Because you posted a linked article insinuating that the cancer was caused by radiation at the site and I showed you that claim was made by an author who writes articles for a publication that deals with UFOs and aliens. The radiation claim has never been stated to have caused cancer at ground zero by medical professionals. I even posted the website that shows the REAL quote WITHOUT the radiation garbage. Like I said, you just parrot what you read without doing any of your own research. As you can see, it hampers your ability to provide a rational response or claim. Practically everything you've posted has been shown to be wrong, quote mined, or taken out of context.
I'm posting this link to post #24 again so that it doesn't get buried. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=392831&page=3&p=1064674628#post1064674628
So what caused these hot spots in your opinion if it wasn't fires burning deep within a pile of debris which contained all kinds of substances. Could have been aluminum. You have no forensic results from tests showing it was steel and NOT aluminum. You cannot tell what a molten substance is by sight. Could have been aluminum. You have no forensic results from tests showing it was steel and NOT aluminum. You cannot tell what a molten substance is by sight There's no other source for these iron microspheres? Welding? Eutectic reaction? The importance of iron microspheres is simple. Iron melts around 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit, which is about twice the highest temperature that an open-air fire could produce. [/quote] Wait a minute! I thought you said above, when discussing the NASA thermal image that showed hotspots up to 1377 degrees F, that open-air fires cannot produce those temperatures? Now your saying they can reach HALF of 2,800 degrees F, which is 1400 degress F? What gives John T? You're all over the place now.
Ok, I'll go with that. So you can tell me that you are 100% sure that there was no debris on fire that hit ANY of these cars? I have provided you with links that shows car fires with the EXACT same characteristics as those cars we see. Melted tires, burned paint, etc. All caused bu FIRE ALONE. If your suggesting it was something else, then you need to explain what the was and how it only burned SOME parts of the cars in some instances.
You provided the information and I requested you to link it. That's this works. Either you provide the official information or I'll chalk it up to assumptions on your part. You don;t get to provide information and then balk when asked to provide your source. Again, I want to see your information that says the above actually occurred. Otherwise, it didn't happen. Simple.
Correct. Apples to Apples John T. You seem to think that ALL buildings will act the same way to every scenario.
More parroted garbage that you just decide to believe in instead of actually researching. Here is why that statement totally wrong. This next excerpt was from http://www.fireengineering.com/arti...ssue-9/features/the-art-of-reading-smoke.html. Bolded/red parts were done by me. Try searching for "oxygen" within the page I linked. Tell me how many instances you find.
<sigh>..There was NO 'pyroclastic dust cloud' at the WTC site on 9/11,had there been,the death toll could have been in the tens of thousands And even 6 kilotons would be too powerful,and what with the thermal event,And the EMP not being present... Fail,sock
Good point. Hey John T, why did the Windsor Tower partially collapse, but the Interstate Building in 1988 didn't? Conspiracy? I'm having a hard time finding any reference to any other building that also caught fire and suffered a partial collapse of the steel surrounding a concrete core. The Windsor Tower MUST have been involved in a nuclear detonation or conventional explosive detonation to bring down the steel portion right? Conventional fires don't burn hot enough to melt steel right John T?
Kind of a coincidence that the width of that whole almost perfectly matches the 208' dimension of one side of the tower. I see perimeter column sections within the hole. Could it be that the perimeter columns, peeling away from the building proper, fell onto WTC6 and created that hole? Nah. Low grade nuclear weapons makes more sense right?
