FBI being sued by Lawyer's Committee, Families, AE911T to present evidence as required by Congress

Thoreau72 · Apr 14, 2019

Deuce said:
No radiation was detected, anywhere. Not one diagnosis of radiation poisoning. You're admitting you believe nuclear weapons were present despite the fact that zero evidence supports it.

And don't pretend you didn't invent xray laser cannons based on crappy security camera footage. You posted that here, why would you lie about it?

We've gone through this before sir.

Nobody was testing for radiation, just as nobody was testing the air quality, even as the head of EPA pronounced the air quality OK, nobody was testing it until about 10 days later when the DELTA Group was brought in from California to test the air. It was toxic.

Nobody was testing for radiation, even as USGS inspectors collected samples at 35 locations within a 1KM radius of Ground Zero on September 17 and 18, after it had rained on September 14. They found elevated levels of Thorium, formed from Uranium by decay. One girder they sampled found Thorium at a level 6 times the lowest level detected.

EPA eventually went to work and found elevated levels of Uranium, Zinc, Lead, Strontium and Mercury.

All manner of by-products of nuclear reaction were found.

mike2810 · Apr 14, 2019

It is interesting how some come to conclusions.

couldn't have been fire therefore it had to be a controlled demolition
some first responders developed cancer therefore it had to be nukes.

Question: How many people of the general public who were covered in the "dust" have come down with cancer or other respiratory illnesses?
Of those who did get sick, how many has been proven radiation was the cause?
Maybe as the medical and research studies have shown the dust from 9/11 was a toxic mix that can lead to health problems. Similar to the fine dust found in some building fires or from wildfires.

Interesting how those claiming the illness was caused by radiation fail to address the firefighters who have the same type of illness and never worked the 9/11 site. The fine particles and smoke created by fire is the common denominator. Of course that does not fit the narrative they have accepted. Maybe someday they will reveal the sources that prove the illness was from nuclear radiation contamination.

Thoreau72 · Apr 14, 2019

Hey Mike, why do you think they started calling it Ground Zero?

mike2810 · Apr 14, 2019

Thoreau72 said:
Hey Mike, why do you think they started calling it Ground Zero?

Hey T, why not? "They" figured the conspiracy crowd would like it. They started a betting pool to see how long it takes to be labeled a nuclear event.:lamo

- the point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs
- he center or origin of rapid, intense, or violent activity or change
- the very beginning : square one
Ground Zero | Definition of Ground Zero by Merriam-Webster

Ground zero has been used to for other events.
Ground zero - Wikipedia

That said, You admit no one tested for radiation. So how do you know the health issues of first responders is due only to radiation?
Try responding to post 77. It would be interesting to read your take.

Thoreau72 · Apr 15, 2019

mike2810 said:
Hey T, why not? "They" figured the conspiracy crowd would like it. They started a betting pool to see how long it takes to be labeled a nuclear event.:lamo

- the point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs
- he center or origin of rapid, intense, or violent activity or change
- the very beginning : square one
Ground Zero | Definition of Ground Zero by Merriam-Webster

Ground zero has been used to for other events.
Ground zero - Wikipedia

That said, You admit no one tested for radiation. So how do you know the health issues of first responders is due only to radiation?
Try responding to post 77. It would be interesting to read your take.

You already know my take Mike. Why do you ask again?

NEVER reported by the mainstream media, besides Matt Tartaglia's testimony, loss of teeth and eventual death from radiation poisoning, there is the testimony of Shirley Hoofard from Dallas, sent to NYC as a Red Cross volunteer. She was ordered not to reveal any information to the public or media. Humans reported people engulfed in fireballs. Melting and vaporized humans, similar to what was reported by Willy Rodriguez.

The unusual cancers and other sicknesses of the first responders at GZ were the results of radiation poisoning.

