Enough nonsense here-- the WTC towers were nuked

[spooked911]

The extreme pulverization of the towers and China syndrome aftermath prove it.

There are many indications that 9/11 was an inside job, but the single most pertinent fact of that day was the use of small nuclear bombs to destroy the WTC.

All honest 9/11 researchers should realize this.

[SDuderstadt]

1. Okay, legitimate 9/11 Truth "questioners"....

This is the kind of crap that makes the "truth" movement look silly. He's one of yours. What are you going to do? You always criticize us debunkers for taking them on, but why are you guys AWOL or MIA?

[Ghost in the Machine]

7. What did *you* do when one of your own was spreading disinformation?

Huh? NOT ONE of you stepped up and called *him* out, did you? Why were *you* guys AWOL or MIA?

"Indian Lake is just yards from the impact crater".

Clean your own fucking house before you worry about anyone else's, hypocrite....

[wildbilln864]

23. spot on!

:yourock:

[vincent_vega_lives]

25. Nice try ghost but not even in the ball park

Equating factual errors that have NIL effect on the overall argument with a theory that completely stretches the bounds of reality...hell SHATTERS the bounds of reality is just trite.

[Ghost in the Machine]

26. Bullshit is bullshit vincent, no matter *where* you step in it...

and it wasn't a "factual error", it was a flat out LIE in an effort to distract and shut down debate. Period. That's 100 times worse than silly theories about nukes, DEWs and/or no planes. Wouldn't you agree?

[Bassman66]

8. The "truth" movement looks silly?

Prove to me this isn't COINTELPRO.
You can't.
But it looks that way to me.
So stop with the "truth" movement smears.
It's pretty obvious whats happening.

Press for Truth - the real issues - the real "truth" movement.

[SDuderstadt]

19. Ummm, Bassman.....

You just asked me to "prove a negative". Did you notice that? Did you know that, yup, that's another Logical fallacy? It's also known as "argumentum ad ignorantium" or "argument from ignorance". It's hardly a "smear" of the "truth movement" to point to the utter lack of concrete evidence.

Do you honestly think because something "looks" a certain way to you that it constitutes proof that it actually is? Where is the proof that it actually is? If one can prove something merely because their "opponent" can't disprove it, then prove you don't make child pornography. If you can't, then it's obviously true. See what I mean? I know my example is inflammatory, but I used it on purpose to demonstrate the fallacy.

Beyond that, it seems to me that the more absurd theories and theorists are the problem of the "truth movement". It's also kind of silly to claim they are all "plants" too. I'll be glad to outline the fallacies of "Press for Truth" at a future date.

[spooked911]

13. mockery does not count for rebuttal

perhaps they don't "take me on" because they know that there is something to what I say

http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/

[SDuderstadt]

20. We take you on all the tme...

and kick your ass, Spooked. It's kinda silly to claim no one takes you on or that proves you're right.

[vincent_vega_lives]

24. Your fellow truthers think you're CONITILPRO

[leftofthedial]

29. I've told you before

I don't have "fellows" and I don't have a religion.

No one at DU is "one of mine."

I don't agree with him, but the OCT is equally preposterous. Often, the "crap" turns out to be the truth.

[SDuderstadt]

30. Name one time the "9/11 truth" crap has turned out to be true...n/t

[leftofthedial]

31. nothing has yet turned out to be "true" about 9-11 because the creators

of the OCT mythology have blocked all meaningful investigation.

[SDuderstadt]

32. Oh, bullshit....

There are all kinds of investigations going on. It's stupid to claim they're all being blocked. It's more likely a post hoc rationalization as to the lack of results.

[leftofthedial]

33. In your opinion, did the 9-11 Commission conduct an investigation?

Was it their agenda to uncover the truth, wherever it might lead?

[SDuderstadt]

34. Yes...

but no one is saying it was a perfect investigation. However, I believe that many, if not most of the commissioners (and especially the dems) made a good faith effort to uncover the truth. There's no question that the Bush administration did what they could to thwart the investigation, however, that doesn't mean they did so because of LIHOP or MIHOP. It's entirely possible they did so to either avoid scrutiny of their incompetence or to avert interference with their exploitation of 9/11. That does not mean, however, that some truth was not uncovered. For the record, I despise the Bush administration and would like to see Bush and Cheney indicted and convicted. As a matter of fact, I plan on buying Bugliosi's book over the weekend.

[leftofthedial]

40. you're a congenital idiot.

Okay. Not congenital.


And not an idiot. I'm just a jerk at the moment. Gin has that effect on me sometimes. ;-)



BUT . . .

The 9-11 Commission was conceived from the start as a political whitewash. Nothing more. Nothing less.

No one involved had anything but political motives. Occasionally politics overlaps the "truth," so of course some "truth" was uncovered. "Truth" of precisely the quality lampooned mightily by Colbert's concept of "truthiness."

I gather from your long answer rather than your subject line that in reality you would say "No. The 9-11 Commission was not seeking the truth wherever it might lead."

[SDuderstadt]

46. Fallacy of composition

You're ascribing the actions of some to all.

[leftofthedial]

48. no. every member fo that commission had powerful

--most had overarching--political motivations that superceded a complete search for truth.

They began with the political outcome they desired as their starting premise. Then they selectively sought "facts" to support that premise. Any disputes along the way or hard questioning of bushbots was purely for political show or to stake out a political position.

[SDuderstadt]

51. Cool....

then prove that for Ben-Veniste, Kerrey, Gorelick, Roemer and Hamilton.

[leftofthedial]

60. "prove"? neither you nor I can "prove" anything about it.

Their job was:

1. Lend an air of--if not impartiality, then bipartisanship--to the proceedings.

2. Find a strong hint of neglect but hold no individual actually accountable.

3. Use this hint of neglect to inoculate the administration against charges of complicity or any flavor of -IHOP.

4. Endorse the philosophical, religious and political underpinnings of the "war" on "terror."

5. Ignore any and all evidence that did not lead to the desired political outcome.

The powers that be wanted their war. They wanted their corporate-friendly war-mongering administration intact. They got it. Your cited members of the Commission did enough hand waving to accomplish . . . nothing.

[SDuderstadt]

67. Then quit pretending you can....

and, you might want to take note that the 9/11 Commission produced its report well after Iraq was invaded, so it's kinda silly to claim the report was used to justify the invasion.

[leftofthedial]

68. One can justify a prior act.

In fact, that's exactly what "justify" means; its primary meaning relates to prior acts. But then, I'm not surprised you don't know that. You can find the definition of "justify" here.

I haven't pretended anything. I'm the one WHO SAID in my previous post that neither of us can prove anything about commissioners' motivations. All we can do is analyze what they did, which is what I spelled out.

[SDuderstadt]

69. WTF?

Here's the first listing from your source:

1. to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right:

Do you see anything in there that means it primarily applies to past acts? The definition clearly applies to past, present and future acts. Do you know how to read? If your claim was true, there would be no need to claim something was "justified after the fact" because both the speaker and the audience would assume it applied to a past act. This is really lame. Quit while you're behind.

[leftofthedial]

74. to justify an act, claim or statement, the act, claim or statement must already have been made

the definition does not say "to establish legitimacy or causality for a future act, claim or statement." That is, providing justification is not the same as laying a foundation. Besides which, I said "primary" not "only." You originally claimed that my use of "justify" was totally incorrect because the invasion of Iraq had already occurred, a claim which you now can not--ahem--justify. (I crack me up!)

Regardless, you still have not shown that the 9-11 Commission Report constitutes a legitimate investigation of what happened.

[SDuderstadt]

75. Oh, bullshit...

You don't think a future act can be justified before it happens???? Really????

A student with an undergraduate degree might approach his/her parents to justify getting a graduate degree on the grounds it will improve their employment prospects. You really need to think this through.

[leftofthedial]

77. Oh crapola...

to further slice our ridiculous semantical grapefruit, technically no.

you can use a prior established (or unchallenged) fact to justify an act you are committing or have committed. If an act does not exist, it can not be justified. You could contemplate a future act and use some fact to justify your contemplation, or to project possible future hypothetical justification for some possible future hypothetical act, but you can not justify something that does not exist.

Do people use language sloppily? Does meaning devolve to become less precise over time? If you said "justify" in the context of a future act, would I know what you were talking about? Yes, yes and yes. But YOU were first to criticize my correct use of the word. And you were wrong.

For the last time, you still have not provided an example of a legitimate 9-11 investigation.

[SDuderstadt]

78. What???

Are you kidding? Someone announces something they are going to do, they are challenged by someone else, so the original party lays out their case for why they are going to take the action. Are you seriously claiming that would not be justifying their future act? You've got to be kidding. As far as your claim about semantics, you're the one claiming justification only applies to a past or present act, This is really stupid.

[leftofthedial]

79. You first criticized my correct use of "justify." You were wrong.

I've made my case.

You are flogging an imaginary dead horse.

[SDuderstadt]

80. No more so than you are....n/t

[leftofthedial]

81. 9-11 investigations?

Didn't think so.

[SDuderstadt]

82. I'd love for you to read this section of the 9/11 Report and...

specifically point out where the 9/11 Commission, in any way, justified the invasion of Iraq.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch10.htm

[leftofthedial]

83. The 9-11 Commission did not conclude nakedly that we must immediately invade Iraq.

Other than that, I don't see your point. The conclusions of the panel provided rationale for continuing repuke assertions that Iraq must be the main front on the "war" on "terror." They still do for the 24% or so of Americans who support the bush doctrine as applied in Iraq.

