• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

ALTERNATIVE THEORIES V: The Build-a-bear Workshop

lol you make laugh..

I have nothing against muslims.. i have something against religion, sure, and i have something against people that murder innocent people, yeah.. islamaphobe? lol.. Yeah mate I'm shit scared of the middle easts non existent nuclear weapons but the thing that scares me the most? The beards. They all have great, manly beards.. it's just not something i can compete with.

Your assumptions of the kind of person I am is even dumber than your no plane theory. I started a thread over in P&S about religion, go read. You seem to have confused yourself a bit. Do I have a problem with a race of people of a religious group? To be honest yes i do have a problem with Islam.. Their prophet married a 7 year old girl and women are seen as second class. Does my hatred end there? Hell no. The Catholic church is riddled with dirty scum child molesters. The Jewish tradition of circumcision is child mutilation. And they all prey on the weak and vulnerable. They're all used as means of control, power and profit. They're all based on a book full of shit.

But you have just proved me right in what i thought would eventually happen. You run out of crap to come back at my posts so you start attacking me personally.. bravo Mr "I'm the only one that knows the truth everyone else is dumb"..

Anyway.. Yeah I don't know why the only camera footage is that shitty low frame rate video.. but according to you they could have faked it high res on live TV.. seeing as it wasn't live.. they would have had enough time to fake some pretty good videos, no? Or did they just get lazy and think fuck it use ms paint.

Would you have made the call to shoot down the plane? They didn't know what the plan was. They didn't know they were going to slam the plane into the pentagon. So I ask you? Would you make the call and have the blood of those innocent passengers on your hands? It's not an easy decision whatever way you look at it.. and there wasn't long to decide.

There's audio from one of the jets saying they can see it.

Oh look! No wing damage to a concrete building!? Where have i seen that before.. oh yeah.. The Empire State building in 1945. Oh and by the way if you look at some decent, non conspiracy, photos you can actually see damage to the building where the wings hit it..

You don't see no plane? Me neither.. but over 100 people did.
 
Last edited:
Escher's Waterfall said:
So, I hate to bring up a conspiracy theory that could be somewhat plausible, but lets examine the following:

1. Iran is facing the possibility of a strike by Israel over their nuclear program.
2. An Israel who is currently engaged by another, closer threat is less likely to focus on Iran.
3. Iran has ties to militants in the Palestinian territories.
4. The militants in the Palestinian territories, being batshit crazy, can be relied upon to probably quickly use any rockets supplied to them.
5. Israel can usually be relied on to counter with additional violence...
6. And Israeli/Palestinian conflict could quickly escalate, diverting Israel's attention from Iran.

Not saying that's the case, but it isn't totally in the realm of fantasy.
Click to expand...

That's interesting.

My question is will this cause a full scale war between Israel and Iran and would Israel drag the US into this war?

Or would the US simply provide "support"?
 
Btw. I was wondering.

Did the US government somehow edit all the civilian footage of the 911 attacks as well?

Also...

I agree with Ace, it was a tactical fucking nuke, not a "beam" weapon nor was it only conventional explosives/thermite.

It's key to differentiate between "collapse" and total disintigration, i.e. "dustification." Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth have it quite wrong when they state conventional demolition explosives caused the wtcs to collapse into their own footprint. They did not. The twin towers were pulverized into a fine dust which spread over Manhattan and the atmosphere.
Click to expand...


And if a nuclear weapon (probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard but whatever I'll bite) was detonated in New York on 911, why didn't anybody detect the radiation? Any nuclear blast of any yield would have set off radiation alarms all over the east coast at least from what I understand.

For example when Chernobyl happened nuclear power plants across Europe detected a spike of radiation in their radiation detectors. That's how the west found out about it because the Russians were trying to cover it up. But you can't cover something like that up. A nuclear blast would not have gone unnoticed.
 
I really want to know how the government managed to hide the radiation of a nuclear blast in the middle of New York City. That should be a doozy of an explanation MFR.
 
freddy47 said:
Btw. I was wondering.

Did the US government somehow edit all the civilian footage of the 911 attacks as well?

Also...
Click to expand...
apparently so. There wasn't much "civilian" footage taken, and what normal "civilian" was ready to roll so quickly with their camcorders after the first plane hit?

