List of incorrect information being passed around regarding 9/11...

gamolon · Apr 19, 2017

1.

Thoreau72 said:
That's why Matt Tartaglia and others reported that nuclear decontamination protocol was in effect at "Ground Zero".

This is not correct. Matt Tartaglia never specified "nuclear" or "radiation" as the type of decontamination used at ground zero. Below is a link and quote from where this information possibly came from. The article was written by someone named The Anonymous Physicist.
World Trade Center Demolition: More Evidence & Testimony Indicating Nuclear Blasts, Nuclear Radiation, & China Syndrome at the WTC

“…There were only certain parts of the site that you could not legally leave without going through decontamination.…They would tackle you and take your camera away. I watched people be tackled.” Most responders couldn’t go “down

in the garages…The rescue people – when our clothes got so contaminated, we were told not to bring our clothes off that site. Don’t wear anything on the site you’re not prepared to leave there because it’s contaminated.”

Another quote from Matt comes from an interview with Alex Jones back in 2005. Link and quote below. Again, no mention of "nuclear" or "radiation" decontamination from Matt.
https://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/300305newrevelations.htm

MT: Thank you for pointing that out; I appreciate that. The particulates that were in the air had to be watered down [ ] There were only certain parts of the site that you could not legally leave without going through

decontamination.

Then there is this paper that discusses normak decontamination that firefighters go through after fighting fires. It is a procedure that they use to remove cancer causing substances that are encountered in fires. Link below.
http://firefighterclosecalls.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/DG16-04.pdf

2.

Thoreau72 said:
Shirley Hoofard described strange phenomena, and she worked there as a Red Cross worker sent from Dallas. She also became a whistleblower, claiming that she had been told by superiors to keep her mouth

shut about what she saw.

This is not correct. Shirley never "SAW" anything. She was relating stories she heard from the victims she was treating them. Link and quote below.
https://edwardmd.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/update-witnesses-saw-people-vaporized-on-9-11/

But she could not get out of her mind what some of the victims told her. “Several victims told me they saw people engulfed in a fireball and disintegrating. One man said he was at work when he heard a loud noise and at the far end

of the cubicles he saw a man running toward him with a fireball coming after him. The running man just exploded, flying into pieces…I heard stories like that from people from both towers….I don’t know the physics but at what temperature

does a human vaporize?”

3.

Thoreau72 said:
The testimony of Rodriguez regarding a strange and massive blast in the basement levels BEFORE the airplane struck.

William as embellished his story over time It was not the "massive explosion" as he later makes it out to be. It was a "RUMBLE", like someone moving furniture. No mention of being lisfted off the ground, falling plaster, or massive explosion. Below is a quote and link from his first interview the day of 9/11 at around noon.
William Rodriguez

RODRIGUEZ: I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin.

gamolon · Apr 19, 2017

...continue from previous post...

4.

camlok said:
The Windsor Tower in Madrid, Spain, stood up to almost a day long, intensive fire, much much much hotter and much much longer lasting than the twin towers and it only collapsed haltingly, in pieces. The top portion, ferro/concrete, did partially collapse but it took many hours.

This is incorrect. The entire top portion of the Windsor tower in Madrid was NOT all ferro/concrete. The external facade was steel and it collapsed due to fire alone. A fact that has been brought to camlok's attention, but he refuses to acknowledge or address. Link and quote below regarding the Windsor tower components and the collapse.
Case Studies: Historical Fires: Windsor Tower Fire

A typical floor was two-way spanning 280mm deep waffle slab supported by the concrete core, internal RC columns with additional 360mm deep steel I-beams and steel perimeter columns.

Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level

resisted further collapse of the building.

5.

Pin dÁr said:

These picture that Pin is passing around are incorrect. The try and make it seem like the tower was structurally more than they really were. The perimeter facade at the level of the impacts were NOT 2 feet thick as the pciture claims. The facade was composed of about 14" x 14" box columns constructed of 1/4" steel plate on the four sides. Link below showing the cross section of the perimeter columns (bottom picture, center column).
9-11 Research: The Perimeter Walls

6.