I see no statement in the report that says "Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11" either. Neither does the report recount the overarching emphasis that the bush cabal and their operatives in State, Defense and the White House placed on invading Iraq, beginning while the attacks were unfolding. Testimony by Clarke and others was abundant and unambiguous on this point, yet it is absent from the report.

This report is as bush-friendly an interpretation of selective facts brought forward at the hearings as is possible. Considering that the hearings were ALREADY selective in scope and in methodology, this report is not worth the electrons it is printed on.

Also BTW, the section entitled "Flights of Saudi Nationals Leaving the United States" has been shown to be inaccurate in all three of its main points.

What I see in this report and in this section of the report particularly is the same kind of selective attention to fact and testimony that the neocons used--and still use--to excuse their invasion of Iraq.

[SDuderstadt]

84. The question is not whether the 9/11 Commission rebuked the invasion of Iraq...

the question is your assertion that they somehow justified it. Again, please point to the specific section that does this.

P.S. I was thinking you might be a serious researcher/debater. But, when I see terms like "repuke" and "cabal" scattered within a post, I generally see someone who reasons backwards from their hatred of Bush (I happen to despise Bush and Cheney) and thus uses loaded words or phrases to somehow bolster their argument. Ths issue here is not whether Bush and Cheney exploited 9/11 to rush to war in Iraq; they most certainly did. The question is whether, as you claimed, the 9/11 Commission justified the invasion. I see nothing of the sort and, in fact, you left out several passages which would argue in the opposite direction.

Did the 9/11 Commission come out and slam the invasion of Iraq? No. But, then again, I don't think the 9/11 Commission was charged with that.

[leftofthedial]

88. they aren't a cabal?

who knew?

The question is, did the 9-11 Commission seek the truth wherever it led? The answer is obviously "no." They didn't even pretend to set out to do that. Then their report omitted much of the "truth" they did find.

[SDuderstadt]

89. The truth about what?

Everything you think they should have concluded? Or what they were charged with? I am hardly arguing the investigation was perfect and I, further, don't know of any commission that operates without some degree of lack of cooperation, etc. That doesn't mean the commission's conclusions should be rejected out of hand. Do you actually know what the 9/11 Commission was empaneled to do? I also resent your implication/claim that Roemer. Kerrey, Ben-Veniste, Gorelick and Hamilton prostituted themselves in this regard. Again, I ask for specific proof of their transgressions, not your musings about it.

[leftofthedial]

94. My fear is that they found EXACTLY what they were charged with.

I wish they'd have sought the truth about what happened on 9-11.

[SDuderstadt]

95. So, you keep maligning Roemer, Hamilton, Gorelick...

Kerrey and Ben-Veniste, all of whom are (or were) fine public servants. Maybe we should go back and re-examine Nixon's guilt in Watergate since Ben-Veniste was one of the attorneys investigating it.

[Diane_nyc]

172. Several days ago I kicked a bunch of threads having to do with legitimate questions about 9/11 ....

Why don't you take a serious look at some of those threads?

[SidDithers]

2. No unexploded uranium means no nukes...

Simple as that.

Sid

[spooked911]

15. there was uranium in the wtc dust

in any case, it's not like they would tell us that they found remnants of mini-nukes in the rubble of the towers.

[SidDithers]

18. How much and what kind?...

More than occurs naturally? More highly enriched than occurs naturally?

Sid

[Realityhack]

148. Chirp n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

152. right!

[Mist]

3. Well, Spooked, as far as I know, no radiation poisoning has been found

in the first responders, or anywhere in the vicinity of the towers. Granted, the extreme pulverization of the towers and their contents argues that powerful explosives were used, but nukes aren't it.

[SidDithers]

5. Trace amounts of Tritium were found at Ground Zero...

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=15013327

So be prepared for spooked to try to use that as evidence of nukes. However, he hasn't explained why Tritium would indicate nukes, and ignores the fact that the total absence of Uranium rules them out.

Sid

[slackmaster]

229. There is tritium in wrist watches and all kinds of other luminous consumer items

:nuke:

[spooked911]

9. china syndrome of extreme heat generation

plus, plenty of responders have had cancer-- including thyroid cancer

I'm not saying there was scads of radiation, it was limited to be sure-- there wouldn't be true radiation poisoning

[SDuderstadt]

21. Do you know what Logical fallacy you just committed, Spooked?

It's called "affirming the consequent".

Your argument goes something like this.

Nuclear radiation causes thyroid cancer.
Plenty of responders have had thyroid cancer.
Therefore, they were exposed to nuclear radiation.


Let me put it a different way.

Rain cause people and things to get wet.
I went under Niagara Falls yesterday and got wet.
Therefore, it must have rained.

If you can't see the Logical fallacies in your argument, I can't help you. I would suggest you read a study entitled, "Unskilled and Unaware of it". It's a great read.

[LARED]

4. Seriously, you are joking right?

No one could possibly believe your OP. The real reason you post this idiocy is for the giggles. Right?

[spooked911]

10. I am serious

you are the one who real people interested in the truth have a hard time believing; everyone knows what you are

[LARED]

14. "everyone knows what you are" ????

Really, what am I?

A better question is what are you? Trying to hump idiotic ideas like the WTC was nuked would clearly put you in a category of trying to make the 9/11 truth movement look stupid and childish on purpose.

[spooked911]

16. Yes, everyone knows what you are. I won't say it here as it would get deleted.

I am a person interested in the truth, and I have found the truth is very ugly indeed.

And I've yet to see a serious rebuttal to nuking.

[LARED]

17. A serious rebuttal to nuking is scheduled right after a serious rebuttal

to the moon is made of cheese debate is completed.

See you then. :rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

22. "I have yet to see a serious rebuttal to nuking"...

This is called "shifting the burden of proof" and is, of course, an egregious logical fallacy. You've hardly proved that the WTC was nuked and many here have debunked your claim repeatedly. I would also point out that since you are resorting to an attempt to shift the burden of proof, we don't HAVE to debunk your claim. We merely have to point out that you failed to pove it. This just gets more pathetic all the time.

[spooked911]

27. No one has debunked my claim

I have extensive writings on the nuking of the WTC-- see here:
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com

The evidence is quite strong, frankly, if people would take time to look at the evidence with an open mind, then it should be obvious.

Two of the keys are the extreme pulverization of the tower and its contents, and the extreme heat left behind in the rubble for months that was impervious to millions of gallons of water being sprayed on it and raining on it-- the China Syndrome.

Of course, if you support the official story, you won't even believe that the towers were blown up, despite all evidence to the contrary. So why would you want to believe nukes? But that doesn't mean I am wrong.

[SDuderstadt]

28. Except you forget all the other things that would present if it HAD been nuked...

which has been pointed out to you over and over. For starters, there would be radiation poisoning on a much larger scale. Your claim is absolute bullshit.

[spooked911]

43. much larger scale of radiation poisoning?

you mean there was SOME radiation poisoning?

Thanks for the affirmation.

In any case, the radiation poisoning would obviously depend on the type and size of the nukes-- and these would obviously be small, low radiation devices.

[SDuderstadt]

47. I'm not admitting anything of the kind...

I am pointing out thr flaw in your argument

[spooked911]

64. are you saying there is absolutely no chance no one at ground zero got radiation

poisoning?

[SDuderstadt]

70. No, show me where I ever said that.

What I am saying is that your claim is clearly contradicted by the facts.

[Sweet Pea]

35. Bullshit

First off, they aren't YOUR writings - they are the writings of your Anonymous Moron.

Second, a bunch of hen-scratch meaningless mumbo jumbo bullshit does not "extensive writings" make.

Third, nobody has "debunked" what you claim because absolute groundless bullshit need not be debunked.

on edit: reply addressed to spooky's claim of "writings"

[spooked911]

44. I didn't claim it was all "my" writing

I just said I had writings on my site. I didn't say I was the sole author. I know how to phrase things accurately, thank you.

And if you had taken time to read the articles, you could see that they are very clear, logical and make a compelling case.

[LARED]

41. Question

you seem to indicate the towers were blown-up AND nuked? Are you saying the collapse was a "conventional" CD and the nuke was just a piece of the puzzle. Yes, or am I not understanding you?

[spooked911]

45. I don't understand your question. Are "blown up" and "nuked" substantially different?

I'm saying the towers went down in large part from small nuclear devices pulverizing and vaporizing the inner contents of the buildings. There may have been other types of explosives or weaponry used. But the evidence for nukes is quite compelling-- and importantly, "China Syndrome" from fizzled nukes is the only reasonable explanation for the incredible heat that was generated in the debris pile.

[LARED]

54. What evidence do you have the small nukes

pulverize concrete and vaporized the inner contents.

BTW, just because you seem to be mentality imprinted with someone called the "anonymous physicist" does not mean there is compelling evidence for nukes. The best I can tell is there is exactly zero evidence for nukes.

[SDuderstadt]

55. Now, really, Lared....

are you claiming we can't trust someone names the "anonymous physicist" to tell us the absolute truth?

[spooked911]

63. over 1000 missing people, completely pulverized inner contents, molten steel, etc

oh, it's compelling all right

[LARED]

65. So you're saying nukes are the only possible explanation

for the items on your list?

Really?

[SDuderstadt]

72. Spooked's post may set a new world record for the ....

sheer number of logical fallacies in one post.

