Debunked: "Nuke Cancer" from 9/11 (PressTV, Gordon Duff)

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This story from Iran's PressTV, written By Gordon Duff, claims there is evidence of nuclear bombs (or at least radioactive drywall) being used in the World Trade Center towers.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/04/21/359423/nuke-cancer-from-911-revealed/ (http://archive.today/SR9C7)

[bunk]
A new and terrifying 9/11 conspiracy has hit the news. We are now confronted, not only with startling proof that 9/11 was a “nuclear event,” but that there have been thousands of unreported deaths in New York, radiation cancers and nearly 70,000 being kept alive with experimental stem cell therapy and physically devastating “chemo.”

One of the biggest medical cover-ups in history was exposed this week when Wall Street brokers suffering from cancer after 9/11 made the news. While telling their story, the New York Post revealed that 70,000 New Yorkers have applied for 9/11 victim compensation, most for cancers that can only be attributed to direct exposure to ionizing radiation from nuclear weapons.

Officials would not give a breakdown of cancer victims, but 10,800 downtown workers make up the second-largest group of registered claimants after 39,500 Ground Zero responders. There are another 16,600 in smaller categories such as residents, students, child-care and health-care workers.[/bunk]

The bunk here is twofold:

Firstly there are not 70,000 cancer victims. That's an entirely made up number. The NY Post story cited gives figures of:

http://nypost.com/2014/04/20/wall-street-workers-with-911-linked-cancers-seek-compensation/
If you add those together, that's 66,900. However that's not the number of people who have applied for victim's compensation, it's just the number of people who have registered with the VCF (Victims Compensation Fund). The number of people who have actually applied for compensation [see attached PDF] is 13,863. Of these 5,603 have been found to be eligible for a decision , and of those, 622 (according to the NY Post) have been for cancer.

Other stories put estimate the total of 9/11 adjacent cancer at around 1,100
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/11/health/911-cancer-treatment/
Secondly, Nuclear radiation is not the only source of cancer. In fact it's not even a cause that's being significantly considered here by any of the experts. A much more obvious and well known candidate is asbestos, but there are many others, such as the byproducts of the fires (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), and other toxins like dioxin and PCBs - all things that are known to cause cancer. These are things that were actually found in significant quantities in the dust, unlike ionizing radiation, which was not found at all:
http://www.si.edu/MCI/downloads/articles/wtc_dust.pdf
And a difficult point to acknowledge is that a significant portion of the people involved would have got cancer anyway, as most people eventually get cancer at some point in their lives. The toxic environment though is thought to increase the risk. However it was not entirely clear if ANY of the cancer cases could be directly attributable to exposure at the WTC.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/11/health/911-cancer-treatment/
However the consensus is that there has been some increase in cancers (19%), and that they should be covered, even if a direct link cannot be found.
So the PressTV article is total nonsense. There are not 70,000 cancer victims. There's only about 1,100. And of those, only about 200 might possibly be due to exposure of something at ground zero, and of those 200, none are thought to be from exposure to radiation.

PressTV and Gordon Duff are clearly just writing baseless nonsense for propaganda purposes.
 

Attachments

  • VCFProgramStatistics04102014.pdf
    187.6 KB · Views: 613
Last edited:

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
70,000 being kept alive with experimental stem cell therapy and physically devastating “chemo.”

Were that but true. It would be a good study to see how effective this stem cell therapy is.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And I think "chemo" is in quotes there because the conspiracy press likes to promote the idea that chemo is a big-pharma conspiracy. :mad:
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
Not sure how anyone is fooled by Gordon Duff.
Gordon Duffin reply to baz
4/21/2014 6:46:34 PM
The claim is made by the medical proof, the Defense Intelligence Agency, Russian nuclear intelligence services, the FBI, Dr. James Fetzer and others. I am simply reporting this. The medical evidence is the proof. There is no chemical explosive that produces radiation nor can "dustify" steel. Perhaps our government can develop one, given time.
Hope "Dustify" steel, debunks itself. How can anyone join/believe 911 truth when the "dustified steel" card is played?

