It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pentagon Radiation Levels on 911+

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   
In searching about why new York people are having such a time with lung problems and general health problems I ran across a 747 stats that stated 747 use about 800 pounds of depleted uranium per wing. In search for 757 and 767 having the same wing spars added for strength, i came across this little information.
www.shunpiking.com...
I understand that most posters in this forum do not read anything more than the head lines, but I feel that when you do that you miss most of the information that you can be given.
So what purpose is depleted Uranium used in planes for , one is structural firmness
to reduce weight? Its also used in tail booms of planes.
www.serendipity.li... noticeable aspect of a hit by a Depleted Uranium missile is a white flash. Such a flash can be seen on stills of the Pentagon crash released from a supposed surveillance video.
Don't think this issue is over. It's just getting started!
www.americanfreepress.net...
Another good site for depleted uranium in planes and danger.
I think daves site is pretty good and gives ssome news insite to components actually found inside the pentagon.
davesweb.cnchost.com...

AMEC Construction Management, a subsidiary of the British engineering firm AMEC, renovated Wedge One of the Pentagon before 9-11 and cleaned it up afterward.

AMEC had also renovated Silverstein's WTC 7, which collapsed mysteriously on 9-11, and then headed the cleanup of the WTC site afterward. The AMEC construction firm is currently in the process of closing all its offices in the United States.

Mod Edit: All Caps Title – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/9/2006 by Umbrax]




posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Except for the fact that there are some serious problems with those links and that information.

Boeing ceased the use of DU in the 757 and 767, and switched to Tungsten instead.

The Pentagon wasn't 6 reinforced walls. It was ONE reinforced wall, and the entire bottom floor was open except for pillars and thin masonry walls.

Two of your links also go to the same article on different webpages, and one doesn't work at all.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   
can we conceive mini nukes as part of the explanation for radioactivity? i mean. sure thermates or thermites can cut thru steel and break the Towers down, but how to explain the incineration of the whole building?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mondegreen

I understand that most posters in this forum do not read anything more than the head lines, but I feel that when you do that you miss most of the information that you can be given.


So, tell us, since you have no problem making an accusation like this - what facts do you base this on?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   
What, you mean that 100+ tons collapsing in on itself wouldn't do it? And as far as the radiation levels, there are a lot of things in that building that would give off varying amounts of radiation. ESPECIALLY when they're broken open and destroyed like they would have been after the collapse.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   
P.S.

Your original post contains four links:

2 are the exact same post from americanfreepress which seems to only read headlines and not think much,
1 which doesn't work,
and
1 which has nothing to do with depleted uranium in commercial airline frames.

Now - I ask you - of the two of us, who only read the headlines this time? (hint - the answer is not me)



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
What, you mean that 100+ tons collapsing in on itself wouldn't do it?


I believe you are referring to the pancake theory am I right? In this case I would have expected (not that I'm used to this lol) a pancake of AT LEAST 2 or 3 floors.

But! ..

No pancakes. Dust all over Manhattan.. no syrup!

I'll give myself a counter argument or two for the sake of it:

-It could have squished itself into the lower floors!
-It's all because of the fat people on the top-floor restaurant!

..

Then I start thinking about how fast those Towers came down, almost at the speed of freefall. Neither of the Towers tilted or partially fell, as they logically should have. Normal pancake theory would require a lot more time to "squish" EVERY floor down to an unreasonable compression. Besides, are we still debating whether there were explosions or not?

[edit on 5-9-2006 by La Balance]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   
There WERE explosions, but why does explosion automatically = bomb? And even if you DON'T subscribe to the pancake theory, the mass of the building had to go somewhere, and it ended up all over the ground below the buildings. You take 100+ tons, and you jam it down on itself like that and it's gonna break into itty bitty pieces. And it wasn't "nearly freefall", it was a good bit faster.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
There WERE explosions, but why does explosion automatically = bomb? And even if you DON'T subscribe to the pancake theory, the mass of the building had to go somewhere, and it ended up all over the ground below the buildings. You take 100+ tons, and you jam it down on itself like that and it's gonna break into itty bitty pieces. And it wasn't "nearly freefall", it was a good bit faster.


Got to admire your spunk zaphhead, how can one get an explosion without explosives? Your itty bitty pieces could have been depleted uranium right, as we know that when DU hits it produces a white flash and vaporizes itself until is is no more, right.
Can we conceive mini nukes as part of the explanation for radioactivity? i mean. Sure thermates or thermites can cut thru steel and break the Towers down, but how to explain the incineration of the whole building?
For la balance no nukes were not used, please study the flight of electrons to get your answer. However, if depleted Uranium was used as support in the flaps, and tail stabilizer, then sure we can have high levels of radiation! However, where is the 757 in the pentagon.
For Valhall you seem lost here do you have your security setting right, some sites require 128 bit too access their sites. Second, since you did not post on topic you must be following the pattern!




posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Again, the 757 and 767 DID NOT use DU counterweights. They stopped using them when they first came out.

So what you're saying is that a natural gas explosion is an explosive? A transformer is an explosive? Those both explode, but they're not bombs.



No Depleted Uranium in Hijacked Jets Crashed in New York and Washington
Other than with its 747 jets, Boeing never used depleted uranium counterweights in its 767 and 757 jets - the types involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to Boeing speaker Heinrich Grossbongardt. (SPIEGEL ONLINE, Sep 14, 2001)

www.wise-uranium.org...



[edit on 9/5/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   
I posted on topic. I posted in response to your original post. What else can you hope for? You stated the members here don't tend to read past the headlines. I asked - what are you basing that on? You then posted four links, which only 2 refer to your topic (but point to the same source, so are only one source out of 4), 1 doesn't work and the other has nothing to do with your claim. I'm wanting an intelligent response to these points against your original post.