Ace Baker offers anyone with any other orginial footage a $100,000 reward. So far no winners.




And if a nuclear weapon (probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard but whatever I'll bite) was detonated in New York on 911, why didn't anybody detect the radiation? Any nuclear blast of any yield would have set off radiation alarms all over the east coast at least from what I understand
Click to expand...
.

It was a very small blast for sure. Was anybody bothering to look for radiation? High levels of tritium were found in the water underneath the former site of the wtcs. Sources say there were high levels of strontium and barium in the dust too. The dust was pulverized so fine that the particle sizes were so small they were off the scale.

Radiation would also explain the bizarrely scorched cars:
03km0.gif


Here's a pdf to read about it:
http://www.nucleardemolition.com/GZero_Sample.pdf

Image slide show for you guys:
dennis3.jpg

dennis41.jpg

dennis1.jpg

dennis8.jpg

dennis11.jpg

I <3 Nuke York

Take a look at these conventional explosives demolition compilation: Do you see any upward rising and mushrooming smoke clouds? The lateral dust is similar to 9/11, but you never see a massive column of upward rising smoke. That really does take more heat energy than office fires or conventional explosives to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno
 
Last edited:
Really there are three things in the world that ever resembled this,
Nukes
Volcanoes
and...9/11
2012-05_Volcano.jpg

WTC_3412.jpg


The really "hot" angry Arab theory DOES NOT scientifically explain that. But, then again, BL'ers using wack scientism in place of real science to try and understand their pwecious little worlds is not uncommon on these forums.
 
freddy47 said:
I really want to know how the government managed to hide the radiation of a nuclear blast in the middle of New York City. That should be a doozy of an explanation MFR.
Click to expand...

Here's what they did:
For months we witnessed trucks coming and going from Ground Zero and the media told us they were hauling away the steel. What steel? There was very little steel left in the rubble because it had been pulverized into nano-dust. So what were these trucks really hauling back and forth? Dirt! They hauled in dirt, spread it all over Ground Zero, then scooped it up and hauled it away, and this went on for years. Didn't they do that at Chernobyl? Yes they did!
Click to expand...

But, unfortunately, the signs of radiation did show up in the numerous and sudden cases of cancer that afflicted the wtc site workers: http://healthland.time.com/2011/09/02/study-finds-higher-rate-of-cancer-in-ground-zero-firefighters/

19 angry young Arabs wielding box cutters can't cause cancer. It wasn't asbestos related either. These are thyroid cancers and other non lung cancers.
Many Ground Zero workers, like Thomas (he developed a rare cancer called epithelioid sarcoma), believe that their cancers stem from that dust, but science does not support that belief.

"It's no coincidence that within a year of me working there every day that I started growing a lump in my hand and it turned out to be cancer," said Thomas.
Click to expand...

Benzene in jet fuel? No, it would have all burned up.
We are all exposed to it in many ways including cigarette smoke, but smoking doesn't cause tumors on your hand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene

Asbestos? Not likely to cause cancer in your thyroid or hand.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/docs_launch_cancer_probe_KWSZw221nOZ5Eo1VJ9tjHL
 
Last edited:
MyFinalRest said:
Here's what they did:


But, unfortunately, the signs of radiation did show up in the numerous and sudden cases of cancer that afflicted the wtc site workers: http://healthland.time.com/2011/09/02/study-finds-higher-rate-of-cancer-in-ground-zero-firefighters/


Benzene in jet fuel? No, it would have all burned up.
We are all exposed to it in many ways including cigarette smoke, but smoking doesn't cause tumors on your hand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene

Asbestos? Not likely to cause cancer in your thyroid or hand.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/docs_launch_cancer_probe_KWSZw221nOZ5Eo1VJ9tjHL
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense because no matter what, the numerous nuclear power plants across the East coast (especially those in New York State) would have without a shadow of a doubt have detected a higher than usual dose of radiation.

Until you can explain how none of these places detected abnormal amounts of radiation (which a nuclear bomb of any yield would have generated) on that day and on the subsequent days for a long while after 911 your nuclear bomb idea doesn't hold water.