The comment section, a sad display of ignorance.
Gordon Duff in reply to Marcus
4/21/2014 3:09:56 PM
Dimitri and I are good friends. He says in contact with me and Gene (Col. Khrushchev). When he speaks of his own experiences, he is dead on. Dimitri is a very real witness that should have sent many to the gallows.
I think Dimitri is the guy who says nukes were used. Also self-debunking.

Who does Gordon Duff want to hang?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
People are fooled by Gordon Duff because at first glance his "Veterans Today" site looks legitimate. PressTV can also look like a legitimate news organization at first glance.
 

Chew

Senior Member.
A nuke goes off and all he can think about is cancer? Yeah, ok.

In a comment in his press release Duff said each nuke had a yield of 18.2 kilotons.

From the Effects of Nuclear Weapons FAQ #5:

The aforementioned fission of 57 grams produces the equivalent of 1 kiloton of TNT.

The dose rate from fallout scales to the t^-1.2 power (where t is hours after detonation) so the 29 minute time difference between "detonations" is easily accounted for. One hour after the second nuke the dose rate from the first nuke would be 62% of the dose rate of the second nuke.

If two 18.2 kt nukes went off below the WTC and the fallout was evenly distributed within 1 km of the site then the dose rate one hour after the detonation would produce 7500 rads/hour per kt * (1 + .62) * 18.2 kt / (1 km² * pi) = ~70,400 rads/hour.

A 1000 rad dose is invariably fatal with death occurring within two weeks. An 8000 rad dose will instantly incapacitate a person. At the exposure rate calculated above, a person entering the area one hour after the second tower collapsed would receive a 1000 rad dose in 51 seconds and become incapacitated in 6.8 minutes.

Cancer. Yeah.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Except the theory has the nukes going off a few hundred feet underground, creating a hole that the towers fall into, hence minimizing radiation, and exlaining why the rubble pile was so small.

I kid you not.



Oh, and WTC7:
 

Chew

Senior Member.
If you know the yield and depth of burst you can compute if a surface crater will form and if it does form, what its surface radius and depth will be.

See section 6.70 here: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/effects/eonw_6.pdf#zoom=100


Plugging in the numbers for a 150 KT nuke and a 77 meter DOB in hard dry rock it would make a surface crater 178 meters in radius and 96 meters deep.

So when the first one went off the crater would have encompassed the other tower which would have immediately collapsed into the crater. Funny how no one noticed that...

Subsurface nuclear weapons craters are paraboloids. The surface area would be 0.124462 km².

A person entering the crater one month after each tower collapsed (got to give them time to clear the rubble!) would receive a fatal dose in 18 minutes.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

Died from cancer .

And you have our sympathy. But unfortunately as explained in the OP, there's no way of knowing for sure if an individual cancer case can be directly attributable to WTC site exposure. A friend of mine just died of cancer, he was 45.

Since there's evidence that it increased the incidence of cancer though, I fully support compensation being paid to sick first responders. I'm with Jon Stewart there.

 
Last edited:
J

Joe

Guest
And you have our sympathy. But unfortunately as explained in the OP, there's no way of knowing for sure if an individual cancer case can be directly attributable to WTC site exposure. A friend of mine just died of cancer, he was 45.

Since there's evidence that it increased the incidence of cancer though, I fully support compensation being paid to sick first responders. I'm with Jon Stewart there.

They said the WTC was in the process of removing Asbestos .http://www.asbestos.com/world-trade-center/ He died with nothing his daughter (my Niece ) is in and out of rehab . They abandoned most of them to die . There is no history of cancer in the family .Sorry about your friend . Too young .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jonnyH

Senior Member.
Except the theory has the nukes going off a few hundred feet underground, creating a hole that the towers fall into, hence minimizing radiation, and exlaining why the rubble pile was so small.

I kid you not.

They don't seem to have considered that to create an enormous cavity underground the granite that formerly filled that space has to go somewhere.
 
J

Joe

Guest
They don't seem to have considered that to create an enormous cavity underground the granite that formerly filled that space has to go somewhere.
If there was a nuke under the WTC the Bathtub as its called wouldn't have survived the blast .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, the nuke part of the story is quite obviously ridiculous. I've moved threads on it to the rambles section before, as it's like arguing with flat-earthers. There's no real need to debunk that here. My focus was on the nonsense about cancer.
 

