• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NUKES at the WTC[W:20]

Others disagree with you Deuce.

I'm going with their interpretation of facts.
All the damage at WTC, including the radiation sickness of Tartaglia and others, Tartaglia's comments before his death, lateral displacement of massive structural pieces, and much more, all point to a nuclear event that among other things, kept steel in a molten state for about 90 days.

People in denial of facts are not driven by reason.

Translation:
I dont care about reality or the truth I will just believe the people who say things I want to hear
 
Translation:
I dont care about reality or the truth I will just believe the people who say things I want to hear

What does agree with me is the math. I guess he's adding "radiation that causes different types of cancer that somehow nobody has ever seen before" to his list of growing insane requirements.
 
What does agree with me is the math. I guess he's adding "radiation that causes different types of cancer that somehow nobody has ever seen before" to his list of growing insane requirements.

What do you expect from a "flight instructor" that doesn't know what ground effect is?

Edit
Also like to point out that the guy in Seattle who didn't even have a pilots licence managed to fly a dash 8, putting it through some maneuvers much more difficult than what was done by the terrorists with commercial pilot licences on 911. Which according tyo our resident "flight instructor" is impossible, I guess the whole thing in Seattle was just another false flag :lamo
 
Last edited:
What do you expect from a "flight instructor" that doesn't know what ground effect is?

Edit
Also like to point out that the guy in Seattle who didn't even have a pilots licence managed to fly a dash 8, putting it through some maneuvers much more difficult than what was done by the terrorists with commercial pilot licences on 911. Which according tyo our resident "flight instructor" is impossible, I guess the whole thing in Seattle was just another false flag :lamo

If he stubs his toe it's an evil gub'ment plot.
 
What does agree with me is the math. I guess he's adding "radiation that causes different types of cancer that somehow nobody has ever seen before" to his list of growing insane requirements.

Thank you Doctor Deuce, you are multi-faceted indeed. :cool:
 
Thank you Doctor Deuce, you are multi-faceted indeed. :cool:

You don't have to have a medical degree to understand basic laws of probability and logic.

Radiation causes a variety of cancers. Therefore if a large group of people were exposed, one would expect an increase in all of these cancer types, not just a few of them.

Adding to that the fact that there is not one single report of acute radiation sickness, or a single report of increased radiation detected, one can easily decide there was no substantially elevated radiation present.

A nuke without radiation is impossible, because radiation is literally what makes the weapon a nuclear weapon. A nuke that doesn't leave radiation is like a fire that doesn't generate heat. An oxymoron.

You also don't need to be a PHD to understand that X-rays aren't visible to the human eye or to security cameras. Remember when you said it was an X-ray cannon instead of a nuke? Is it both, or have you abandoned one of the two theories?
 
You don't have to have a medical degree to understand basic laws of probability and logic.

Radiation causes a variety of cancers. Therefore if a large group of people were exposed, one would expect an increase in all of these cancer types, not just a few of them.

Adding to that the fact that there is not one single report of acute radiation sickness, or a single report of increased radiation detected, one can easily decide there was no substantially elevated radiation present.

A nuke without radiation is impossible, because radiation is literally what makes the weapon a nuclear weapon. A nuke that doesn't leave radiation is like a fire that doesn't generate heat. An oxymoron.

You also don't need to be a PHD to understand that X-rays aren't visible to the human eye or to security cameras. Remember when you said it was an X-ray cannon instead of a nuke? Is it both, or have you abandoned one of the two theories?

T72 also ignores the reports of firefighters who never worked the WTC site having similar/same medical issues. Even wildland firefighters who have not worked structural fires have similar medical issues. Even Gage/Jones (AE911T) has stated the evidence does not support the use of a nuclear device to destroy the WTC on 9/11.


You are correct that one does not need to be a medical doctor to read research and understand the medical issues are not radiation related.
 
T72 also ignores the reports of firefighters who never worked the WTC site having similar/same medical issues. Even wildland firefighters who have not worked structural fires have similar medical issues. Even Gage/Jones (AE911T) has stated the evidence does not support the use of a nuclear device to destroy the WTC on 9/11.


You are correct that one does not need to be a medical doctor to read research and understand the medical issues are not radiation related.


You dont need any degree to believe in BS CTs from the likes of Alex Jones, in fact less education makes it even easier

-
 
Back
Top Bottom