Your Chernobyl comparison makes even less sense. Unless they managed to cover up the entire site IMMEDIATELY after the supposed nuclear blast (and even then there would be MASSIVE amounts of radiation) someone somewhere would have detected it. And I don't mean military radiation detectors I mean civilian ones as there are numerous civilian nuclear power plants on the east coast that would have easily detected the fallout from a nuclear blast somewhere as close as New York City.

You telling me that every single nuclear power plant in the east coast (hell lets just say in New York and surrounding states) were in on the conspiracy?

For months we witnessed trucks coming and going from Ground Zero and the media told us they were hauling away the steel. What steel? There was very little steel left in the rubble because it had been pulverized into nano-dust. So what were these trucks really hauling back and forth? Dirt! They hauled in dirt, spread it all over Ground Zero, then scooped it up and hauled it away, and this went on for years. Didn't they do that at Chernobyl? Yes they did!
Click to expand...

I recall seeing videos and pictures of ground zero directly after the attack and there were huge chunks of debris lying around. To say that both towers were completely obliterated into so called "nano-particles" is dishonest to say the least.
 
Last edited:
^
and hospital nuclear medicine lab, and university/college physics/chemistry/molecular biology lab and industrial radiography lab and private geek labs.(i own a few survey meters and keep one on for the lulz...)

Where is acute radiation syndrome in survivors and ppl in buildings near by?
 
freddy47 said:
That doesn't make any sense because no matter what, the numerous nuclear power plants across the East coast (especially those in New York State) would have without a shadow of a doubt have detected a higher than usual dose of radiation.

Until you can explain how none of these places detected abnormal amounts of radiation (which a nuclear bomb of any yield would have generated) on that day and on the subsequent days for a long while after 911 your nuclear bomb idea doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...
Well, somebody detected radiation at the Pentagon:
"That's pretty high," Cindy Folkers of the Washing ton-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) told AFP. Folkers said 7 to 12 cpm is normal background radiation inside the NIRS building, and that outdoor readings of between 12 to 20 cpm are normal in Chevy Chase, Md., outside Washington.

The Radalert 50, Folkers said, is primarily a gamma ray detector and "detects only 7 percent of the beta radiation and even less of the alpha." This suggests that actual radiation levels may have been significantly higher than those detected by the doctor's Geiger counter.

"The question is, why?" Folkers said.

If the radiation came from the explosion and fire at the Pentagon, it most likely did not come from a Boeing 757, which is the type of aircraft that allegedly hit the building.

"Boeing has never used DU on either the 757 or the 767, and we no longer use it on the 747," Leslie M. Nichols, product spokesperson for Boeing's 767, told AFP.
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/ne...to-environmental-radiation-contamination.html
Click to expand...

It ends saying this:
In New York, however, considerably less attention was paid to the health risks the burning rubble posed to workers at the WTC site. A recent screening done by Mount Sinai Hospital found that nearly three-quarters of the 1,138 first responders had experienced respiratory problems while working at Ground Zero, and half had respiratory ailments that persisted for an average of eight months afterward.

"We were dumfounded by how many people were sick, and how sick they were, and how sick they still are," said Robin Herbert, co-director of the program.

"If high radioactive levels were found near the Pentagon (and they were) it certainly would not hurt to similarly test for the presence of radiation sickness in those who spent time around Ground Zero, as well," says Cathy Garger.
Click to expand...

Well freddy47, in your infantile arguments, you must think that all nuclear events must be on the scale of Hiroshima, Chernobyl, or Fukushima.

They can produce nuclear weapons of many varying degrees of radioactivity and effect.

Chernobyl and Fukushima scored a 7, the highest on the radiactivity scale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale

perhaps the wtc events were only 4's?

freddy, it's not my idea. What is your explanation for the oddly scorched cars while paper in the same area did not burn? Why was there a huge pyroclastic upward rising cloud when the buildings disintegrated? I watched other demolitions and saw nothing but laterally expanding dust. Why was tritium found in the water below GZ? Why, why, why then?


freddy said thisI recall seeing videos and pictures of ground zero directly after the attack and there were huge chunks of debris lying around. To say that both towers were completely obliterated into so called "nano-particles" is dishonest to say the least.
Click to expand...
Well Congrats, I think I saw the videos and the live footage too. I live in America and I was out of bed and watching CNN. Like you say...some huge chunks. Where did the rest of the two largest buildings ever in the world go? Shouldn't there have been a giant heap of rubble left? but there wasn't - just some dust and a few chunks and pieces of steel framing at the very bottom

The only person here pathetically resorting to dishonesty here is you.