Jason

Senior Member
If you add those together, that's 66,900. However that's not the number of people who have applied for victim's compensation, it's just the number of people who have registered with the VCF (Victims Compensation Fund). The number of people who have actually applied for compensation [see attached PDF] is 13,863. Of these 5,603 have been found to be eligible for a decision , and of those, 622 (according to the NY Post) have been for cancer.
Other stories put estimate the total of 9/11 adjacent cancer at around 1,100
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/11/health/911-cancer-treatment/
Content from external source
More than 1,100 people who worked or lived near the World Trade Center on 9/11 have been diagnosed with cancer, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
I wonder if there were any studies done prior to 9/11 in this location. So that we could see the #of people diagnosed with cancer pre 9/11 vs post 9/11. It would give us a clearer picture towards understanding how many claimants got cancer as a result of 9/11.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I wonder if there were any studies done prior to 9/11 in this location. So that we could see the #of people diagnosed with cancer pre 9/11 vs post 9/11. It would give us a clearer picture towards understanding how many claimants got cancer as a result of 9/11.

I think the 19% figure is probably fairly accurate, and not that location dependent.
 

Paul JF

New Member
According to medicalnewstoday and BBC this number, 70000, was the number of new eligible claimants (with cancer) who can claim because the NIOS expanded the program to include more different types of cancer.

Previously the program only included "Respirotary deseases" eg lung cancer, throat cancer etc.

But when they added "colorectal, breast, bladder, leukaemia, melanoma and all childhood cancers". The number of eligables went up to 70000.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/250138.php

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-19553253
 
Last edited:

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
I too was diagnosed with Cancer in 2001. Little early, mine was colorectal cancer, diagnosed in Feb. of 2001. I underwent chemo(no scare quotes) and radiation therapy after having had surgery. I was between rounds of chemo on Sept 11.
Probably unrelated to the events in NYC since I also live 1500+ miles away.:D
It will come as no surprise to anyone that I survived.

Cancer is a fact of life, and death. I also note that had I lived in Manhattan at the time though I would not qualify in the NIOS program since mine was not respiratory in nature (though some would disagree and claim that since they believe I speak out of the region of my cancer tumour that therefore I can breath through the nearest orifice as well.)
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
If there was a nuke under the WTC the Bathtub as its called wouldn't have survived the blast .
Absolutely!
It is astounding that people simply ascribe power and effect they wish for to the technology of their choice or imagination. Nukes at ground zero is no different in that respect than Judy Wood's steel-dustifying-space-a-beams. For that matter its no different than the ridiculous notion that a layer of therm?te "paint" could melt the steel members of the towers or that silent high explosives are even possible.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
If there was a nuke under the WTC the Bathtub as its called wouldn't have survived the blast .

Not only that, it was one of those super-secret SILENT nukes....

Those NWO boys certainly do know how to fool us all..... (though couldn't plant a single WMD in Iraq...)
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
Previously the program only included "Respirotary deseases" eg lung cancer, throat cancer etc.

But when they added "colorectal, breast, bladder, leukaemia, melanoma and all childhood cancers"
If they want to use that list to claim a nuke was used, the eligible cancers are missing most of the cancers commonly caused by ionizing radiation, and include a number that aren't.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer...cer-risk-do-xrays-and-gamma-rays-cause-cancer
Section on Atomic bomb survivors:
Claims cover rectal, melanoma, and a wider set of respiratory cancers than bomb survivors displayed, and do not cover myeloma, thyroid, ovarian, stomach, esophageal, liver, or lymphoma. More than half the list associated with atomic bomb exposure.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
(Politeness Policy shield on)

From reading more than a few of Mr Duff's assertions, he does sometimes state things as facts that are inaccurate.

He also appears to have a disproportionate interest in Jews and Israel in particular.

His employment with PressTV is no doubt a co-incidence.

(Politeness Policy shield off)
 
Last edited:
From my understanding cancer associated with radiation is usually thyroid. If there was a radiological bomb wouldn't there be a huge mushroom cloud?
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
From my understanding cancer associated with radiation is usually thyroid. If there was a radiological bomb wouldn't there be a huge mushroom cloud?
Thyroid is one of the highest, leukemia and myeloma are higher, but I can't find figures on just how much higher.