It is natural that a person denying the existence of molten iron for 3 months would also deny any mention of strangely burned vehicles and humans sick with radiation sickness. Denial is your style Mike.

gamolon · Apr 15, 2019

mike2810 said:
Hey T, why not? "They" figured the conspiracy crowd would like it. They started a betting pool to see how long it takes to be labeled a nuclear event.:lamo

- the point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs
- he center or origin of rapid, intense, or violent activity or change
- the very beginning : square one
Ground Zero | Definition of Ground Zero by Merriam-Webster

Ground zero has been used to for other events.
Ground zero - Wikipedia

That said, You admit no one tested for radiation. So how do you know the health issues of first responders is due only to radiation?
Try responding to post 77. It would be interesting to read your take.

Since I am on Thoreau72's ignore list, can you ask him if he has in fact confirmed Matthew H. Tartaglia's death? I saw a post from 2013 where Thoreau72 ASSUMED he was dead. Then he started posting that he was dead. I can find no record of his passing.

mike2810 · Apr 15, 2019

Thoreau72 said:
You already know my take Mike. Why do you ask again?

NEVER reported by the mainstream media, besides Matt Tartaglia's testimony, loss of teeth and eventual death from radiation poisoning, there is the testimony of Shirley Hoofard from Dallas, sent to NYC as a Red Cross volunteer. She was ordered not to reveal any information to the public or media. Humans reported people engulfed in fireballs. Melting and vaporized humans, similar to what was reported by Willy Rodriguez.

The unusual cancers and other sicknesses of the first responders at GZ were the results of radiation poisoning.

It is natural that a person denying the existence of molten iron for 3 months would also deny any mention of strangely burned vehicles and humans sick with radiation sickness. Denial is your style Mike.

I asked again to give you a chance to correct your fallacy regarding the first responders health issues. It is natural for a person who fails to acknowledge the similar illness has affected firefighters included wildland. Responders who never worked the WTC site. Do you believe the illness is from radiation for those first responders?

What little sources you have revealed tells a great deal of where you get your ideas. Your not in denial. That is because you ignore the facts. Much like Gage, Prager, DRG, etc. :mrgreen:

Please provide links to sources regarding Matthew H. Tartaglia's death.

Thoreau72 · Apr 16, 2019

mike2810 said:
I asked again to give you a chance to correct your fallacy regarding the first responders health issues. It is natural for a person who fails to acknowledge the similar illness has affected firefighters included wildland. Responders who never worked the WTC site. Do you believe the illness is from radiation for those first responders?

What little sources you have revealed tells a great deal of where you get your ideas. Your not in denial. That is because you ignore the facts. Much like Gage, Prager, DRG, etc. :mrgreen:

Please provide links to sources regarding Matthew H. Tartaglia's death.

Tartaglia's story, like so many other facts and evidence dangerous to the official narrative, has been removed from the internet as best I can tell. If that "way back machine" is still working, it might still be there.

I read his story several times 5 or 6 years ago, but like the overhead footage at Shanksville, it's done gone from the internet. That's why the internet is a better propaganda machine than TV was.

gamolon · Apr 16, 2019

Thoreau72 said:
Tartaglia's story, like so many other facts and evidence dangerous to the official narrative, has been removed from the internet as best I can tell. If that "way back machine" is still working, it might still be there.

I read his story several times 5 or 6 years ago, but like the overhead footage at Shanksville, it's done gone from the internet. That's why the internet is a better propaganda machine than TV was.

You "read his story"?! 5 or 6 years ago? What a crock! You ASSUMED he had died 5 years ago at the end of April.

Thoreau72 said:
See the testimony of Matt Tartaglia, probably now dead, of the Perkasie PA Fire Co #1.

Since then you've been proclaiming he's dead. Where's your source for this? I can't find any records of his death.

NWO_Spook · Apr 16, 2019

Thoreau72 said:
Your quote Ace, was that I believed in radiationless nukes. I do not believe in radiationless nukes, but if you need to believe that I do, have at it. Ignorance is bliss, and I hope you are in a state of bliss. Whatever blows your skirt Ace. :mrgreen:

You certainly believe in silent nukes though.

zyzygy · Apr 16, 2019

gamolon said:
You "read his story"?! 5 or 6 years ago? What a crock! You ASSUMED he had died 5 years ago at the end of April.