The post immediately below is Comment #1 of this thread entitled "DOE agrees 9-11 was a Nuclear Event". Yes, The Title of this thread is:"DOE agrees 9-11 was a Nuclear Event" And, My Opening Comment is:"Does this look like a building is falling down or exploding?" The beginning of each thread on this Forum has a Title Box that includes the Title of the thread. This format is controlled by the Administrator of this Forum. Since I started this thread, I made the first post. My first post asked, Does this look like a building is falling down or exploding? Nowhere on this thread did I state the Title of this thread as, Does this look like a building is falling down or exploding? You have accused me of stating somewhere on this thread that I stated, "Does this look like a building is falling down or exploding?" as the title of this thread. Show me where I said that. Do you even comprehend or pay attention to what you are posting in this thread? And your answer to this question will be as irrelevant as as your reason for making your comment above. What did you hope to accomplish by bringing this point to my attention? If you were right, was this going to be one of your "gotcha" moments? If you will not or cannot present information to improve to this thread, why are you posting on this thread?
Gamolon said: "Pyroclastic cloud huh? Do you know what a pyroclastic cloud is by definition? Are you suggesting that a volcano erupted in within the towers? I think you need to look up the definition of pyroclastic and then tell me that the dust cloud had those same characteristics. I personally think that you just parrot what you read instead of actually researching it." Pyroclastic flow is a fluidized mixture of hot rock fragments, hot gases, and entrapped air that moves at high speed in thick, gray-to-black, turbulent clouds that hug the ground. The temperature of the volcanic gases can reach about 600 to 700 C (1,100 to 1,300 F). Reaching such temperatures, pyroclastic flows can be extremely dangerous. Yes, know what a pyroclastic cloud is. The cloud of dust that engulfed Lower Manhattan on 9-11 has been referred to by countless people as a pyroclastic cloud. No, I am not suggesting that a volcano erupted within the towers. Only a fool would allow the idea of a "volcano erupting within the towers" to enter their mind. You asked this question. Do the math. A striking feature of the Twin Towers' destruction was the pulverization of most of the concrete into gravel and dust before it hit the ground. This is evident from the explosive mushrooming of the towers into vast clouds of concrete as they fell, and from the fact that virtually no large pieces of concrete were found at Ground Zero, only twisted pieces of steel. Estimates put the size of the particles, which also included gypsum and hydrocarbons, in the ten- to 100-micron range. The dust cloud that enveloped Lower Manhattan was a pyroclastic cloud. Pyroclastic surge crossing sea below the Tar River Valley (M Stasiuk, Natural Resources Canada). Pyroclastic flow descending Reventador's SE slopes during the morning of November 3, 2002. Pyroclastic flow exploding from WTC 1. Pyroclastic flow following the fall of WTC 1. Consider yourself told. I have read nothing you have posted that has not sounded like parrot.
The fact that I have to go through and explain this to you is just crazy. 1. You started this thread with the title DOE agrees 9-11 was a Nuclear Event 2. In your first post, you went on to imply that the building "exploded" and that the cause of this "explosion" was due to a nuclear event. You even posted a link to Veterans Today alluding to that fact. 3. Margot2 posted something saying that your claim that there was a nuclear event that destroyed the Twin Towers (and others) was wrong because there was no radiation. 4. You then posted about first responders dying of radiation exposure illnesses due to this nuclear event. The last sentence of your third quote in this post was shown to be a quote from the reporter himself and not from any medical professional like your quote showed. In fact, I was able to link to the site containing the quote WITHOUT that last sentence. Proof it was injected by the author himself. 5. You didn't like this turn of events and tried to downplay that you were shown that your quote (a quote you thought proved radiation was present) was wrong and tried to divert attention away by trying to focus on one sentence of your quote. 6. I simply said that the title of the thread was DOE agrees 9-11 was a Nuclear Event, and not Does this look like a building is falling down or exploding? because you were trying to restrict conversation to ONLY that question. You were the one who made the title of the thread about DOE agrees 9-11 was a Nuclear Event, not me. You even posted supposed evidence to support it. Now, when your proof gets destroyed, you want to only discuss the first question you asked. To sum this up, according to the title of the thread, anything pertaining to the subject of Nuclear Event is fair game. Hence, that's why I said, when you tried to move the focus onto the Does this look like a building is falling down or exploding? only, I pointed out to you what the actual title of the thread was. If you wanted to discuss ONLY if the picture you posted looked like an explosion or not, that's what you should have named this thread. Nowhere did I say you named the thread that. Get it yet? Now, are you going to address any of the other posts that contain refutation to many of the claims in this thread that you have made or are you going to now continually focus on that one question in your beginning post so you don't have to? I have presented information to this thread that has improved it in the form of refutations to your claims. 1. I refuted your "these elements are only found in nuclear reactions" claim 2. I refuted your "black smoke means oxygen starved fires" claim 3. I refuted your "first responders had cancer because of radiation" claim 4. I refuted your "fires could not have caused the burning of the cars" claim Need I go on?