An underground detonation won't always produce a mushroom cloud, but it will produce *something*. The material in that cavity doesn't just vanish, it has to go somewhere. 150 kilotons is a pretty big nuke, though. We tested multiple megaton bombs, but most of the global arsenal now is actually smaller than the ones dropped on Japan.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Thyroid is one of the highest, leukemia and myeloma are higher, but I can't find figures on just how much higher.

An underground detonation won't always produce a mushroom cloud, but it will produce *something*. The material in that cavity doesn't just vanish, it has to go somewhere. 150 kilotons is a pretty big nuke, though. We tested multiple megaton bombs, but most of the global arsenal now is actually smaller than the ones dropped on Japan.

IIRC thyroid cancer is a big one because a nuke produces radioactive isotopes of iodine which get concentrated in the thyroid. Taking iodine pills can flood the thyroid with non-radioactive iodine and protect you from that effect.


If its far enough underground so as to not have a mushroom cloud then less radioactive material will escape into the atmosphere but the seismic effects will now also affect a wider area at the surface.

The CT seems to want it both ways, far enough underground so as to not have a huge amount of radioactive fallout while not being coupled to the earth too much and thus keeping the strong seismic effect limited to the WTC complex to the point of only collapsing fully the structures directly over the bomb.
A fictitious wise man once said: " Stupid is as stupid does".
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Multiple myeloma is the result of ionizing radiation producing genetic defects in the bone marrow. Monoclonal stem cells are then produced which give rise to immune cells, immunoglobulins, that are all clones and which do nothing that normal immunoglobulins do. Instead they form plaques in organs leading to liver or kidney failure, oesteoporosis. In addition, the monoclonal tumours in the marrow tend to take over leading to less and less true immune cells being produced and leaving the patient susceptible to infections.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
From my understanding cancer associated with radiation is usually thyroid. If there was a radiological bomb wouldn't there be a huge mushroom cloud?
Mushroom clouds are usually associated with surface or air burst nuclear detonations.

Having said that, I doubt if something like this would have gone unnoticed in lower Manhattan.

 
Mushroom clouds are usually associated with surface or air burst nuclear detonations.

Having said that, I doubt if something like this would have gone unnoticed in lower Manhattan.


I doubt it either. I'm not an expert on radiological nuclear bombs. My first instinct would be to see a big mushroom cloud. Yeesh, I probably watch too many movies.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
I doubt it either. I'm not an expert on radiological nuclear bombs. My first instinct would be to see a big mushroom cloud. Yeesh, I probably watch too many movies.

Your instinct is perfectly correct!

Underground detonations are usually associated with testing, dastardly plots by villains in James Bond movies, and the fantasies of conspiracy theorists....
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
maybe the conspiracy theorists have been watching too much Broken Arrow. I seem to recall an underground nuclear explosion there that didn't really seem to do much , radiation wise
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
I doubt it either. I'm not an expert on radiological nuclear bombs. My first instinct would be to see a big mushroom cloud. Yeesh, I probably watch too many movies.
All nukes are radiological in that they produce radioactive isotopes of elements that get bombarded with neutrons, and the byproducts of the few pounds worth of fissionable materials involved.

All bombs dropped by aircraft or as missile warheads will produce a mushroom cloud since even if they are ground burst, or designed to penetrate the surface, they cannot get deep enough not to.
Deep underground testing was done, iirc, specifically to reduce the escape of radiological materials into the atmosphere. The bomb design could be tested for efficiency and yield therefore, without much, if any, atmospheric fallout.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Bruno D. Debunked: Tianjin explosion was caused by a nuke Conspiracy Theories 3
Mythic Suns [Debunked] Viral internet meme indirectly claiming that Greenland has already fully melted. Science and Pseudoscience 6
T AiG Debunked: Fossils Fail to Find Major Transition From Dinosaurs to Birds Science and Pseudoscience 10
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 7
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 67
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 8
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 48
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 9
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 76
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs and Aliens 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 9
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
H Debunked: Dr. Shiva's Scatterplot Analysis of Michigan Precincts Election 2020 43
Mick West Debunked: Suspicious "Biden Only" Ballots in Georgia Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: "Nancy Pelosi's long time Chief of Staff is a key executive at Dominion Voting" Election 2020 0
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top