[SDuderstadt]

71. Oh, I see...

Are you claiming the lack of widespread radiation poisoning of the survivors is offset because there are "over 1000 people" and we cannot determine whether they have radiation poisoning, so it's possible there was widespread radiation poisoning after all? Where in the world are you going with this argument?

[jberryhill]

6. No, there is apparently not enough nonsense here...

...but you're getting us closer all of the time.

[Sweet Pea]

11. It seems....

there ISN'T enough nonsense here.

On edit: jberryhill.....GMTA!

[spooked911]

12. Collected evidence here

http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/

[undeterred]

36. Why would someone use nuclear bombs

instead of some other method to demolish the building(s)?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

153. you get a better rumble!

the WTC buildings were hard nuts to crack so the tyrants loosened them up a bit. Manhattan could have been flooded too!

[dailykoff]

160. Why would we spend trillions to steal Iraq's oil instead of billions just buying it from them?

It's the principle of the thing. See Social Security "privatization" and other right-wing obsessions.

[Grateful for Hope]

37. spooked, please

Has it gotten too boring for you in this forum?

This is the type of theory that gives those seeking answers a bad name.

[SDuderstadt]

38. Thanks, Hope...

Okay....any other "truthers" going to join Hope and ask Spooked to cease and desist?

[Diane_nyc]

173. The only people with the power to make anyone "cease and desist" around here ...

... are the owner and moderators. For whatever reason, they choose to allow the wackiest nonsense to be posted here. And I see no reason to expect the purveyors of such nonsense to respond reasonably to a polite request, from anyone other than a moderator, to cease and desist.

Most of the 9/11 Truth forums I've participated in do not allow no-planes, nukes, etc.

I've said http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=209363&mesg_id=216248">my two cents on the "nukes" topic here. I see no reason to feed this thread by pursuing it further.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

56. Agreed! n/t

[dailykoff]

161. Every answer is going to be horrible so you're going to have to get used to it, Hope.

That's just the way this type of crime works. :shrug:

[Bolo Boffin]

162. I'm sorry, are you grouping "those seeking answers" into a single group?

Tacky, tacky. Diane will be along any minute to scold you.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

39. yes they were nuked

[vincent_vega_lives]

42. This from a guy

who tried to simulate the collapse of two of the most massive structures ever constructed by man with chicken wire.

[SidDithers]

49. Never underestimate a good chicken wire model...

:rofl:

Sid

[petgoat]

50. You prefer the NIST approach?

Build a large-scale model of a floor section, subject it to
unrealistic insults of heat, weight, and time and--when it
fails to generate the desired results--disregard it?

[vincent_vega_lives]

53. I doubt they were looking to exactly simulate the result

more the process and performance of the matterials involved. As is the case in most tests like this.

[petgoat]

57. NIST fudged the floor truss test (time, weight, heat) to generate sag. They got 4" sag.

They told the computer more like 40" sag.

Crooked bullshit.

[AZCat]

58. Which large scale model are you referring to?

The trusses used in the ASTM E 119 tests, the LS-Dyna model used to determine truss (and related component) behavior under gravity and gravity+thermal loading conditions, or the full floor model developed in ANSYS? I exclude, of course, the full floor SAP model because it did not incorporate temperature dependency.

[SDuderstadt]

52. The subject line is misleading....

it should read:

Enough nonsense here--->the the WTC Towers were nuked.

[SidDithers]

61. Enough!!! Nonsense here: the WTC Towers were nuked.

Fun with punctuation :)

Sid

[SDuderstadt]

59. When you find an honest 9/11 researcher...

let us know.

[Redstone]

62. Now, THIS is the funniest 9/11 nutball "theory" I've ever seen.

"China syndrome aftermath?"

Uh....OK, then.

Redstone

[spooked911]

66. Extreme heat and molten steel in the rubble for weeks afterward

despite millions of gallons of water being sprayed on it.

I say it is "China syndrome" from small fizzled nuclear reactions, leftover from the demolition.

How do you explain it?

[SDuderstadt]

73. Do you have evidence of....

"millions of gallons of water being sprayed on it"? I'll bet you don't.

[SDuderstadt]

76. I keep waiting for all the legitimate 9/11 researchers...

to take this post on. This post is among the reasons why the "truth movement" is, for the most part, a laughingstock. Why don't you guys take this on???

[Bassman66]

85. Remind me what COINTELPRO does

oh, yes I remember, induce in-fighting.

You're transparent.

[Flatulo]

86. Hey, no fair - I thought *I* was the transparent one!

You like SDude more than me!

[SDuderstadt]

92. This reminds me of a date many years ago....

I was out with an unbelievably great woman. We happened upon a very warm, loving family scene - husband, wife and two small daughters who were, to put it mildly, scene-stealers and major crack-ups. As I looked at the family enviously, I remarked, "Gee, Look at that...I can hardly wait until I'm a parent!'. My date looked at me and replied, "I think you're pretty apparent as it is".

[SDuderstadt]

91. Are you accusing me of being part of Cointelpro?

You just freaking did it again. You're one walking logical fallacy.

This time your argument goes something like this:

Cointelpro was an intelligence program that sought to counter dissidents by promoting in-fighting.
By raising legitimate issues about the 9/11 "truth movement", SDuderstadt is (inadvertently) promoting in-fighting.
Therefore, SDuderstadt must be connected to Cointelpro.

Affirming the consequent:

All cats are mammals.
A dog is a mammal.
Therefore, a dog is a cat.

[Bassman66]

98. I'm saying your happy to use COINTELPRO

because you are.

I am not accusing you of producing it.

[SDuderstadt]

102. And where, supposedly, am I getting this COINTELPRO from?

Are you saying I don't bother to vet what I read? And you would know this how, exactly?

[Bassman66]

109. It's all around. You see it, you pluck it, you use it. nt.

[SDuderstadt]

112. Great...then it shouldn't be hard to point to....

yet, you can't seem to.

[SidDithers]

99. As are you...nt

Sid

[Flatulo]

87. SDude, I love ya man, but I respectfully disagree that anyone

has to answer for the more nutty theories other than the purveyor.

JackRiddler very elegantly convinced me of this in a recent post of his.

I have been making a conscious effort to make associations of this type.

[SDuderstadt]

90. I am saying that the "truth movement" has a problem...

just like the GOP does with the Christian Right and Neocons. I am not saying that it is their responsibility. I am saying, instead, that they will not gain wide acceptance or credibility as long as the nuttier theories grab center stage.

Taking your and Jack's point, I would think that Jack and others might refrain from taking us to task when we do exactly what you're suggesting, which is, ask the purveyors to answer for their nutty theories.

[Diane_nyc]

190. Why the vast overkill from your end?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=209363&mesg_id=210618">SDuderstadt wrote:

90. I am saying that the "truth movement" has a problem...

just like the GOP does with the Christian Right and Neocons.

Some big differences between the GOP and a political movement such as the 9/11 Truth movement:

1) The GOP, as a single organization, could expel the Christian Right and the Neocons if it wanted to. It doesn't want to. Without the Christian Right and the Neocons, what would the GOP be? They'd be just the party of free-market dogmatists, which doesn't have much popular appeal except amongst the rich. To gain enough votes, they need much more than that. And the Christian Right, alas, happens to have been responsible for much of the GOP's popular appeal. The Christian Right was what persuaded a lot of conservative Southern Democrats to become Republicans around 1980.

2) Most political movements (as distinct from political parties) do not consist of a single major organization per movement. Political movements are typically informal aggregates of many different organizations, media, etc. This makes it harder to expel groups that are seen as undesirable.

Nevertheless, most of the major 9/11 Truth organizations (such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice) and websites (such as 9/11 Blogger) do strongly discourage no-planes and mini-nukes claims.

I am not saying that it is their responsibility. I am saying, instead, that they will not gain wide acceptance or credibility as long as the nuttier theories grab center stage.

Who is giving them "center stage"? Not the 9/11 Truth movement.

How do you think we should stop them from "grabbing center stage"?

Taking your and Jack's point, I would think that Jack and others might refrain from taking us to task when we do exactly what you're suggesting, which is, ask the purveyors to answer for their nutty theories.

What I object to (and I think JackRiddler would agree with me) is two things:

1) that you sometimes speak of the "no-planes" and "no nukes" advocates as if they were representative of the 9/11 Truth movement

2) that you give them "center stage" by kicking their threads endlessly.

I don't mean to suggest that you should ignore them entirely. But why give them so much attention? After several rounds, it should be obvious to any reasonably sane onlooker that the "no-planes" and "no nukes" claims are nutty. So why the vast overkill from your end?

[Lorentz]

93. What is the heat source for this "China Syndrome"?

You claim it went on for months after 9/11. How was a self-sustaining nuclear reaction taking place in what would amount to pulverised, scattered uranium dust from the nuclear blast? (ignore, for the time being, that there is no way the scattered debris could ever form a critical mass). After a nuclear explosion, the temperature only goes down. So I'm very curious to understand this new mechanism that no one has ever discussed before. You may, in fact, have unlocked the secret of limitless energy.... :toast: :crazy:

[spooked911]

96. Fizzled redundant nukes

http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2008/03/more-on-immediate-and-continous.html

http://wtc-syndrome.blogspot.com

[SidDithers]

100. So, where's the unexploded U238 (or P239)?...nt

Sid

[spooked911]

101. Presumably carted away in secret by government agents

It's not like they were gong to advertise it!

[SDuderstadt]

103. And no one noticed them?

LOLOLOL


Here's a great exercise, Spooked. Start taking all your goofy theories (your claim that government agents secretly carted the nuclear materials off may be your goofiest yet) and calculate how many hundreds, if not thousands, of people would have had to have been "in on it".