Pin dÁr said:

This picture tries to deceive the viewer by showing the incorrect structural column used in the facade and also tries to say how the "plane" could not have penetrated such robust columns. Again, those columns were NOT the thick I-Beams shown. They were the same box columns shown in point number 5. above. And whatthe picture claims as the "plane coming out of the other side" was actually the engine that went through the opening in the corner of the towers shown below. It did NOT break any of those columns. Picture of the damage to the corner caused by the exiting engine below.

7.

Thoreau72 said:
...3 modern steel high rise buildings collapsed at free fall rates from office fires (and airplane damage),...

This is not correct. It took WTC7 about 14 seconds to completely collapse from start to finish. It fell at free fall for 2.25 seconds of the entire collapse. 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. No where CLOSE to free fall speeds.

8.

camlok said:
...George W Bush admitting twice, at least, that there were explosions and bombs at WTC, after the "plane impacts".

George Bush NEVER admitted such a thing. Below are links to the videos of the speech where these absurd claims originate from. Not once does he mention "9/11", "the twin towers", or "after the plane impacts". Not once. He was telling people that they got information from terroist operatives regarding plans they had in place for "US buildings", a clearly ambiguous term meaning any buldings. Nothing specific to the twin towers or 9/11.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8H94xM9sm4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpcJyn3N5ks

Pin dÁr · Apr 19, 2017

Gee, it looks someone is afraid they won't read his information, hence two threads with the exact same information.

showing his arrogance now, if you ask me.

gamolon · Apr 19, 2017

Pin dÁr said:
Gee, it looks someone is afraid they won't read his information, hence two threads with the exact same information.

showing his arrogance now, if you ask me.

:lamo

Just putting it all in one place to make it easy for you and your truther brethren to respond to Pin. That's all. I just don't want you folks to lose sight of the inaccuracies being pointed out to you time and time again. Seems like some people like to post a couple of meaningless, one sentence responses in order to move the subject matter to another page in order to hide it instead of responding to the points made. Case in point. Instead of addressing the subject of this thread, you make reference to my "arrogance" and "being afraid". How does that address the info laid out here?

mike2810 · Apr 19, 2017

Pin dÁr said:
Gee, it looks someone is afraid they won't read his information, hence two threads with the exact same information.

showing his arrogance now, if you ask me.

No one asked you,:mrgreen:

Your reply does nothing to refute what was posted by the OP.

Do you believe in remote viewing? If so, how accurate is it?

camlok · Apr 19, 2017

George Bush related a lie, was caught in his lie when he described explosions and bombs at least twice [probably more times because he is hardly the brightest guy around]. Nobody, certainly no alleged hijacker would describe "explosives going off at a point so no one could escape" because there were no hijackers.

Molten and vaporized steel tells us that, as does the molten molybdenum, the vaporized lead, the almost 6% of WTC dust being made up by iron microspheres, one of the products of the nanothermite found at WTC.

And the 118 firefighters who reported bombs and explosions, secondary explosions.

And the ... .

zyzygy · Apr 19, 2017

camlok said:
George Bush related a lie, was caught in his lie when he described explosions and bombs at least twice [probably more times because he is hardly the brightest guy around]. Nobody, certainly no alleged hijacker would describe "explosives going off at a point so no one could escape" because there were no hijackers.

Molten and vaporized steel tells us that, as does the molten molybdenum, the vaporized lead, the almost 6% of WTC dust being made up by iron microspheres, one of the products of the nanothermite found at WTC.

And the 118 firefighters who reported bombs and explosions, secondary explosions.

And the ... .

