as to where BR is coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be gone most of the day, but I'm waiting for input from RaptorBites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be gone most of the day, but I'm waiting for input from RaptorBites.

I will address your previous post when I return tonight since I have gotten through the last link which spoke about k25 workers.

Just as a prelim BR. Why did you repost the USGS and DELTA Group analysis again?

Neither papers noted any evidence of nuclear fission occurring in dust samples?

Unless what you are trying to get me focused on is the levels of tritium found in the DOE water sample. Which still is not evidence of nuclear fission. Tritium levels worldwide have increased since nuclear atmospheric testing post 1945. In fact, tritium itself can be a naturally processed element in our atmosphere.

Let's step back from tritium a moment.

In the K25 study, the study found that there was no definitive proof of the correlation between multiple myeloma and radiation exposure. It does however state a 4% higher CHANCE of dying from MM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will address your previous post when I return tonight since I have gotten through the last link which spoke about k25 workers.

Just as a prelim BR. Why did you repost the USGS and DELTA Group analysis again?

Neither papers noted any evidence of nuclear fission occurring in dust samples?

Unless what you are trying to get me focused on is the levels of tritium found in the DOE water sample. Which still is not evidence of nuclear fission. Tritium levels worldwide have increased since nuclear atmospheric testing post 1945. In fact, tritium itself can be a naturally processed element in our atmosphere.

Let's step back from tritium a moment.

In the K25 study, the study found that there was no definitive proof of the correlation between multiple myeloma and radiation exposure. It does however state a 4% higher CHANCE of dying from MM.

I didn't realize I had ever posted USGS and DELTA material previously?

It does not prove fission or fusion, and I never claimed that it did. It merely provided data on what the air contained, and what other elements were found.

The analysis is to discover the possible reasons WHY such data could be collected. Where did these substances come from?

As for the tritium, as I recall those samples were acquired days or weeks after the events, and also after a substantial rainfall which would have washed much tritium away downstream. Imagine if the samples had been taken earlier.

Same with K25. I don't think its purpose was to reach any particular conclusion about these diseases, but rather just to quantify the data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realize I had ever posted USGS and DELTA material previously?

It does not prove fission or fusion, and I never claimed that it did. It merely provided data on what the air contained, and what other elements were found.

The analysis is to discover the possible reasons WHY such data could be collected. Where did these substances come from?

As for the tritium, as I recall those samples were acquired days or weeks after the events, and also after a substantial rainfall which would have washed much tritium away downstream. Imagine if the samples had been taken earlier.

Same with K25. I don't think its purpose was to reach any particular conclusion about these diseases, but rather just to quantify the data.

The USGS and DELTA Group analysis even stated nothing unusual other than particles in the dust from concrete, building supplies, and office furniture/supplies. So don't understand how that helps your assertion of nukes.

The DOE water samples were taken 11 days after 9/11. Was there any amount of rainfall that occurred within those 11 days to wash off the tritium levels in the ground water? Until you come up with actual evidence that the tritium levels were washed off, then the question is merely academic and doesn't support your nuke theory.

The K25 study doesn't even quantify anything in regards to 9/11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ITs all in the pigmint of a few peoples imagination in here ! :tu: If they spent as much time solving real problems as trying to make up tales from the darkside of non-factual hype we might just have something? :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The USGS and DELTA Group analysis even stated nothing unusual other than particles in the dust from concrete, building supplies, and office furniture/supplies. So don't understand how that helps your assertion of nukes.

The DOE water samples were taken 11 days after 9/11. Was there any amount of rainfall that occurred within those 11 days to wash off the tritium levels in the ground water? Until you come up with actual evidence that the tritium levels were washed off, then the question is merely academic and doesn't support your nuke theory.

The K25 study doesn't even quantify anything in regards to 9/11.

You missed alot in the DELTA report regarding aerosols and microparticles of iron and other elements. Whether on purpose or by accident I don't know.

The presence of metallic aerosols is most unusual. Thermite, jetfuel and gravity are not capable of producing such heat and sustaining it for 3 months. Nuclear is.

Pyrocool Foam, which has a great record of putting out all sorts of fires, could not extinguish the boiling metal.

The epidemiology shows sicknesses exactly similar in type and incidence to those from Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl. The Zadroga Bill written by corrupt politicians, excludes coverage for cancers.

Connect the dots RB, if you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RB

Another bit of circumstantial evidence supporting the nuclear theory is a comparison of the photos of nuclear weapons tests over the years to the photos of the towers coming down. Especially those photos taken from above. Very similar patterns of explosions, with the vertical component that is visible. The explosions at the towers with the instantly pulverized and calcined concrete is telling. Certainly NOT the result of jetfuel and gravity, and not the result of thermite. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another bit of circumstantial evidence supporting the nuclear theory is a comparison of the photos of nuclear weapons tests over the years to the photos of the towers coming down.

There was no nuclear detonation during the 911 attack which explains why there was no such evidence found at ground zero during cleanp operations.

The explosions at the towers with the instantly pulverized and calcined concrete is telling.

Considering that nukes generate temperatures of millions of degrees, the WTC buildings would have been vaporized, not pulverized if planted within those buildings. What happened to the steel tower when the United States detonated its first nuclear bomb?

Before the nuclear detonation

503px-Trinity_tower.jpg

After the nuclear detonation

Trinity-ground-zero-men-in-crater.jpg

The nukes at 911 ground zero story is false and add to the fact there was no evidence which explains why that nuke story was found to be false. Simply putting it in simple words, you were duped again, and you knew it, but decided to have some fun anyway.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed alot in the DELTA report regarding aerosols and microparticles of iron and other elements. Whether on purpose or by accident I don't know.

Basically speaking, you are proving that you do not understand what you are posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One only has to read the book "Where Did The Towers Go" by Dr Judy Wood on this and your mind will be changed forever!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One only has to read the book "Where Did The Towers Go" by Dr Judy Wood on this and your mind will be changed forever!

Where did they go? Let's go here for starters because as you can see, there is no evidence on the steel that a directed-energy weapon was used and besides, that story was false.

fig-D-6.jpg

fig-D-14.jpg

http://911research.w.../WTC_apndxD.htm

Now, let's take a close look of WTC2 as it collapses.

[media=]

[/media]

As you can plainly see in that video, no directed-energy weapon was used to facilitate the collapse of that building, which simply means the directed-energy weapon story is false.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.