[SidDithers]

105. spooked, if they were able to detect ...

HTO in nCi/L concentrations, then unexploded U238 or P239 could not simply be "carted away" without leaving any evidence of its presence.
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=15013327

Sorry, spooked, but your "nukes at the WTC" theory is a dog that just won't hunt.

Stick to bunny cages, they seem to be your strength.

Sid

Edit: forgot to include link

[spooked911]

107. explain the cancers and the extreme heat for weeks then

IMO, the tritium findings are a red herring, and I don't trust any official reports about radiation at ground zero anyway.

[SidDithers]

110. Cancers are only caused by radiation?...

Do you know the difference between toxic and radioactive?


"Extreme" heat is only caused by fission?

How does a fission reaction stay active for weeks? For a fission reaction to continue to generate heat for weeks, it has to be controlled, with the use of a moderator, like deuterium (see CANDU reactors), graphite (Chernobyl) or pressurized water (France). Unmoderated fission reactions either go BOOM, (if there is enough material to support fission) or fizzle out very quickly (if there isn't enough material to support the reaction). And "fizzled" reactions leave lots of radioactive material behind.


Nukes at Ground Zero is a fantasy completely without supporting evidence.

Sid

[spooked911]

113. toxins don't explain the thyroid cancers

and you still haven't explained the extreme heat.

[SDuderstadt]

115. Wtf?

Are you claiming that toxins that cause cancers cannot cause thyroid cancers? As far as the extreme heat, there are tons of hydrocarbon-based materials in buildings.

[spooked911]

120. I'm not claiming that thyroid cancer can only be caused by radiation

but thyroid cancer is rare, and most commonly caused by radiation when it is in men

Oxygen-starved hydrocarbon fires are not going to cause the extreme heat seen at GZ-- plus it's not even clear how they came to be so widespread-- especially when the site was being sprayed with water and having sand dumped on it

[LARED]

122. "Oxygen-starved hydrocarbon fires" -- said who? - nt

[spooked911]

125. to explain molten metal being pulled out the rubble, and hot rubble piles

you have to assume oxygen starved fires

[LARED]

126. "you have to assume oxygen starved fires"

Why?

[spooked911]

128. is this really so difficult to perceive?

Compacted rubble is not going to have good air flow.

[LARED]

129. How could you know what amount of air was available

or how compacted the rubble was. Also you don't need to have "good" air flow. Whatever that means. You need sufficient air flow.

[spooked911]

133. Wow, is that really the best you have?

There is plenty of evidence of compacted rubble-- and plenty evidence of abnormal temperatures beneath the rubble

[LARED]

137. I guess good enough so you avoid the issue- nt

[SDuderstadt]

123. Provide some proof that thyroid cancer is "most commonly caused by radiation when it is in men"

Can you?

[spooked911]

127. I was extrapolating from what is known about thyroid cancer

Radiation is one of the most common causes of thyroid cancer, and generally women are more likely to get thyroid cancer than men.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/thyroid-cancer/DS00492/DSECTION=risk%2Dfactors

So, I think that if a cohort of men (i.e. several ground zero workers) develop thyroid cancer, there is a good chance it is from radiation.

[SDuderstadt]

130. Ummm, Spooked....

It doesn't say anywhere in your source that radiation is "one of the most common causes". Why do you guys insist on supplying sources that undermine your claim?

[spooked911]

134. There are plenty of references that say thyroid cancer is most common caused by radiation

e.g.
http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/447.cfm

"Risk Factors
The most common cause of thyroid cancer is significant exposure to radiation, either from the environment or as a result of prior medical treatment where radiation was applied to the head and neck area."

3rd hit on google, and I think the Sloan-Kettering people know something about cancer.

[SDuderstadt]

135. From your own source....

Radiation Exposure
Exposure to high levels of radiation may increase the risk of papillary and follicular thyroid cancers.

X-ray treatments used before 1950 to treat children with acne, tonsillitis, and other head and neck problems may increase the risk of papillary and follicular thyroid cancers. (Today, routine diagnostic x-rays use very low doses of radiation.)

People who have been treated with radiation therapy for Hodgkin's lymphoma or other forms of lymphoma in the head and neck are at an increased risk for developing papillary or follicular thyroid cancer.

Do you really think they are referring to radiation from a nuclear weapon here? Do you know the difference?

[spooked911]

138. puh-leeze

I know there are different types of radiation-- and a nuclear device can release X-rays, which are really just a form of gamma-radiation.

The point obviously is that radiation is the most common cause of thyroid cancer.

[SDuderstadt]

139. Too bad you have zero evidence of radiation at the site....

then.

[SidDithers]

118. Extreme heat is caused by fires burning for a long time...

inside an insulated area.

Now, explain how nukes cause extreme heat for a period of weeks. Be specific, please.


WRT thyroid cancers, your logic is flawed.

Your argument is:

Some first responders got thyroid cancer
Radiation is a cause for thyroid cancer
Therefore, radiation was present.

But radiation is easily detectable, and almost impossible to hide. And there was no radiation detected.

Some first responders got thyroid cancer
Radiation is a cause for thyroid cancer
No radiation was detected
Therefore, something else was the cause of their thyroid cancers.

Sid

[SidDithers]

111. That should have been U235, not U238...

my fingers got ahead of my brain.

Sid

[spooked911]

97. Cancer-- 400 total patients so far in GZ responders

75 blood cancers
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0648,lombardi,75156,2.html

Multiple cases of thyroid cancer
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07082007/news/regionalnews/fdny_thyroid_cancer_shock_regionalnews_ginger_adams_otis_____and_susan_edelman.htm

A nuclear reactor meltdown led to only about 300 cancers over 50 years!

http://wcbstv.com/health/nuclear.meltdown.Santa.2.273943.html
Nuclear Meltdown May Have Caused Cancers
LOS ANGELES (AP) ― A 1959 nuclear reactor meltdown at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory may have caused hundreds of cases of cancer in the community, and chemicals threaten to contaminate ground and water, according to a report released Thursday.

The report by an independent advisory panel estimated it was likely that radiation released during the meltdown caused about 260 cases of cancer within a 60-square-mile area around the reactor.

The lab's former owner, Rocketdyne, has said for years that no significant radiation was released. But the independent advisory panel said the incident released nearly 459 times more radiation than a similar one at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island in 1979.

[SDuderstadt]

104. Logical fallacy....Affirming the consequent

Your argument assumes the only cause for those cancers is radiation poisoning.


People exposed to radiation poisoning sometimes develop cancer.
Some first responders have developed cancer.
Therefore, they were exposed to radiation poisoning.

I'm sure you can't see why that argument isn't valid, but I'll try to show it a different way.


When it rains, people outdoors get wet.
Spooked911 visited Niagara Falls,rode on the Maiden of the Mist and got wet.
Therefore, it must've have rained at Niagara Falls.

My favorite example is:

God is love.
Love is Blind.
Stevie Wonder is blind.
Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

[spooked911]

106. Your own fallacy-- you saying that I think the 400 cancers proves radiation at ground zero

I do think the 400 cancers, including the multiple cases of thyroid cancer, are extremely consistent with radiation poisoning.

No, they don't PROVE radiation, but radiation is still the BEST EXPLANATION for the 400 cancers.

Understand?

The extreme heat at ground zero is also high consistent with nuclear bombs being used-- and with redundant nukes "fizzling".

No, the extreme heat doesn't PROVE nukes.

But the BEST EXPLANATION for the extreme heat for weeks after 9/11 at ground zero is redundant nukes "fizzling".

Understand?

[SDuderstadt]

108. No

Now you're trying to make it sound like you're not asserting it. The problem with your argument is that you can't explain all the other things one would expect if radiation poisoning had occurred at Ground Zero.

I don't know how you can possibly conclude I committed a logical fallacy. If you're certain of it, perhaps you could identify it....by name, please. For the record, I don't think you know a thing about Logic. Maybe you should Google "Unskilled and Unaware of it". I think you'd enjoy it.

Your claim that the radiation poisoning is the "BEST EXPLANATION" for the "400 cancers" is also faulty:

http://www.cancerbackup.org.uk/Cancertype/Thyroid/Causesdiagnosis/Causes

Exposure to radiation
This may be due to radiotherapy given in childhood, or to unusually high levels of radiation in the environment; for example, in the areas surrounding Chernobyl in the Ukraine, following the nuclear power explosion of 1986. Thyroid cancer can develop many years after exposure. However, only a small number of thyroid cancers are caused by radiation exposure.

On top of that, studies are linking cancers from Ground Zero to "toxins", not "radiation poisoning". This is just more of your bullshit.

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/cancer.third.wave.2.244761.html

[spooked911]

114. I was asserting it as evidence. I didn't say it was proof-- but it is evidence

I didn't say you committed a "logical fallacy", oh "master debater".

I said you made a mistake by claiming I offered the cancer as proof of radiation.

I never said radiation was the only explanation.

Toxins are a catch-all phrase that is used as a cover-up for radiation, and radiation better explains the cancers than toxins.

The fact is nukes are the best overall explanation for the range of phenomenon seen with the WTC demolition and ground zero.

[SDuderstadt]

116. "Toxins are a catch-all phrase that is used as a cover-up for radiation"

Please provide some proof of this, otherwise it is simply your conjecture.

[spooked911]

117. as far as I know, there is no precedent for toxins causing this many cancers

in such a short time frame.