Is that your rebuttal? Pathetic. Bush did not mention bombs and neither did the firefighters. Explosions do not equal bombs. Have you ever seen a building burning down? Explosions often occur and no bombs are involved. If this is the best you can do then my advice is to give it up. Not to mention your non-existent pyrochlastic flows which have been shown to be a fantasy.

holbritter · Apr 19, 2017

camlok said:
Nobody, certainly no alleged hijacker would describe "explosives going off at a point so no one could escape" because there were no hijackers.

Who crashed the plane in PA then?

gamolon · Apr 19, 2017

camlok said:
George Bush related a lie, was caught in his lie when he described explosions and bombs at least twice

Point 8 above proves you wrong. At no point did George Bush EVER say anything about "9/11", "WTC", nor did he ties "bombs" or utter the words "after the plane impacts". Please post the time in either video where any of those words or phrases are uttered.

Stop with the lies already.

gamolon · Apr 19, 2017

camlok said:
molten molybdenum, t

Was this molten molybdenum created on 9/11 or during the construction of the tower via torches? Torches can burn how hot camlok?

zyzygy · Apr 19, 2017

gamolon said:
Point 8 above proves you wrong. At no point did George Bush EVER say anything about "9/11", "WTC", nor did he ties "bombs" or utter the words "after the plane impacts". Please post the time in either video where any of those words or phrases are uttered.

Stop with the lies already.

Why does he persist with that lie? It can shown to be a lie with no difficulty.

Quag · Apr 19, 2017

9.Rivers of molten steel

10. Molten steel for 90 days

11. Injects on live ATC RADAR

12. Spotting the largest building in the world from the air is nigh impossible

13. Ground effect in some nebulous unexplained way meant that only the best pilot in the world could have hit the Pentagon

14. No plane at the Pentagon

15. No plane at Shanksville

16. Planes would have disintegrated by going those speeds

17. Planes would become uncontrollable at those speeds

18. Fuzzy balls with wings could not be airplanes

19. Subsonic visible Xray cannonballs

20. Nanothermite

21. Mini nukes

22. Ray beams

23. requires expert piloting skills to lose altitude in a turn

24. Plane corkscrewed into the Pentagon

camlok · Apr 19, 2017

zyzygy said:
Bush did not mention bombs and neither did the firefighters. Explosions do not equal bombs.

Wrong on both counts. Lots and lots of firefighters describing explosions.

118 Witnesses:
The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers

Conclusions
The two questions with which I began my research have now been answered:
(1) Griffin’s 31 witnesses to explosions in the FDNY oral histories are a subset of a
much larger body of witnesses, which I have estimated as having 118 members.
(2) Support for non-explosive collapse is present in this material but is scarce. I have
found ten witnesses.
I do not know whether the FDNY witnesses constitute a representative sample of
9/11 witnesses, but it is possible that they do. Certainly, there is no lack of testimony to
explosions from those outside the FDNY,[38] and I see no obvious reason why firefighters
and medics would be more prone than others to feel that they were witnessing explosions. If
they constitute a representative sample, then a minimum of 23% of all witnesses to the
Towers’ collapses appear to have perceived, or thought they perceived, explosions that
brought down the Towers.

http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf

zyzygy · Apr 19, 2017

camlok said:
Wrong on both counts. Lots and lots of firefighters describing explosions.

But no bombs. What part of that sentence do you not understand?

gamolon · Apr 19, 2017

9.

Thoreau72 said:
Leukemia, non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, Multiple Myloma have manifested in unprecedented numbers for such a young age group that is represented by those who worked at GZ. Matt Tartaglia was one of them, and he reported nuclear decontamination protocols in place when he worked there. Within years his teeth had fallen out and he died.

Thoreau72 would like people reading this to think that these diseases were only prevalent or occurred more frequently in JUST the folks at ground zero and that this means radiation/nukes. This is also based on his K25 garbage. Unfortunately for him,
those diseases listed are prevalent in firefighters of any age according to the document here http://firefighterclosecalls.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/DG16-04.pdf.

