Viral 9/11 truth-debunking blacksmith gets it all wrong[W:22][W:565]

Thoreau72 said:

You can't even show me any government reports showing any radiation detected that day or not. Some silly dotcom site for national ambient radiation levels, but nothing from WTC on 911 conducted by EPA or any other agency. It seems likely that just as the EPA did not measure the air while pronouncing it OK to breathe, it did not measure radiation either. At least nobody has been willing to provide such documentation.

I compare and contrast your statement with the information provided by Jeff Prager in his book, and the contrast is stark--he provides data and cites sources, you provide nothing, the same guy who believes there was a Boeing at the pentagon.

Prager cites US Geological Services data and the footnotes that accompany it. You provide nothing like that.

USGS and DELTA Group data generally agreed, finding microparticles of steel, concrete, gypsum and glass, but no asbestos for some reason.

Prager shows that at the annual meeting of the American Chemical Society, in Orlando in April 2002, Thomas SemKowa and others presented a paper entitled "Elevated Tritium Levels at WTC". So if the ACS was discussing it, we know there were elevated tritium levels at WTC.

And the EPA, better late than never, did eventually find elevated levels of Uranium, Beryllium, Zinc, Lead, Strotium and other elements suggesting a nuclear event.

We know that JPL & NASA sent their AVIRIS satellite to investigate on 16, 18, 22 & 23 of September that month, detecting several hot spots. It rained on 14 September at WTC. Still, on 17 & 18 September a 2 man crew from USGS collected samples from 35 locations within 1km radius of WTC. Some of those samples, including on some girders, showed Thorium at 6 times higher in certain location than the lowest level detected.

I'm sure you know Professor, but Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay.

So Deuce, your claims regarding what was found or not are highly specious.

Click to expand...

Fledermaus said:

All that fail in one post.

Elevated elevated levels of Uranium, Beryllium, Zinc, Lead, Strotium can be explained by NON-nuclear sources and have been in past posts.

Ditto the Tritium. "Elevated Tritium Levels at WTC" Try reading it. IT GIVES THE SOURCES OF TRITIUM. And none of it is nuke related.

Hot spots days or weeks later are not evidence a of nuclear event. It is evidence of fire. A nuke does not magically keep things heated.

And Thorium? Depending on the isotope it can be naturally occurring..

And I notice you do not in any way actually address Deuce's points. Why is that?

Click to expand...

Fledermaus said:

And I notice you do not in any way actually address Deuce's points. Why is that?

Click to expand...

Thoreau72 said:

If you know all about them, why do you think it impossible that they or their modern equivalents were deployed at WTC?

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

- Damage pattern inconsistent with explosives of any kind
- Damage done far, far below the threshold of smallest nuclear weapons possible. (above one critical mass is the smallest possible nuclear explosion because thats what critical mass IS)
- No detected radiation
- No deaths due to radiation exposure
- Stupendously illogical use of impossible nuclear devices - if demolition is the goal, regular explosives do that fine. Using devices that emit lethal doses of radiation dramatically increases your chance of getting caught, which is counterproductive to the supposed goal of faking a building collapse from aircraft impact and ensuing fire. Set off even one geiger counter and the whole jig is up. Your theory rests on these incredibly well-equipped perpetrators with incredible access also being monumentally stupid

Click to expand...

Thoreau72 said:

If you know all about them, why do you think it impossible that they or their modern equivalents were deployed at WTC?

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

- Damage pattern inconsistent with explosives of any kind
- Damage done far, far below the threshold of smallest nuclear weapons possible. (above one critical mass is the smallest possible nuclear explosion because thats what critical mass IS)
- No detected radiation
- No deaths due to radiation exposure
- Stupendously illogical use of impossible nuclear devices - if demolition is the goal, regular explosives do that fine. Using devices that emit lethal doses of radiation dramatically increases your chance of getting caught, which is counterproductive to the supposed goal of faking a building collapse from aircraft impact and ensuing fire. Set off even one geiger counter and the whole jig is up. Your theory rests on these incredibly well-equipped perpetrators with incredible access also being monumentally stupid

Click to expand...

Thoreau72 said:

You can't even show me any government reports showing any radiation detected that day or not. Some silly dotcom site for national ambient radiation levels, but nothing from WTC on 911 conducted by EPA or any other agency. It seems likely that just as the EPA did not measure the air while pronouncing it OK to breathe, it did not measure radiation either. At least nobody has been willing to provide such documentation.

I compare and contrast your statement with the information provided by Jeff Prager in his book, and the contrast is stark--he provides data and cites sources, you provide nothing, the same guy who believes there was a Boeing at the pentagon.

Prager cites US Geological Services data and the footnotes that accompany it. You provide nothing like that.

USGS and DELTA Group data generally agreed, finding microparticles of steel, concrete, gypsum and glass, but no asbestos for some reason.

Prager shows that at the annual meeting of the American Chemical Society, in Orlando in April 2002, Thomas SemKowa and others presented a paper entitled "Elevated Tritium Levels at WTC". So if the ACS was discussing it, we know there were elevated tritium levels at WTC.