So you agree with those people that the cloud of dust contained hot rock fragments, hot gases, moving at high speed with temperatures between 1,100 to 1,300 F???? So why are you using the term "pyroclastic" cloud when that is a term used with volcanic eruptions. I'll ask again. Were the temperatures of that cloud between 1,100 and 1,300 F? How much of that dust was the gypsum planking around the core and how much was concrete? How do you know that the dust emanating from the tower was all or mostly concrete and not gypsum planking dust? Did someone get samples as the dust it came out from the towers during the collapse? Again, you have yet to prove that the characteristics you posted above existed in that dust cloud. So your use of the term "pyroclastic" is incorrect.
Gamolon said: (and included a link with the quote) "Nuclear fission is a "chemical process"? I beg to differ." http://www.differencebetween.net/sci...ical-reaction/ In a scientific sense, a chemical process is a method or means of somehow changing one or more chemicals or chemical compounds. Such a chemical process can occur by itself or be caused by an outside force, and involves a chemical reaction of some sort. Lighting a match is a "chemical process". "Nuclear fission" is the splitting of an atomic nucleus, either spontaneously or as a result of the impact of a particle usually with an associated release of energy. Both create heat. Yes, Nuclear Fission is a Chemical Process.
Nuclear fission is usually referred to as an 'atomic reaction', not a chemical reaction. I've never heard the term 'chemical reaction' applied to fission. It would be a good idea if you used the 'quote' function, so we receive notifications of your responses.
To be honest, I have given up. He still can't figure out how to quite, and will not answer simple questions. He is no longer worth responding to and has joined my elite list. Come on, pyroclastic flows? Multiple nukes going off? I guess next he will be saying it was the Stay Puff Man who destroyed the WTC. Why not? Makes as much sense as what he has been saying so far. And the real destruction came when they crossed the streams with their unlicensed particle accelerators.
John T said: Galomon's reply was: So according to Galomon, anyone who has ever: touched granite, paint, bricks, tiles, glass, or rubber; and anyone who uses cigarette lighters, flat-screen TV's, low-energy light bulbs, floodlights, or aluminum foil; and people that enjoy nature or own a hybrid car are in danger of radiation poisoning. Well, that sucks. Galomon said: I didn't find any ISOTOPES. I don't know if any elements found were "normal"; surely there were some, but of what significance would that be? I have read the reports regarding these findings in sources I have studied. I suggest you do a few web searches for yourself and stop asking me to do all of your homework for you. If I thought you would actually read through the reports I have read, I would provide them to you, but up until now you have done nothing more than nitpick the information I have shared on this thread. So how would it improve your understanding of this topic if I presented you with all of the information I have studied if you are going to ignore it as you have done so far?
Yes, he has all the memes and slogans down pat. To be honest, all that is left of 9/11 truth these days are the fanatically faithful. Both nutty ideas aren't worthy of discussion...just too stupid. There were no nukes and no pyroclastic flow, and these are just the inventions of overactive imaginations. Yes, it is on par with Judy Woods and her stupidity, and clearly the DOE does not endorse such moronic fantasies.
Let me help you out. There are different isotopes (versions) of Strontium for example. Some radioactive, some not. Read this link. http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/strontium.html Now which isotope of Strontium was found in the dust, the radioactive or non-radioactive kind?