So you can argue that it was an extreme mix of toxins never before seen-- or you can argue radiation.

There seems to be a poor understanding of the precise toxins there, and certainly no proof that they caused the cancers.

[SDuderstadt]

124. And you have ZERO prrof of radiation at the site....

other than some responders have developed cancer so, therefore it is most likely the cancers developed from radiation. Pathetic.

[spooked911]

144. what part of "cover-up" don't you understand?

[SidDithers]

119. It would be a good explanation for thyroid cancers...

if radiation had been detected. But you can't say that radiation is the best explanation, when there was no radiation detected.

Explain to me in detail what a "fizzled" nuke is, and how it generates heat for a period of weeks, 'cause I don't think you've got a fucking clue what you're talking about.

Fissile material doesn't "fizzle". There's either enough of it to support a fission reaction or there isn't. Either way, without moderation, a state of equilibrium is reached very quickly. If there's not enough material to support fission, then the radioactive material just sits there, emitting alpha, beta or gamma rays, irradiating everything around it.



Sid

[dailykoff]

140. What radiation data are you looking at?

To my knowledge data from local radiation detectors gathered on 911 hasn't been released.

[SidDithers]

145. Any undergraduate physics lab in the Eastern US...

could have detected radiation if a nuke had been used in NYC. Especially if plutonium and uranium were used.

Hell, I had a physics professor who was able to detect Cs137 and CS134 from Chernobyl, in Toronto.

And it's not like it's hard to get access to a geiger counter or a mass spectrometer.

And yet, there are no papers identifying radioactive fallout from a nuclear explosion in NYC.

Sid

Edit: I should add Ge-Li gamma ray spectrometer. After re-reading the paper by Harry Taylor and Joseph Svoboda, that's what they used to identify the energy spikes of Cesium.

[Realityhack]

149. Is it possible that

some of the closer universities would have noticed such material completely by coincidence during normal lab operation if it was contaminating the area?

[dailykoff]

150. Fine, but note that I said data, not evidence.

Where are the data measuring radiation levels -- elevated or otherwise -- in lower Manhattan on and immediately after 9/11? I have seen no such data, and while I agree that it probably exists, I have to wonder why it hasn't been made publicly available.

[hack89]

177. But they would still be elevated

there should be radioactive dust everywhere. So why hasn't some truther simply gone to NY and take some readings? There are real scientist in the truth movement aren't there?

And by now shouldn't public health records be show a massive spike in deaths, cancers and birth defects? Don't we know what prolong exposure to radiation does to people?

[Realityhack]

121. Exactly like a creationist's 'logic'

1. Fail to understand something
2. Do everything you can to avoid gaining any knowledge about the subject or any related subjects.
3. Seek out as much psudo-scientific BS supporting your claim as possible.
4. Proclaim the 'truth' on the internet
5. Fail to comprehend and address the counterpoints made by others (see 1, and 2)

FAIL

[spooked911]

132. You're explaining your support of the official story, I presume?

[SDuderstadt]

136. No, he's taking issue with your...

goofy theory.

[Realityhack]

141. no.

I do not need to be a supporter of anything to disagree with a preposterous theory like yours.

In fact it is quite often that we do not have an explanation for a phenomenon but we can rule out some possibilities. For example, say we had a real actual bomb site. Even without knowing what explosive WAS used we could rule out a nuclear device on the basis of a negative radiation test.
We might do another test and rule out another type of explosive.

Your 'theory' of nuclear devices is not only unsupported by the evidence it is actually contradicted by the evidence. Furthermore you clearly lack even a basic understanding of physics never mind any comprehension of nuclear physics. It is quite easy to rule out this conjecture without needing any alternative explanation.

[dailykoff]

131. That they were. There's no other way to explain how they did it,

for one thing, and for another, they were hot to use nukes after flubbing it in 93, and there are many pre-911 documents where the "threat" of nuclear terrorism is discussed rather seriously.

[Realityhack]

142. This is Irony right? n/t

[spooked911]

143. no

it's for real

[Realityhack]

147. The question was not addressed to you.

I was looking for a response to see if the post I responded too was being sarcastic.

I already know you are serious about your insane theory. I also know you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

[dailykoff]

151. No, it obviously wasn't meant as sarcasm,

as I'm sure you know, so your question really didn't merit an answer, but spooked was kind enough to state the obvious for you anyway, as you seem eager to miss the point.

[Realityhack]

154. Thanks for reading my mind... I was wondering what I thought...

Actually I didn't recall your positions at the time of posting so I thought it might be someone who was being sarcastic. Not being sure I decided to get more information before going off on something completely innocent.

As kind as spooked was trying to be I didn't want to take someone else's word as to your position. That doesn't seem like a very good idea to me.

[dailykoff]

158. Any time.

No charge. :hi:

[Realityhack]

155. That is some seriously twisted 'logic'.

"There's no other way to explain how they did it"
One of the most ignorant statements ever made.

"they were hot to use nukes after flubbing it in 93"
Non-sequitur. With no evidence to boot.

"there are many pre-911 documents where the "threat" of nuclear terrorism is discussed rather seriously."
Another non-sequitur.

This is not logical or critical thinking. It is an example of throwing words together and hoping they make some kind of sense. This argument is so far from being a coherent intelegent thought that it is virtually impossible to argue with. It is along the lines of I like cherry pie, and trees are green, therefore dailykoff is typing from Mars.

[dailykoff]

157. Let me guess, you think they did it with box cutters.

And you're calling ME ignorant?

[Realityhack]

163. Some questions

Where do you think the nuclear bomb/s where (ie. basement, upper tower, etc.)?
What do you think the yield was (say within one order of magnitude)?
What happened to the unexploded uranium?
What other signs would one expect to see if a nuclear bomb went off and where is the evidence for the?

[dailykoff]

164. My rough guess is three 10-20 ton SADM micro-nukes per tower, on or around floors 18, 55, and 73:

Here's an example of a nuclear demolition device that was produced in the 1960s, an H-912 backpack-style transport container for the Mk-54 Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM), which had a variable yield of 10 tons to 1 kiloton of TNT:



In the 1950s and 1960s, the United States developed several different types of lightweight nuclear devices. The main one was the W54, a cylinder 40 by 60 cm that weighed 68 kg. It was fired by a mechanical timer and had a variable yield equivalent to between 10 tons and 1 kiloton of TNT. 300 SADMs were assembled and remained in the US arsenal until 1989.

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition

The W54 is small enough to be deployed as a SADM (Special Atomic Demolition Munition) or so called "Backpack Nuke". It was the closest thing the U.S. is known to have to developed to a so-called "suitcase bomb".

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54

These articles are in the past tense, but I'm guessing we've spent some of the trillions we've poured into nuclear weapons research over the last forty years to develop smaller, more reliable and less detectable micro-nukes. So I'm not going to speculate on the materials used in them.

Other signs of nuclear weaponry: heat and pressure waves (check), high-speed destruction (check), vaporization of steel and other building materials (check), inextinguishable fires (check).

[Realityhack]

165. Uh.. no

You don't get to rewrite nuclear physics to claim radiation wouldn't be present because "I'm not going to speculate on the materials used in them"

"heat and pressure waves (check)"
from 3 10-20 ton yeild nuclear weapons? No. No check there. No shock wave propagating through the dust etc.

"high-speed destruction (check)"
Irrelevent. Would be the case either way. No evidence of anything being thrown out in the way you would expect with a large explosion.

"vaporization of steel and other building materials (check)"
you don't actually know what "vaporization" means do you?

"inextinguishable fires (check)."
No. No check here either.
But then their wouldn't be one would there. Please describe what the fuck you are talking about in terms of physics.

Moving on...
Electro magnetic effects
- no check
Radiation
- no check
Seismic indications
- no check
Simultaneous destruction of the floors you site
- No check
Shockwaves in the dust from non-simultaneous explosions
- No check

It has become quite clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. Unless you have some actual differential evidence that indicates the use of a nuclear device I suggest you go back and re-think your ideas. Try applying physics this time.

[dailykoff]

166. Oh joy, another ride down that linkless river in Egypt.

Look if you don't want answers, don't ask direct questions. The more experienced hacks here have learned not to, because they know we've figured out the truth and they'd rather pretend we hadn't.

Anyway, the simple fact is that the US has been researching, designing and building nuclear weapons SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEMOLITION for the last half century. You can do your denial dance all you want but that's the reality, sorry.

[Realityhack]

167. ROTFLOL... You don't seriously think you make any sense do you?

Sure they have built nuclear weapons for demolition in the past. And I would not be surprised if they still do.
That is NOT evidence they where used.

Furthermore their is a huge difference between 'building nuclear weapons specifically for demolitions' and the magic you seem to think they pulled off. Small nuclear bombs can indeed bring down buildings.
They can not violate the laws of physics as to how an atomic reaction works.
They can not violate the laws of physics as to how very large explosions behave.

You simply do not have evidence that indicates the use of nuclear weapons. All of your so called evidence would be the case wither or not they where used.

[dailykoff]

168. Please elaborate on these "laws of physics" you claim I've violated, thanks. (n/t)

[hack89]

178. Radioactivity for one

fusion devices leave by-products - where are they?

[Realityhack]

194. Hack is correct.

Radioactivity.
Uncontrolled explosive force propagating outward.
Compression waves being visible in dust clouds.
Electro-magnetic effects of nuclear reactions.
Seismic transmission of shock waves.
Large compression waves being audible.
and on and on.

You can't even work around the first one. More are hardly needed.