And the EPA, better late than never, did eventually find elevated levels of Uranium, Beryllium, Zinc, Lead, Strotium and other elements suggesting a nuclear event.

We know that JPL & NASA sent their AVIRIS satellite to investigate on 16, 18, 22 & 23 of September that month, detecting several hot spots. It rained on 14 September at WTC. Still, on 17 & 18 September a 2 man crew from USGS collected samples from 35 locations within 1km radius of WTC. Some of those samples, including on some girders, showed Thorium at 6 times higher in certain location than the lowest level detected.

I'm sure you know Professor, but Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay.

So Deuce, your claims regarding what was found or not are highly specious.

Click to expand...

Bodhisattva said:

What Duece said... I was actually just going to respond with, "because I do know about them", because it is extremely apparent that you do not.

Why don't you offer some proof/evidence at this point so we see the failure of your argument and we can wrap this up. Thanks...

Click to expand...

Thoreau72 said:

If you wish to inform yourself on this matter, the best place to start would be reading (and looking at FEMA pictures long ago removed from the public view) Jeff Prager's ebook, America Nuked. It is very well documented with many footnotes, including the stories and statements from people like Matt Tartaglia, a fireman from PA who worked on the pile. He has since died, sometime after his teeth began falling out from radiation poisoning. He describes nuclear decontamination protocols in place that day at the several "hot spots" that were visible from space in the AVIRIS satellite operated by NASA and JPL.

But that would be ONLY IF you wish to become informed about details suppressed in the mainstream media. Yes, a very big IF, I understand. Most likely you would prefer to remain UNinformed about that. eace

Click to expand...

Thoreau72 said:

If you wish to inform yourself on this matter, the best place to start would be reading (and looking at FEMA pictures long ago removed from the public view) Jeff Prager's ebook, America Nuked. It is very well documented with many footnotes, including the stories and statements from people like Matt Tartaglia, a fireman from PA who worked on the pile. He has since died, sometime after his teeth began falling out from radiation poisoning. He describes nuclear decontamination protocols in place that day at the several "hot spots" that were visible from space in the AVIRIS satellite operated by NASA and JPL.

But that would be ONLY IF you wish to become informed about details suppressed in the mainstream media. Yes, a very big IF, I understand. Most likely you would prefer to remain UNinformed about that. eace

Click to expand...

Fledermaus said:

And still no answers.....

Just a reference to an idiot's book.

Hey, HD, you always fall back on Bollyn.

Lets see what Bollyn says.

Christopher Bollyn

Truthers eating their own....

Click to expand...

Thoreau72 said:

If you wish to inform yourself on this matter, the best place to start would be reading (and looking at FEMA pictures long ago removed from the public view) Jeff Prager's ebook, America Nuked. It is very well documented with many footnotes, including the stories and statements from people like Matt Tartaglia, a fireman from PA who worked on the pile. He has since died, sometime after his teeth began falling out from radiation poisoning. He describes nuclear decontamination protocols in place that day at the several "hot spots" that were visible from space in the AVIRIS satellite operated by NASA and JPL.

But that would be ONLY IF you wish to become informed about details suppressed in the mainstream media. Yes, a very big IF, I understand. Most likely you would prefer to remain UNinformed about that. eace

Click to expand...

Quag said:

Lol HD you have never been interested in being informed you have always only been interested in being duped. Hence the reason you only read truther nonsense and never try to fact check their lies.

For Bod: Notice how HD tried to deflect your questions. It is standard truther tactic, never ever reply directly to a question and in HD's case NEVER EVER try to support any of your claims.

Click to expand...

Bodhisattva said:

Is Thoruea the Hendry David from before?

Click to expand...

Mark F said:

Yes. I suppose in his own mind he fancies himself as a modern day Henry David Thoreau. :lamo

Click to expand...

Bodhisattva said:

Is Thoruea the Hendry David from before?

Click to expand...

Fledermaus said:

So............

Lets leave the nukes for the nukes thread.

Click to expand...

Bodhisattva said:

This is a debate site. You do not wish to defend your position. That means that you lose the debate.

More importantly... that means I win.

Click to expand...

Mark F said:

Yes. I suppose in his own mind he fancies himself as a modern day Henry David Thoreau. :lamo

Click to expand...

Thoreau72 said:

Only in your own mind sir. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Thoreau72 said:

I gotta say Mark, you are the most perceptive (in some things) of the bunch. Brilliant deduction there buddy. Maybe you're an English major, eh? :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Bodhisattva said:

OMG. I can't believe I am even asking this... but where did you see a nuclear detonation take place in the videos? :roll:

Click to expand...

Bodhisattva said:

Fire more stupid than a nuclear bomb? I can't believe that CTers have become this delusional.

Click to expand...

stundie said:

And where did I say that there was a nuclear bomb or detonation?

I didn't.

So what's the point of asking me this, when it's as clear as daylight that there doesn't appear to be any nuclear detonation in the videos.
Its called sarcasm but some people clearly don't get it.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit apparently but it's quite a fitting tribute to use against the lowest forms of argument and debate that pantomime debunkers put forward.

Click to expand...

Bodhisattva said:

It appears that I mis-read your statement... my bad.

Click to expand...