Since then you've been proclaiming he's dead. Where's your source for this? I can't find any records of his death.

Removed from the internet yet again. :lamo What a pathetic excuse.

zyzygy · Apr 16, 2019

NWO_Spook said:
You certainly believe in silent nukes though.

And in magic nukes that only damage a building and not half of New York.

Thoreau72 · Apr 16, 2019

NWO_Spook said:
You certainly believe in silent nukes though.

Desperation becomes you Spook! :lol:

mike2810 · Apr 16, 2019

Thoreau72 said:
Tartaglia's story, like so many other facts and evidence dangerous to the official narrative, has been removed from the internet as best I can tell. If that "way back machine" is still working, it might still be there.

I read his story several times 5 or 6 years ago, but like the overhead footage at Shanksville, it's done gone from the internet. That's why the internet is a better propaganda machine than TV was.

Just like your coffee shop conversation with a stranger. You have nothing.:mrgreen:

I will make my request simpler for you. Provide links to information that proves that the illness/cancers for first responders was caused by radiation at the WTC site.

NWO_Spook · Apr 16, 2019

Thoreau72 said:
Desperation becomes you Spook! :lol:

I'd hardly call it desperation, but it is obvious you'll employ any ad hominem in order to avoid the truth of the matter.

Fact: You claim nukes were deployed on 9/11

Fact: there is no proof of this: no Monroe effect, no seismic signature, no fallout, no noise.

Conclusion: You believe in silent, radiation free mini-nukes that do not evince any effect on the steel one would expect with the deployment of explosives, nor were they powerful enough to register on a seismograph. Or you're just yanking chains.

Simple deduction. I know, the concept is a little alien to conspiracy theorists, but there you have it. I don't suppose you'd be interested in explaining how these nukes were silent, radiation free, and weak enough to not register on a seismograph, but strong enough to bring down three buildings? Silly me, of course you not, for you'd rather just avoid details like this altogether, and libel others to cover for the fact that your theory is stupid.

It's hardly desperation, but it is simple deduction.

HumblePi · Apr 16, 2019

If I had designed that website it would look exactly like that. (that's not a good thing)

But to put it bluntly, it's nothing more than a conspiracy website that wants your money and tries to make it as easy as possibly for you to part with your $100. Or, you may choose to buy some great coffee if you use the coupon code at the bottom of the article.

Screenshot-2019-04-17-22-MARCH-2019-FBI-9-11-Review-Commissio.png

ozeco41 · Apr 17, 2019

NWO_Spook said:
...It's hardly desperation, but it is simple deduction.

Yes. And there is an even more simple and fundamental deduction.

The physics is definite. There was no need for any form of assistance.

So if anyone did employ nukes it was not just overkill - it was totally redundant.

Thoreau72 · Apr 17, 2019

mike2810 said:
Just like your coffee shop conversation with a stranger. You have nothing.:mrgreen:

I will make my request simpler for you. Provide links to information that proves that the illness/cancers for first responders was caused by radiation at the WTC site.

Funny how selective your amnesia is Mike. Besides that conversation with a total stranger in the coffee shop, there have been a handful of others with individuals personally involved in the events of the day, from a fellow who actually survived the collapse from inside, who actually observed men dressed like NYPD officers (maybe they were, maybe they were not) with arms locked refusing to let those inside exit the south tower, to residents observing from across the river in New Jersey observing.

Yes, it was quite a display.

Thoreau72 · Apr 17, 2019

ozeco41 said:
Yes. And there is an even more simple and fundamental deduction.

The physics is definite. There was no need for any form of assistance.

So if anyone did employ nukes it was not just overkill - it was totally redundant.