[dailykoff]

196. Let me guess, Hubbard's first law of thermo-dianetics?

In case you didn't catch it the first time, I said "Please elaborate on these 'laws of physics' you claim I've violated, thanks."

[Realityhack]

198. I am not your physics tutor.

If you want to find out how nuclear reactions take place or how pressure waves propagate I encourage you to find out.
However I am not going to spend time trying to instruct a willfully ignorant individual.

[defendandprotect]

146. I agree . . . it's been a little too long since I've been in touch with this subject . . .

and thank you and all the others who are staying current ---

Is the figure only 30% now who suspect that this was Cheney/Bush MIHOP or LIHOP -- ???

[defendandprotect]

156. Which is another sign of how suicidal these people are . . .

from depleted uranium all over the place to the free use of mini-nukes . . .

and they're taking us all with them . . .

[SDuderstadt]

159. You need to call these people and tell them that....

they are overlooking the obvious cause of the brain tumors in their area being nuclear radiation. Apparently, they didn't get your memo.

http://www.kctv5.com/news/16882528/detail.html

[Diane_nyc]

169. If the WTC were nuked, someone at a nearby college or hospital would notice the radiation ....

See, for example, http://www.fireworld.com/ifw_articles/geiger_0108.php">this article on Geiger counters (mentions New York University, which is only a couple of miles from Ground Zero). See also http://www.alibaba.com/product-free/11143623/Geiger_Counter_Model_GP100.html">this ad for a Geiger counter (mentions the common use of Geiger counters in hospitals, among other places).

The college nearest to Ground Zero is BMCC (Borough of Manhattan Community College), one of whose buildings (Fiterman Hall) got damaged irreparably by the collapse of WTC 7. Here's a http://www.bmcc.cuny.edu/catalog/syllabi/CHE202.pdf">syllabus for a chemistry course there (PDF) which includes a lab exercise on "Natural Radioactivity." Most likely this lab exercise would involve detecting and measuring said radioactivity.

I haven't yet researched which hospitals are nearest to Ground Zero, but no doubt there are some nearby hospitals.

The WTC nuke hypothesis is plainly ridiculous. I see no need to say much more about it.

On edit: This issue is a distraction from much more important and more reasonable questions about 9/11, such as: How much did various people in the government know about the forthcoming attacks?

[dailykoff]

170. That's why the NYC mayor, city council, and police are making Geiger counters ILLEGAL

for use by private citizens in NYC. Read all about it:

NYPD Seeks an Air Monitor Crackdown for New Yorkers:
A city councilman and the cops don't want you to have that Geiger counter without their permission

by Chris Thompson
The Village Voice
Tuesday, January 8th 2008

Richard Falkenrath, the NYPD's deputy commissioner for counterterrorism. . . . and Mayor Michael Bloomberg have asked the City Council to pass a law requiring anyone who wants to own such detectors to get a permit from the police first. And it's not just devices to detect weaponized anthrax that they want the power to control, but those that detect everything from industrial pollutants to asbestos in shoddy apartments. Want to test for pollution in low-income neighborhoods with high rates of childhood asthma? Gotta ask the cops for permission. Why? So you "will not lead to excessive false alarms and unwarranted anxiety," the first draft of the law states.

Last week, Falkenrath made his case for the new law before the City Council's Public Safety Committee, where Councilman Peter Vallone introduced the bill and chaired the hearing. Dozens of university researchers, public-health professionals, and environmental lawyers sat in the crowd, horrified by the prospect that if this law passes, their work detecting and warning the public about airborne pollutants will become next to impossible. But Falkenrath pressed on, saying that unless the police can determine who gets to look for nasty stuff floating in the air, the city would be paralyzed by fear.

"There are currently no guidelines regulating the private acquisition of biological, chemical, and radiological detectors," warned Falkenrath, adding that this law was suggested by officials within the Department of Homeland Security. "There are no consistent standards for the type of detectors used, no requirement that they be reported to the police department—or anyone else, for that matter—and no mechanism for coordinating these devices. . . . Our mutual goal is to prevent false alarms . . . by making sure we know where these detectors are located, and that they conform to standards of quality and reliability."

Vallone nodded his head, duly moved by Falkenrath's presentation. Nevertheless, he had a few concerns. When the Environmental Protection Agency promised that the air surrounding Ground Zero was safe, Vallone said, independent testers proved that such assurances were utterly false. Would these groups really have to get a permit before they started working? "It's a good question, and it has come up prior to this hearing," Falkenrath replied. "What I can assure you is that we will look extremely carefully at this issue of the independent groups, and get the opinion of the other city agencies on how to handle that, and craft an appropriate response." And if people use these detectors without a permit, Vallone asked, do we really have to put them in jail? Afraid so, Falkenrath answered.

more at link: http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-01-08/news/nypd-seeks-an-air-monitor-crackdown-for-new-yorkers/


So tell me something: who are private citizens supposed to report their findings to if the Mayor, police, and EPA are not only lying to them but trying to make such reporting a crime? :shrug:

[Diane_nyc]

171. If the point were to cover up WTC nukes, they would have outlawed Geiger counters long before 2008.

The article you cited is dated Tuesday, January 8, 2008. That's quite a long time after 9/11/2001.

Here's a follow-up article: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/committee-hears-both-sides-of-police-air-monitor-debate/">New York Times, April 29, 2008.

On edit: Anyhow, the point of the proposed legislation isn't to outlaw Geiger counters, although critics are rightly concerned that the proposed legislation may have a chilling effect on their use by independent citizen groups.

[dailykoff]

174. NYT: "the bill gives the police the power to seize monitoring devices,

to order they stop being used, and to issue summonses if a police officer determines that the instrument ... does not have the required permit."

Now why would the mayor, city council, and police be so interested in preventing citizens from testing for radioactivity? I'm sure it has nothing to do with radation levels at Ground Zero, incidentally one of the most heavily guarded sites on the planet, or with the fact that the EPA was found to be lying about air quality after 911:

"under such a law, citizens groups would not have been able to do the air testing that contradicted overly optimistic official air quality reports after the destruction of the twin towers on Sept. 11."

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/committee-hears-both-sides-of-police-air-monitor-debate/

I imagine you think that if there's anything you needed to know, the city authorities would tell you, but after watching them perform on and after 911, I'm not so trusting.

[Diane_nyc]

175. Straw man. Trust in city authorities has nothing to do with my point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=209363&mesg_id=216278">dailykoff wrote:

I imagine you think that if there's anything you needed to know, the city authorities would tell you, but after watching them perform on and after 911, I'm not so trusting.

I'm certainly not so trusting either. But that's not the point I was making earlier.

My point was that, if the city authorities specifically wanted to cover up a nuke event on 9/11/2001, they wouldn't have waited until 2008 to try to make life difficult for people with Geiger counters. Between 2001 and 2008, there were plenty of people, other than city authorities, who could have detected any abnormally high levels of radiation near Ground Zero.

You quoted a news story as saying:

"under such a law, citizens groups would not have been able to do the air testing that contradicted overly optimistic official air quality reports after the destruction of the twin towers on Sept. 11."

Note that the citizens groups did detect government lies about air quality, but not about any huge levels of radiation.

[dailykoff]

176. Please. And we know no one's detected elevated radiation because Bloomberg hasn't announced it?

If federal, state and city officials and their media collaborators including the New York Times don't want anyone to know what downtown radiation levels on and after 911 were, they're obviously not going to publicize Joe or Jane Citizen's alarming findings.

[hack89]

180. Where's the spike in death, cancers and birth defects?

it is irrelevant whether it was publicized or not - we know what radiation does to humans. You are delusional if you think it could be hidden for 7 years.

[Diane_nyc]

181. It would be exceedingly difficult to squelch such news.

Even if Bloomberg managed to pressure the local major media into keeping quiet about it, there are still plenty of other local media that would cover it, such as, for example, local labor union papers for the affected hospitals and schools. If lots of reputable people at local hospitals and schools were detecting unusually high levels of radiation, then there would be lots of local people (including lots of very wealthy local people) raising quite a stink. Word would get out, one way or another.

[dailykoff]

191. They haven't squelched it.

You only think they have. Anyone with an interest in pursuing the matter will come to the conclusion that nuclear devices were used to demolish the Trade Center in a manner entirely consistent with every other senseless atrocity committed by this administration and its collaborators, and many have. The blackout on 911 radiation data is only one small piece of the puzzle, though a telling one, but there's plenty of other evidence.

[Diane_nyc]

193. The radiation data was the thing I said could not be squelched, if the WTC were nuked.

You totally missed my point, again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=209363&mesg_id=216248">In a post here, I pointed out that there would be many people with Geiger counters at nearby hospitals and colleges. Thus, if the WTC were nuked, many people would detect the radiation.

Later, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=209363&mesg_id=216280">I also wrote here:

My point was that, if the city authorities specifically wanted to cover up a nuke event on 9/11/2001, they wouldn't have waited until 2008 to try to make life difficult for people with Geiger counters. Between 2001 and 2008, there were plenty of people, other than city authorities, who could have detected any abnormally high levels of radiation near Ground Zero.

...