Perhaps everyone was glued to there TV's on 9/11 and nobody was really looking for radiation. Maybe people did detect a little spike...can you prove that they did not? Since radiation was discovered at the Pentagon site, it would seem like the benefit of the doubt swings once more in favor of there being radiation at the wtc's too - had somebody looked. The scorched metal alongside unburnt paper, the tumors on workers, the tritium, barium, and strontium found...etc. Try as you may to rule it out - I cannot, and so far you have not either. I'm not comfortable with this information either, but I can't find a better expanation for it.

It's an odd coincidence they called it "ground zero." It caught on well because it looked like fucking Hiroshima.
The Oxford English Dictionary, citing the use of the term in a 1946 New York Times report on the destroyed city of Hiroshima, defines ground zero as "that part of the ground situated immediately under an exploding bomb, especially an atomic one."
Click to expand...
 
You think if there were significant amounts of radiation at the sites, far more people would have detected it.

Heck, Chernobyl was first detected (in the west) in Sweden!

I'm going to wield my +5 Occam Razor of conspiracy slaying and say its most likely improperly calibrated meters or people who don't know what they are doing. (The latter explanation may be supported by the fact that these people are supposedly using gamma radiation detectors and speculating about depleted uranium - which decays via alpha particles, not gamma, and anyways, isn't so much a radiological hazard as a chemical hazard.)
 
MyFinalRest said:
People got sick. Even Rudy Giuliani was sick. Nobody was thinking radiation at the time, but people got sick both acutely and chronically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_arising_from_the_September_11_attacks
Click to expand...

Radiation levels near a detonation are HUGE. (mainly gamma and neutron)

Radiation sickness of that sort is quite distinct on labs (I.e. fragmented blood cells with a rapidly falling white counts followed by most white cells being multinucleated in the intermediate term, etc) it dissimilar to practically anything else to the point of being self evident to anyone doing the bloodwork.
 
MyFinalRest said:
Well, somebody detected radiation at the Pentagon:


It ends saying this:


Well freddy47, in your infantile arguments, you must think that all nuclear events must be on the scale of Hiroshima, Chernobyl, or Fukushima.
Click to expand...

Lol now look who is resorting to insults. My arguments are only infantile to you because you can't conveniently explain them away. I didn't say that the nuclear event had to be of the same scale of Hiroshima or Chernobyl. I said a nuclear explosion of ANY yield would have generated abnormal amounts of radiation that would have set off radiation detectors throughout the state and possibly further away. You can't escape this fact and until you can explain this your so called "nuclear bomb theory" is complete bullshit. You can insult me all you want but that doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

Why was tritium found in the water below GZ? Why, why, why then?
Click to expand...

Why didn't anybody detect abnormally large amounts of radiation that would have indicated not one, but two nuclear explosions? Why, why, why then?

The only person here pathetically resorting to dishonesty here is you
Click to expand...

I don't see how I'm being dishonest. You pretty much said that there were no large chunks of debris AT ALL at ground zero. There is video evidence to the contrary. You are only saying I'm dishonest because once again you've been caught bullshitting.

Maybe people did detect a little spike...can you prove that they did not?
Click to expand...

Can you prove that they did? If nuclear radiation alarms were going off across the country I'm pretty damn sure people would have spoken up about it. Unless every radiology lab in every hospital, and every single nuclear power plant were in on this conspiracy I would have to say your argument once again falls flat on its face.

it would seem like the benefit of the doubt swings once more in favor of there being radiation at the wtc's too - had somebody looked.
Click to expand...

My point is they wouldn't have needed to look. Radiation badges within the city and beyond would have gone off in radiology labs and nuclear power plants throughout the state and possibly beyond.

Until you can explain why no one detected a large enough radiation spike that would have indicated a nuclear explosion then I'm afraid you don't have shit.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top