This document states:

Compared to the general population,
firefighters are at a much higher risk for the
following cancers:

 Testicular cancer (2.02 times greater risk)
 Multiple myeloma (1.53 times)
 Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (1.51 times)
 Skin cancer (1.39 times)
 Prostate cancer (1.28 times)
 Malignant melanoma (1.31 times)
 Brain cancer (1.31 times)
 Colon cancer (1.21 times)
 Leukemia (1.14 times)
 Breast cancer in women (preliminary study
results from the San Francisco FD)

And what are the causes and why the decontamination process?

Cancer in the fire service is another hazard of
our occupation. We are 2.2 times more likely
to get cancer than the general population.
Prevention, by cleaning our PPE,
decontamination after a fire, and using
simple baby wipes to clean off our face and
neck area will help reduce the many cancer
causing products we come in contact with at
every fire we encounter. Contaminated PPE
continues to give off harmful gasses for up to
four hours after a fire. Improper storage, i.e.
inside of apparatus or personally owned
vehicles exposes us to those gasses. Decon is
necessary not just after structure fires, but
any smoky fire like vehicle fires, dumpsters,
or other fires involving man-made products.

As anyone can see, the claim that the increased risks for the cancers listed was only prevalent with young, ground zero workers and was due to radiation is completely idiotic. Burning materials release cancer causing products. End of story.

mike2810 · Apr 19, 2017

camlok said:
George Bush related a lie, was caught in his lie when he described explosions and bombs at least twice [probably more times because he is hardly the brightest guy around]. Nobody, certainly no alleged hijacker would describe "explosives going off at a point so no one could escape" because there were no hijackers.

Molten and vaporized steel tells us that, as does the molten molybdenum, the vaporized lead, the almost 6% of WTC dust being made up by iron microspheres, one of the products of the nanothermite found at WTC.

And the 118 firefighters who reported bombs and explosions, secondary explosions.

And the ... .

and your links to backup what your poster are?

missing.:lamo

zyzygy · Apr 19, 2017

mike2810 said:
and your links to backup what your poster are?

missing.:lamo

Missing links, I see what you did there :lamo

gamolon · Apr 19, 2017

camlok said:
Wrong on both counts. Lots and lots of firefighters describing explosions.

How many of those firefighters said that the explosions were due to bombs camlok? Maybe this will end up being point 10.!

zyzygy · Apr 19, 2017

gamolon said:
How many of those firefighters said that the explosions were due to bombs camlok? Maybe this will end up being point 10.!

None. We know that. Why would anyone lie about it?

holbritter · Apr 19, 2017

Fuzzy balls with wings? :shock:

mike2810 · Apr 19, 2017

camlok

Please consider starting a new thread outline what you accept/believe happened on 9/11/2001 to the WTC buildings, etc. Provide links to your evidence.

In the explanation please cover how the molten metal stayed that way for 90+ days.

camlok · Apr 19, 2017

You explain how the steel stayed molten for 150 days. You explain how it came to be molten steel in the first place.

Both are fatal to the USGOCT. The US government has lied again. Is there anyone who would be surprised by that?

mike2810 · Apr 20, 2017

camlok said:
You explain how the steel stayed molten for 150 days. You explain how it came to be molten steel in the first place.

Both are fatal to the USGOCT. The US government has lied again. Is there anyone who would be surprised by that?

Since it didn't happen I can't explain a negative.

It is you who is promoting the molten steel. Yours to prove . Yours is such a typical response from a CT supporter.

Pin dÁr · Apr 20, 2017

mike2810 said:
No one asked you,:mrgreen:

Your reply does nothing to refute what was posted by the OP.

Do you believe in remote viewing? If so, how accurate is it?

I don't believe in remote vieuwing, it is a scientific fact!

gamolon · Apr 20, 2017

camlok said:
You explain how the steel stayed molten for 150 days. You explain how it came to be molten steel in the first place.

Both are fatal to the USGOCT. The US government has lied again. Is there anyone who would be surprised by that?

How are these two claims fatal to the "USGOCT"?