Is this how you act when some one pushes back on your baseless claims and shifty sources?
(or should I say your shifty translations of shifty sources???)


[edit on 9-5-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   
originally from mondegreen:

For la balance no nukes were not used, please study the flight of electrons to get your answer. However, if depleted Uranium was used as support in the flaps, and tail stabilizer, then sure we can have high levels of radiation! However, where is the 757 in the pentagon.


Good point. I was thinking of the Bali bombings.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by mondegreen

Got to admire your spunk zaphhead,

For Valhall you seem lost here do you have your security setting right, some sites require 128 bit too access their sites. Second, since you did not post on topic you must be following the pattern!



Your point has been disproved can you not accept that or do you just like to attack fellow members?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
www.americanfreepress.net...

Around the Pentagon there were reports of high radiation levels after 9-11. American Free Press has documentation that radiation levels in Alexandria and Leesburg, Va., were much higher than usual on 9-11 and persisted for at least one week afterward.

In Alexandria, seven miles south of the burning Pentagon, a doctor with years of experience working with radiation issues found elevated radiation levels on 9-11 of 35 to 52 counts per minute (cpm) using a “Radalert 50” Geiger counter.


IF there was no plane that hit the pentagon and or there was a plane that hit the pentagon, why was radiation levels so high just after the hit and weeks after. I am sure certain neocon facists holy rollers will be speak that it has to be the bright sun due to its intelligence factor. However, it seems that there is just counter intel people posting here, why! Why would people contend that another site is a phoney just because its not real mainstream, yet think this sites UFO information is killer.
When the poster of the 757 that hit the pentagon posted information without fact, it was hailed at the end product even by management. Why it served no purpose what so ever in anything then to dismiss americans that felt 911 was fake! I really do not know what hit the pentagon, nor does anyone here have valid proof what hit the pentagon. Yet there is evidence that is compelling to move a person to think that a 757 or a 767 hit the pentagon. Something did hit the pentagon, something did hit the WTC Towers, that we can agree with, but events that are tied to the planes show a probability that events could not occur by just the statements.
People are now running scared about 911, the facts are being looked at and applied with sense.
A. Seven of the highjackers of the 19 are still alive.
B. Atta's father stated he received a call from him on sept, 12, 2001?
C. Cell phones being used on super sonic flight at 40,000 feet.
D. Complete planes missing due to vaporizing including black boxes.
E. No investigation on stock of planes being short sold prior to 911.
F. Radation levels extremely high after pentagon strike and weeks later.
G. President missing for three hours during attacks.
H. Warren Buffett's planes used to track highjacked jets.
I. Warren Buffett at NORAD for metting during super exercises how strange.
J. Lets not forget the dancing Israels or the shipping companies.
K. Almost total free fall of three buildings with the same fingerprint.
Even if you can discount all the above, why was there such a high radiation count at the pentagon, come on you schlors give it your best shot.





[edit: added appropriate EX tags]
Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.
Mod Note: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9/7/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Cell phones at supersonic speeds at 40,000 feet?
The only thing that flew supersonic that had passengers is the Concorde. And it wasn't involved in any way with 9/11.

The black boxes for all four planes were recovered. That's how we know how fast flight 77 was going when it hit the Pentagon.



[edit on 9/5/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The black boxes for all four planes were recovered. That's how we know how fast flight 77 was going when it hit the Pentagon.
[edit on 9/5/2006 by Zaphod58]


Really? A commercial airliner hit the Pentagon? When? Did I miss something?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by La Balance
can we conceive mini nukes as part of the explanation for radioactivity? i mean. sure thermates or thermites can cut thru steel and break the Towers down, but how to explain the incineration of the whole building?


I hope I'm not being disrespectful, but this mini nuke argument helps the gov't cause, it really does. Someone else claimed a mini nuke was used in OKC and if it was I'm not impressed. Same goes for thermite.

I'm sorry, but this mininuke business is ovbious disinfo. Put out by who? Couldn't tell you, but everytime I hear "mini nuke" I shake my head and laugh. No wonder we'll never know the truth about 9-11. The definition of "incineration" is also getting rather loose here.

That's just say for a second that a 'uber l337 mini nuke" was used. So what? How's that help the cause? It doesn't bring you any closer to the perpetrators, doesn't bring you any closer to holding those behind 9-11 accountable. It's one hell of a great distraction though, and it's ovbiously working. 5 years, we arn't any closer to the truth, and it's getting foggier and more cloudy everyday. Everyday there's another new theory even more 'far out' than the last.

I'm still trying to figure out who's worse. The gov't, or the truth movement, either way, you need hip waders to wade though the, well you know.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mondegreen
why was there such a high radiation count at the pentagon, come on you schlors give it your best shot.


On what? I've read every post you've made on this thread and I still don't know what you're wanting to discuss. First you claimed the commercial planes were embedded with DU (that was right after you insulted all the members of this board with a baseless accusation). Now you've meandered through a half-dozen other theories from cell phones, to the hijackers are still alive, to free-fall on the towers which apparently you only bothered to read the headlines on or you'd be straight on that one.

WTF do you want to talk about? I'm serious as all get out. WTF is this thread about?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by La Balance

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The black boxes for all four planes were recovered. That's how we know how fast flight 77 was going when it hit the Pentagon.
[edit on 9/5/2006 by Zaphod58]


Really? A commercial airliner hit the Pentagon? When? Did I miss something?



obviously





Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9/7/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by kuhl
obviously


There is a tragedy behind that reply. Our grandchildren will hear different stories of the same event. Or maybe a comedy!




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join