Note that the citizens groups did detect government lies about air quality, but not about any huge levels of radiation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=209363&mesg_id=216288">You replied:

176. Please. And we know no one's detected elevated radiation because Bloomberg hasn't announced it?

If federal, state and city officials and their media collaborators including the New York Times don't want anyone to know what downtown radiation levels on and after 911 were, they're obviously not going to publicize Joe or Jane Citizen's alarming findings.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=209363&mesg_id=216293">I replied:

181. It would be exceedingly difficult to squelch such news.

Even if Bloomberg managed to pressure the local major media into keeping quiet about it, there are still plenty of other local media that would cover it, such as, for example, local labor union papers for the affected hospitals and schools. If lots of reputable people at local hospitals and schools were detecting unusually high levels of radiation, then there would be lots of local people (including lots of very wealthy local people) raising quite a stink. Word would get out, one way or another.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=209363&mesg_id=216321">You replied:

191. They haven't squelched it.

You only think they have.

But then, in that same post, you also said:

The blackout on 911 radiation data is only one small piece of the puzzle

But the "911 radiation data" was precisely the thing I said could not be squelched, because there are too many people around with Geiger counters at nearby hospitals and schools.

You also wrote:

Anyone with an interest in pursuing the matter will come to the conclusion that nuclear devices were used to demolish the Trade Center

Wrong. Not even most MIHOPpers agree with you.

[spooked911]

207. wrong-- radiation falls off dramatically with distance and the dust WAS weakly radioactive

the radiation would have only been clearly detected at ground zero

moreover, the ground zero dust had two-fold increased beta-radiation over background.

A short section buried in the EPH report
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html:

We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40.

Note also this from the report:

When placed in the liquid scintillation fluid, the WTC samples are somewhat darker than the backgrounds and calibration standard, which may cause slight underreporting of the beta activity due to quenching and standard-to-sample efficiency bias.

This radiation is unlikely to be Radon, a relatively common radioactive element fond in building materials, as Radon emits alpha, beta and gamma radiation.

However, tritium is solely a beta-particle emitting radionuclide-- and of course tritium is a by-product of nuclear fusion reactions.

We already know they found tritium at Ground Zero-- was it found in the dust too?

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/12/beta-radiation-elevated-in-wtc-dust.html

[hack89]

217. The radioactive dust was created at ground zero

and then spread over a great distance. Since the dust is the source of the radiation (ie fission byproducts) why would it get weaker the further one is from ground zero?

And as pointed out many time, there are many common uses of tritium that do not involve nuclear weapons - glow in the dark watches and exit signs are the most common.

[Diane_nyc]

220. Fission products from a nuclear weapon would produce much higher levels of radiation ....

... and there would also have been plenty of reports of bright blue glowing stuff. (That's what nuclear fission products look like.)

(Even nuclear fusion weapons use fission to trigger the fusion.)

[dailykoff]

223. "radionuclide activity ... not more than twice the background level"

Now that's reassuring. Is it just me or does the information on radionuclides in this report seem massaged? In the few sentences alloted to it in an otherwise lengthy "Results" section, beta activity is described as "slightly elevated," but also at twice the background level:

We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40.

Also, in the equally terse "Radionuclides" section, the authors admit a "slight underreporting of the beta activity":

When placed in the liquid scintillation fluid, the WTC samples are somewhat darker than the backgrounds and calibration standard, which may cause slight underreporting of the beta activity due to quenching and standard-to-sample efficiency bias.

No attempt is made to explain the significance of these random and contradictory observations.

link: http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html#resu

Hoffman like many others seizes on the vague hints that there's nothing to see here to declare "The passage indicates that the radioactivity of the WTC samples was only slightly above background levels, which is not surprising, given that small quantities of radionuclides are used in applications likely present in the Towers."

link: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/nuclear.html

However, considering that this report has no less than 20 authors, at least one of whom could surely have provided a little more information and analysis of the radiological tests they ran on three different WTC dust samples, it seems to me that here as elsewhere, the official reporting on 911 radioactivity has been massaged in order to misrepresent, minimize, and/or conceal it.

Of course, many will rush to reassure us that the government would NEVER fudge a report on something as important as radioactivity, because public health has ALWAYS been issue numero uno with the neocon vulture administration!!!1

:crazy:

[Diane_nyc]

225. Even if you don't trust that report ....

... there are lots of other people who would have noticed the radiation, if indeed any kind of nuclear weapon had exploded in the WTC buildings.

As discussed at length in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=209363&mesg_id=216248">the sub-thread starting here, there were lots of people with Geiger counters in the general vicinity.

In addition, there were many, many people involved in searching the rubble for human remains. If there were chunks of bright blue glowing stuff in the rubble, lots of these people would have noticed.

Fallout from nuclear weapons would have glowed a lot brighter than those mildly radioactive glow-in-the-dark exit signs, of which the WTC buildings no doubt had plenty.

[dailykoff]

226. Please list, link to, or name these "lots of other people" who measured 911 radiation

with their Geiger counters and what their Geiger counters found, thanks. (n/t)

[hack89]

179. Which means truthers have had geiger counters for seven years.

where are the results of their testing? There are real scientists in the truth movement aren't there? And they have done basic testing and experimentation haven't they?

[Diane_nyc]

182. You weren't responding to a typical "truther" there ....

Most leading 9/11 Truth activists do NOT advocate the idea that the WTC buildings were nuked.

This idea (like no-planes) is regarded as disinfo by many longterm 9/11 Truth activists such as Nicholas Levis (JackRiddler here).

Please don't imply that this particular claim is typical of "truthers."

[hack89]

183. I enjoy interacting with the non-typical truthers - let dailykoff speak for himself. nt

[Diane_nyc]

184. Just please don't state, imply, or insinuate that he's a typical "truther," okay? nt

[hack89]

185. Are you the standard by which all truthers are judged? nt

[Diane_nyc]

186. No. If anyone around here should be considered the "standard," it's JackRiddler ...

... who is one of the founders of the movement.

In any case, very few of the leading 9/11 Truth groups and activists go for the mini-nukes idea.

[SDuderstadt]

187. You're being dissed by your own movement, Dailykoff!

Any response?

[dailykoff]

189. Nice of you to drop by. That makes three stooges. (n/t)

[dailykoff]

188. He might consider himself to be,

so you could be right about that, but as I've already explained, LIHOP is simply a version of the official fairy tale about evil Arabs who hate our freedoms, and it's a giant crock of shit being used as a pretense for war crimes. Get it? WAR CRIMES, a.k.a. CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, which are seriously jeopardizing world peace not to mention our own comfortable existence so I don't particularly appreciate his or your feigned ignorance.

[Diane_nyc]

192. Even most MIHOPpers reject the mini-nukes and no-planes hypotheses.

For example, Jim Hoffman http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/nuclear.html">explains here why he rejects the idea that the WTC buildings were nuked.

[dailykoff]

195. Hoffman is relying on a CIA plant for this information, so it's not surprising that it's wrong.

Hoffman understands building science and engineering pretty well, and I'm impressed by the structural information collected and annotated on his website, but he turns to others on the subject of nuclear weaponry, and the "expert" he apparently relies on is completely unreliable. In fact as far as I can determine Jones's one and only purpose in the "truth" movement apart from dividing and disrupting it is to direct attention away from the obvious truth that nuclear devices were used to demolish the World Trade Center.

For example, Hoffman's claim that "the destruction of the Towers was not consistent with the inherent features of known nuclear devices" overlooks the fact that (a) we've been spending billions annually to develop new and better nukes including demolition nukes ever since WWII, and (b) we've been as comically secretive about our nuclear arsenal as the Russians ever were about theirs. The result is that few people outside the highest levels of the Pentagon and White House know exactly what kinds and how many weapons we actually have, how they're made, and what sorts of radioactive byproducts they produce when detonated.

So I don't find Hoffman's OCT-style checklist or his citation of the ridiculous disinfo produced by Stephen Jones remotely truthful.

[Diane_nyc]

197. Are you claiming there are nuclear fission reactions without highly radioactive by-products?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=209363&mesg_id=216329">dailykoff wrote:

few people outside the highest levels of the Pentagon and White House know exactly what kinds and how many weapons we actually have, how they're made, and what sorts of radioactive byproducts they produce when detonated.

Do you mean to claim that there are as-yet-unpublicized nuclear fission reactions whose byproducts aren't highly radioactive? If so, two objections:

1) This contradicts what is usually alleged to be one of the pieces of evidence for the WTC-nuke claim, namely the persistent heat within the Pile. Such persistent heat could be evidence of a nuclear explosion only if said nuclear explosion produced highly radioactive byproducts.

2) Nuclear physics is not a secret science. The engineering of nuclear weapons is secret, but the basic underlying science is not secret. Any "secret science" would be severly handicapped by insufficient peer review. For that reason, nearly all "secret research" is done partly out in the open, with the basic science done publicly, in academia, while the applications are kept secret.

If there were a nuclear fission reaction that didn't produce highly radioactive by-products, then we'd be hearing all about it as a possible solution to the oil crisis, because it would answer the number-one objection to nuclear power plants (namely, the question of what to do with all that highly radioactive waste).

Anyhow, you also wrote:

195. Hoffman is relying on a CIA plant for this information, so it's not surprising that it's wrong.

...

In fact as far as I can determine Jones's one and only purpose in the "truth" movement apart from dividing and disrupting it is to direct attention away from the obvious truth that nuclear devices were used to demolish the World Trade Center.

You claim that the WTC-nuke hypothesis is an "obvious truth," when in fact it's obviously ridiculous. Although Steven Jones has made plenty of mistakes of his own, he is to be commended for rejecting the more obviously ridiculous claims.

What is your evidence for your insinuated claim that Steven Jones is a CIA plant?

Yes, Jones has ties to Los Alamos Labs, etc., but so would any nuclear physicist.

