"N" Word now being Used to describe WTC explosions

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

"N" Word now being Used to describe WTC explosions

Postby greencrow0 » Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:46 pm

from waynemadsenreport.com<br><br>"Sept. 12, 2006 -- According to sources who worked with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) at Ground Zero on and after 911, residents of southern Manhattan and rescue and clean-up workers involved in the recovery operations at the site of the former World Trade Center are experiencing an unusually high rate of non-Hodgkin lymphoma -- a cancer that is common among individuals who have been exposed to extremely high levels of ionizing radiation, such as that from nuclear blasts and major nuclear reactor leaks. In addition to the respiratory problems among rescue workers at Ground Zero who breathed toxic "pulverized" concrete and other debris into their lungs, the radiation cancer is of extreme interest to researchers who suspect that the World Trade Center towers and Building 7 were brought down with the help of high energy releases. WMR spoke to a number of individuals who were at Ground Zero on 911 who are now experiencing symptoms resulting from severe damage to their immune systems -- a condition that is common among those exposed to high levels of radiation.<br><br>Sources close to FEMA in New York confirmed to WMR that the lymphoma cases are believed to be the result of a release of extremely high levels of radiation from a series of nuclear events on the morning of 911. They believe that explains the reason for the "pulverization" of concrete, molten metals, pyroclastic surges and fallout, and other anomalies resulting from the catastrophe. It was also pointed out that some vehicles parked on the west side of the World Trade Center were "fused" on the sides facing the towers -- the doors being melted into the body frames. Other cars parked nearby were not similarly affected. There is also evidence of explosions and fires on top of the Woolworth Building, three blocks away from the World Trade Center, during the attack on the towers.<br><br>FEMA officials from Washington, DC were quick to ban any unofficial photography in southern Manhattan in the weeks following 911. Any photographers who had not received prior permission from FEMA to be in southern Manhattan found their photographic and filming equipment confiscated by the government."<br><br>=====================<br><br>Why. I wonder, did Professor Steven E. Jones recently categorically deny that 'suitcase' nuclear bombs were used?<br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=greencrow0>greencrow0</A> at: 9/12/06 8:48 pm<br></i>
greencrow0
 
Posts: 1481
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:42 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "N" Word now being Used to describe WTC explos

Postby FourthBase » Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:50 pm

If there was some kind of nuke used, how did anyone within, say, 2000 feet survive? How did the cops trapped in the WTC1 rubble survive? How did people on the nearby streets not get "fused" like the cars they were standing around, running by, hiding behind? <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "N" Word now being Used to describe WTC explos

Postby dbeach » Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:02 pm

mini nukes or explosives filled with DU depleted uranium<br><br>dunno how mini? but these pentagoners have lots of tax dollars and big ole secret budgets for weaponry..<br><br>DU was used in PG war 1991 and the current Iraq war .<br><br>many Vets have these types of radiation symptoms<br>who served in PG<br><br>cull the hurd or cripple em but keep em scared <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "N" Word now being Used to describe WTC explos

Postby bvonahsen » Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:05 pm

Exactly... when the towers fell, CD or not, they released a hell of a lot of kinetic energy. That plus friction would equal lots of energy in the form of heat. What got affected by the heat would depend a lot on circumstance, so I could see in that senario some people surviving amid the rubble while car doors got fused. It was a very chaotic event. <p></p><i></i>
bvonahsen
 

Re: "N" Word now being Used to describe WTC explos

Postby greencrow0 » Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:21 pm

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=6064.topic&index=1">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...ic&index=1</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>FB<br><br>The mini nukes were likely buried nine or more storeys beneath the earth...they were planted near the steel columns that were embedded in the base rock and when they exploded, they instantaneously melted that steel core.<br><br>That's why the 110 storey buildings collapsed in less than ten seconds.<br><br>gc <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=greencrow0>greencrow0</A> at: 9/12/06 9:23 pm<br></i>
greencrow0
 
Posts: 1481
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:42 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "N" Word now being Used to describe WTC explos

Postby erosoplier » Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:30 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If there was some kind of nuke used, how did anyone within, say, 2000 feet survive? How did the cops trapped in the WTC1 rubble survive? How did people on the nearby streets not get "fused" like the cars they were standing around, running by, hiding behind?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>If nukes were used in 1 and 2 wtc - let me pull a figure out of the air - 95% of the energy of the blast was contained within the walls of the towers. They blasted up not out. The external perimeter of the towers would have been demolished conventionally.<br><br>It's hard to believe any living thing could survive those collapses, but anything that did would've had to have been well near the perimeter of the building, and very very lucky.<br><br>Is there evidence that any people survived who were near the cars with fused doors?<br><br>Also, I don't think DU would have been used to any great extent - it's too detectable.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
erosoplier
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:38 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "N" Word now being Used to describe WTC explos