Yes, physics is definite, and so is denial by some individuals within the species.

mike2810 · Apr 17, 2019

Thoreau72 said:
Funny how selective your amnesia is Mike. Besides that conversation with a total stranger in the coffee shop, there have been a handful of others with individuals personally involved in the events of the day, from a fellow who actually survived the collapse from inside, who actually observed men dressed like NYPD officers (maybe they were, maybe they were not) with arms locked refusing to let those inside exit the south tower, to residents observing from across the river in New Jersey observing.

Yes, it was quite a display.

My memory is quite fine. How about yours?

You post a great deal that says nothing. Why dodge the health issue of first responders. You seem unable to explain why first responders who never worked the WTC site have similar cancers and respiratory problems. There is something common in all the sites. Can you figure out what it is? Hint, it is not radiation.

NWO_Spook · Apr 17, 2019

ozeco41 said:
Yes. And there is an even more simple and fundamental deduction.

The physics is definite. There was no need for any form of assistance.

So if anyone did employ nukes it was not just overkill - it was totally redundant.

Well, hello there Oz. It's good to see you again, for it has been some time.

ozeco41 · Apr 17, 2019

NWO_Spook said:
Well, hello there Oz. It's good to see you again, for it has been some time.

Hello and thank you. I've been less active on Forums for a couple or three years. Essentially because there is no activity in my two main areas of interest which are:
1) Explaining the physics of WTC collapses to those who are genuinely interested; AND
2) Improving my own understanding of same so my explanations can be professionally rigorous.

There been little if any serious interest from truthers wanting to understand AND the last serious technical challenge was about 2013. At that time I was busy with a couple of engineers telling them why Bazant was wrong with "crush down/crush up". My opponents at that time simply dug in on "Bazant can never be wrong" - they had hit their personal "glass ceilings" and thought that I was committing "lèse-majesté". So I ran out of "opponents" in both truther and technical camps.

So I've been busy on FaceBook after a friend asked me to join a group where a truther engineer wanted a "real engineer' to debate WTC collapses. I signed up into the group and posted an introductory bit of a CV. And the truther engineer vanished over the horizon in a metaphoric cloud of dust...

..silly me stayed. I was using it as a sort of Methadone treatment to avoid going "cold turkey" to get out of Forums. Didn't work - so I have no where to go.

I need a new obsession...

plutonium · Apr 17, 2019

That is great because we all know those building did not fall due to a fire by 95 percent of aircrft fuel being burned up when it hit the building and mainly fireproof furniture in the building and building 7 really!!!!why the hell did it fall???it wasnt even hit

plutonium · Apr 17, 2019

Do you believe aircraft fuel brought down those 2 buildings. they have over a hundred scientist ,physicist and architects that say hell no.... we have never had a metal constructed skyscraper in this world fall from a fire period and this one had a steel inside and outside skeleton..... impossible for it to fall and guess what ignorant folks aircraft fuel(kerosene) does not burn hot enough to melt steel........ that is science not wishful thinking...what you cant believe is the bush administration allowed this to go to war with iraq and get control of the oil and please dont forget about the 4000 soldiers killed there and no weapons of mass destruction reallly!!!!!oh i forgot they were republicans!!!! just like your friend Trump!!!

mike2810 · Apr 17, 2019

plutonium said:
Do you believe aircraft fuel brought down those 2 buildings. they have over a hundred scientist ,physicist and architects that say hell no.... we have never had a metal constructed skyscraper in this world fall from a fire period and this one had a steel inside and outside skeleton..... impossible for it to fall and guess what ignorant folks aircraft fuel(kerosene) does not burn hot enough to melt steel........ that is science not wishful thinking...what you cant believe is the bush administration allowed this to go to war with iraq and get control of the oil and please dont forget about the 4000 soldiers killed there and no weapons of mass destruction reallly!!!!!oh i forgot they were republicans!!!! just like your friend Trump!!!

There is so many wrong assumptions with your post. But hey, you have a right to your opinion. It is the other factors you seem to have left out that played a role in the collapse.

Now please tell us what caused the towers to fail. Provide your evidence.
As far as control of oil. How did that work out for the US?:lamo