[dailykoff]

199. I'm claiming we can be reasonably certain that nuclear devices were used in the WTC demolitions.

I'm also claiming we can be absolutely certain that they were demolished. My best guess is that a variety of weaponry was employed, some experimental, more than likely for the purpose of studying the effects on human victims of such weaponry. That would explain the interest of the CDC in monitoring victims of 911 sickness, which they officially claim is psychological.

As to the design of the weapons, nuclear demolition is not a subject I've ever studied or wanted to study, so I'm not going to speculate on the exact nature of the explosives used, which you can be sure is highly classified information anyway.

[LARED]

200. Given you seem to be an intelligent person, it is very hard to

believe you actually believe what you are writing. The ability to pile on so many straw man arguments in two short paragraph is a monument to something.

[dailykoff]

201. Yes, it is very hard to believe, I'll grant you that.

I didn't believe it myself for a couple of years. I remember listening to a David Griffin speech on Pacifica and thinking "if only this guy didn't go in for controlled demolition he'd have a pretty compelling case, but that's just ridiculous."

Then one day I realized he was right. Gigantic overbuilt steel highrises do not suddenly disintegrate into particles as a result of floor fires, upper-story air collisions or anything else save VERY powerful explosives.

And then I saw that the whole nutty CD thing is, in fact, absolutely correct, and since then everything this administration has done -- every lie, every theft, every assault -- has perfectly fit the profile of the type of psychotic assassins who would pull a 911.

[LARED]

202. Good luck with your imaginings - nt

[dailykoff]

203. Likewise. (n/t)

[eyl]

204. So essentially you're saying

that you don't know much about the physics of nuclear bombs, but are nevertheless convinced that nothing else supports the available evidence?

[dailykoff]

206. No, and there's no excuse

for the kind of ignorance that you're defending. If you are a US wage earner and voter, you have an obligation to inform yourself about how your tax dollars are being allocated. It isn't that difficult.

[Realityhack]

210. actually that is about what you have said.

I don't see anything in the message you responded too defending not knowing how your tax dollars are spent. So that is a blatant red herring (unless you can site a clear example).

But you HAVE said you haven't studied nuclear weapons (ie. you don't know much about them). Making that part of the summary true.
and you ARE asserting that it is 'fairly certain' they where used. Indicating that you think they are the best fit for the evidence.

It would appear the poster you are responding to is completely correct based on your own statements and your only response is completely off topic.

[dailykoff]

211. Is that Ted Sorenson sitting behind him?

He looks a little nervous when JFK rolls out his famous phrase, but then JFK makes that little joke thanking the translator for translating his German, so even if he got it slightly wrong (I think the issue is the indefinite pronoun), it hardly mattered, and in any case the audience loved it.

Thanks, I'd never actually seen this! :thumbsup:

[dailykoff]

212. Okay let's see if I can help you out here.

I meant to fix the thread above but got distracted so just ignore it. Anyway there are two things you need to understand: 1) that the towers were demolished, and 2) that nukes almost certainly were responsible for most or all of the destruction.

If you don't get #1 yet, start here:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/dailykoff/6

If you don't get #2, browse this webpage

http://www.atomicforum.org/index.html

and then review this list carefully:

http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/50.aspx

[Realityhack]

214. None of which addresses your inccorrect response to eyl. n/t

[Realityhack]

215. your 'evidence' is so laughable that it is hard to believe you are serious. n/t

[dailykoff]

216. Fine, let CIA perception managers tell you what to think.

Wear your clueslessness like a badge of honor if can't be bothered to inform yourself, but don't whine that no one's shown you any evidence.

[Realityhack]

218. lol. Thanks for the insult.

But what you linked to doesn't count as 'evidence' in anything but the broadest definition.

In order to disprove something you need to actually fully understand the theory you are trying to 'debunk' or disprove. I do not think you have even archived that much less demonstrated it is wrong... and way after that comes providing a better explanation.

[dailykoff]

224. I gave you links I thought you could understand.

You don't seem to get the more detailed evidence presented in this thread and elsewhere.

[Realityhack]

227. It's not me who doesn't 'get' the evidence...

the evidence just doesn't exist. What 'evidence' exists is just misinterpretation by people who don't know what they are talking about.

In fact the real evidence points to nuclear devices being employed as clearly NOT being the case. It in fact rules them out.

[rhymeandreason]

205. Modern Nuclear Weaponry

According to this declassified document from the DOE nuclear weapons capable of the type of destructive force that brought down the WTC towers are a distinct possibility.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/rdd-7.html#I1

excerpt:

E. RELATED DEVELOPMENTS

1. Enhanced Radiation Weapons (ERW)

1. The mere fact that the U.S. is interested in pursuing a program to determine the characteristics of an "enhanced radiation" weapon (neutron bomb). (63-5)

2. The fact that the W-79 is an enhanced radiation weapon. (78-1)

2. Minimum Residual Radiation (MRR) Weapons

1. The fact that we are interested in and are continuing studies on a weapon for minimizing the emerging flux of neutrons and internal induced activity. (67-1)

2. The fact of weapon laboratory interest in MRR devices. (76-3)

3. The fact of successful development of MRR devices. (76-3)

3. Nuclear Directed Energy Weapons (NDEW)

1. The fact that DOE weapon laboratories are engaged in a research program to explore the feasibility of a nuclear explosive driven directed energy weapon. (82-2)

2. The fact that research is being conducted on the specific concept of a nuclear pumped X-ray laser. (82-2)

3. The fact that the DOE is interested in or conducting research on NDEW concepts of certain specified generic types of output; i.e., visible light, microwaves, charged particles, kinetic energy. (85-4)

4. The fact that underground tests at the Nevada Test Site have been and are a part of the NDEW research program. (85-4)

5. The fact that a specified NDEW could engage multiple targets by using multiple beams from a single platform and hence is a high leverage system. (85-4)

6. The fact that an NDEW could have lethal ranges of thousands of kilometers. (85-4)

7. The fact that a kill mechanism for an x-ray laser is ablative shock. (85-4)

8. The fact that standard laser techniques (e.g., lenses, rods, slabs, and oscillators) were considered in the nuclear-pumped x-ray laser program without discussion of details or experimental results. (94-2)

9. The use of materials for the x-ray laser program, provided otherwise classified information about nuclear device performance is not revealed. (98-3)

[Realityhack]

209. What ?!?

"...nuclear weapons capable of the type of destructive force that brought down the WTC towers are a distinct possibility."

No shit. But that is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

[rhymeandreason]

213. Relevant

Typically, the skeptical response to the nukes theory is that they would cause too much destruction and leave massive amounts of radiation. As if the military hasn't had sixty years to refine these devices. If you will review the DOE document you will see that low yield, focused blast, minimum residual radiation nukes are a reality.

[Realityhack]

219. Sorry but your source does not change either of those.

The explosive power argument is based on the amount of energy needed if you are going to do what people claim you are with a single point explosive device.
If you want to knock down one of the twin towers from say street level with a bomb you need a lot of energy. Obviously a 'small' nuclear device would suffice but it is still a HUGE bomb.

Yes people try to develop minimal residual radiation nuclear devices. This does not mean they can get to a low enough level that it would not have been detected.

The evidence clearly contradicts the idea of nuclear devices being used. Unlike some theories we can definitively rule them out.

[Realityhack]

221. Must have been half asleep today...

Remember that Spooked is on about the heat after the buildings fell being something to do with 'fizzled' nukes. This of course implies several things.

Spooked doesn't understand nuclear physics at all
If radiation where heating things there would need to be a lot of radiation (note this wouldn't happen, see first point)
The 'nukes' where supposed to be much more powerful

This is a very silly theory.

[spooked911]

208. New article on thyroid cancer

Report: 9/11 Firefighters Battling Thyroid Cancer
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=71482

A staggering number of FDNY firefighters are now reportedly suffering from a cancer that may be linked to their work at the World Trade Center site.

The New York Post reports at least eight firefighters have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer over the past five years.

The paper says another five have had their thyroids either fully or partially removed because of abnormal cell growth that could lead to cancer. Attorney David Worby tells the paper that many of the firefighters were 9/11 first responders.

The National Cancer Institute says usually only four out of every 100,000 men get diagnosed with thyroid cancer. It is a more common form of cancer in women.

The Post cites the Uniformed Firefighters Association as saying at least 125 firefighters who worked at the site have contracted some type of cancer since the attacks.

[dailykoff]

222. Village Voice,11/21/06 : "The frightening link between the 9-11 toxic cloud and cancer"

Death by Dust
The frightening link between the 9-11 toxic cloud and cancer
by Kristen Lombardi
The Village Voice
Tuesday, November 21st 2006

"Even more shocking is the incidence of cancer and other life-threatening illnesses that have developed among those participating in the recovery workers' lawsuits. Given the fact that some cancers are slower to develop than others, it seems likely to several doctors and epidemiologists that many more reports of cancer and serious lung illnesses will surface in the months and years to come. The fact that 8,500 recovery workers have already banded together to sue, only five years later — with 400 total cancer patients among their number — leads many experts to predict that these figures are likely to grow, meaning a possible death toll in the thousands.

"In many ways, these illnesses suggest the slow but deteriorating health issues that faced the atomic-bomb survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where thousands died in the years and decades that followed the United States' use of nuclear weapons."

http://villagevoice.com/2006-11-21/news/death-by-dust/full

This isn't looking good for the coincidence theorists.

[Dreamer Tatum]

228. That's more than enough nonsense,actually nt