Postby dbeach » Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:48 pm

I fugure the goons have plenty of stuff that is still unused.<br><br>Maybe a DU hot shot ain't so far out.<br><br><br>"DU MISSILES AT THE WTC? <br><br>With no evidence of a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon available to the public, some 9/11 researchers claim a DU tipped missile, launched by a weaponized UAV, like the Global Hawk, struck the Pentagon. The Global Hawk followed the missile into the building and was destroyed leaving behind only its most durable parts, such as the engine parts and parts of its landing gear. <br><br>Because DU is extremely dense, a wide variety of missiles in the U.S. arsenal are tipped with DU rods to penetrate the armored steel of military vehicles and buildings. Because uranium is a spontaneous pyrophoric material, it inflames when it reaches its target and generates such intense heat that it explodes. This is what causes the bright flash that is seen when a DU missile impacts upon its target. <br><br>The white flash seen in videos of the two planes striking the twin towers is exactly the kind of flash that occurs when a missile with a DU penetrator strikes. If DU penetrators caused the flashes seen on videos of the planes smashing into the towers, where did the uranium rods go? <br><br>Working with Hufschmid, AFP has located several photos that show a mysterious burning object passing through the initial explosion in the South Tower. This object, which displays the characteristics of a burning DU penetrator, can be seen on page 39 of Painful Questions. <br><br>The photo of the fireball that occurred immediately after the crash of the plane into the South Tower shows two fast moving objects that passed through the tower and are far ahead of the inferno. One appears as a black dot leaving a trail of white smoke; the second appears to be a dark rod burning with a white flame followed by a trail of black smoke. <br><br>The second object displays the characteristics of a burning DU penetrator. AFP sent enlarged photos of the object to Marion Fulk, a retired chemical physicist from the Lawrence Livermore National Lab, and asked him if this object could be DU. <br><br>“Yes, it is possible,” Fulk said. Asked about the dark smoke trailing behind the nearly pure white flame, Fulk said, “It could be uranium oxide.” <br><br>“Let’s assume it is uranium,” Fulk added. “It’s burning near the surface and it’s pretty hot.” It is a small object with great mass and has huge momentum behind it, Fulk said. “It’s way out ahead of the explosion and nothing stopped it.” <br><br>If the object is a DU penetrator, that would explain its intense heat, radiation expert Leuren Moret told AFP. The DU would have already been burning before it hit the tower. The burning uranium would have acted to ignite the fuel in the aircraft causing the tremendous explosions seen in both towers. As it passed through the building some of the penetrator’s kinetic energy would have been converted to heat energy. <br><br>The difference between the orange colors of the flames coming from the explosion in the tower and the white flame of the small dense object are indicative of “a huge temperature difference,” Moret said. The white flame coming off of the uranium suggests it is burning at a very high temperature although it is not possible to determine the exact temperature from the photograph, according to Fulk and Moret. "<br> <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "N" Word now being Used to describe WTC explos

Postby bvonahsen » Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:53 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The mini nukes were likely buried nine or more storeys beneath the earth...they were planted near the steel columns that were embedded in the base rock and when they exploded, they instantaneously melted that steel core.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Total nonsense for which you have no proof. All you have is fevered conjecture and flights of imagination.<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>Is there evidence that any people survived who were near the cars with fused doors?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Some people walked out virtually unharmed, they were in a stairwell and were incredibly lucky to boot. <p></p><i></i>
bvonahsen
 

Re: "N" Word now being Used to describe WTC explos

Postby Rigorous Intuition » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:02 am

I'd like to trust Madsen, but he makes it hard when he posts stories like this. <p></p><i></i>
Rigorous Intuition
 
Posts: 1744
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:36 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "N" Word now being Used to describe WTC explos

Postby greencrow0 » Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:07 am

correction:<br><br>> "they were planted near the steel columns that were embedded in the <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>bedrock".</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br><br>RI<br><br>wayne is saying his sources for this story were members of FEMA.<br><br>I, frankly have always found this theory compelling<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm">www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>I first read it about on the above-noted link about a year and a half ago.<br><br>It is the only theory that explains the pulverized concrete and large pools of molten metal.<br><br>gc<br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=greencrow0>greencrow0</A> at: 9/13/06 12:11 am<br></i>
greencrow0
 
Posts: 1481
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:42 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "N" Word now being Used to describe WTC explos

Postby yablonsky » Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:11 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>embedded in the bedrock".<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>we're waiting for the big earthquake here in san francisco..<br><br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>
yablonsky
 

Re: "N" Word now being Used to describe WTC explos

Postby greencrow0 » Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:13 am

yablonsky<br><br>are you saying/implying that the steel columns supporting the twin towers were NOT embedded in the bedrock?<br><br>gc <p></p><i></i>
greencrow0
 
Posts: 1481
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:42 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "N" Word now being Used to describe WTC explos

Postby yablonsky » Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:21 am

no, sorry, gc..<br><br>i say opaque things online i think.<br><br>san fran. has a lot of bedrock. and of course a devastating earthquake here is right up there with a hurricane in new orleans and terrorist attacks in new york i believe is cited in some FEMA pre-9/11 report.<br><br>gallows humor and tin foil hat skeptism (not the only ingredients by a long shot) in different measures depending on the day. i'll just shut up now.<br><br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>
yablonsky
 

Re: "N" Word now being Used to describe WTC explos

Postby greencrow0 » Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:38 am

It's okay, yablonsky<br><br>it's just that a lot of people do not know that the towers went down about nine floors below street level and that the steel columns were embedded into the bedrock.<br><br>This would make the structure difficult to CD by conventional implosion methods.<br><br>Isn't it amazing that we've all become so edumicated on physics, architecture and CD because the NIST people and the 9/11 Commission refused to do their jobs?<br><br>So, humans being what we are...we ALL did the job for them.<br><br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>
greencrow0
 
Posts: 1481
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:42 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "N" Word now being Used to describe WTC explos

Postby Sweejak » Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:56 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>There is also evidence of explosions and fires on top of the Woolworth Building, three blocks away from the World Trade Center, during the attack on the towers.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.orbwar.com/woolworth/">www.orbwar.com/woolworth/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to 9/11

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests