What health threats did 9/11 first responders face?
(www.foxnews.com)
Comments (10)
sorted by:
Radiation from the nukes that were used to turn steel to dust.
PDF Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of The World Trade Centre
http://reopen911.org/ReOpen911_2007Archive/GZero_Sample.pdf
Ace Baker 911 The Great American Psy Opera
https://archive.org/details/AceBaker911TheGreatAmericanPsyOperapasDavion/9_11_+The+Great+American+Psy-Opera+(6_8)+-+Quels+avions.mp4
Wasn't a nuke. I've seen over the years the belief that nano thermite was used. Here's a theory I've been floating for a long time.
Trees, some cars right in front of both buildings were left completely untouched. If you actually watch the collapses, the buildings start to free fall, but then it looks like everything just turns to dust as they fall.
Each tower had 3 million tones of concrete alone, yet only 750,000 tons TOTAL was removed from the entire site.
Everything that is, is made from atoms. Atoms have electrons, neutrons and protons spinning around them, creating a frequency. This means that ALL things on earth have, what is called a natural frequency.
Take a champagne glass, take a tuning fork and strike the fork. IF it's the 'right' frequency, the glass will shatter. What IS this process? It's called demolecularization. It's when the atoms of material repel each other due to the opposite resonant frequency being cast upon it.
SO..if everything has a natural frequency, and everything has an equal and opposite frequency and ANYONE can do it with a glass and a tuning fork = how hard would it be to figure out the natural frequency of concrete, iron and steel?
Watch the buildings fall. It's like it's being pushed down and peeled open like a banana. Buildings under demolition to not fall and fall apart this way.
This would be a direct energy weapon.
Just a theory.
I agree with you there. It could have been a combination of DEW, mini nukes, nano-thermite, and traditional explosives. They left nothing to chance because they wanted those buildings down at all costs.
Leaving half a building would have been a terrible outcome for the perps, the evidence would have been everywhere. A total collapse meant they could scoop up the evidence and ship it off (to China) before anybody could notice.
Those towers were not flimsy, they were tanks and probably the strongest buildings in the world. Nothing short of throwing everything they had at it would bring them down normally.
Asbestos, as far as I know. Seems that was one of the reasons the buildings came down, removing it would have been too costly.
Asbestos was probably a contributing factor on the tower collapses but not in the way you think. Asbestos was banned when the WTC towers were under construction so it was not used on anything above the 64th floor. The lack of asbestos on the support structures made them more susceptible to damage from high heat and the lack also made fire spread more rapidly. The modifications that had to be made to mid-way through construction to provide fire resistance to the upper floors made them heavier then the lower floors where asbestos was used. None of what I just wrote is meant to discredit 9-11 being an inside job - just pointing out known weaknesses in the WTC construction as it relates to asbestos and weight.
THIS.
The cost of removal of the asbestos FAR outweighed the value of the building.
Never forget Lucky Larry Silverstien
I treated one and her blood work showed elevated levels of cesium.
"It was from the exit signs in the building."
Here's a good article about it. Well over 100 firefighters have died SINCE 9/11 as a direct result of the effects of being there at the time.
http://neverforgetproject.com/statistics
Silica dust from all of the finely pulverized glass and concrete were far and away the biggest threat. Add on to that all of the smoke and soot and other combustion by-products from everything that goes into a modern office building.
Early on, many of them faced the health threats of collapsing sky scrapers.