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.

 

Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC's Hypothesis

page: 21
12
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Someone posted that there was radioactive contamination at or close to the WTC. How did you come about this information?

Assuming there was radiation at the site, I am wondering if it could have been radon released from the ground after the collapses??? Just a thought.

Here's a news item describing a radon incident.


in 1984 with the case of Stanley Watras, an employee at the Limerick nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. Watras set off the radiation alarms on his way into work for two weeks straight while authorities searched for the source of the contamination. They were shocked to find that the source was astonishingly high levels of radon, around 100,000 Bq/m3 (2,700 pCi/L), in his house's basement and it was not related to the nuclear plant.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

source
en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
[but when exactly did they stop using DU on their planes? had the 767's already been built? did they have DU counter weights already? if they did were they retrofitted with new counter weights?


As stated Beoing stopped using DU with the 747s.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   
There was a LOT of tritium used in the WTC. All exit signs, and many other sources have tritium in them. That could easily account for some radiation, and also the tritiated water that someone pointed to as a smoking gun.



Edit: Oops, smoke alarms don't glow in the dark. No tritium there!


[edit on 11/7/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



so, you dont know or you dont want to answer my questions? cuz thats not really an answer is it?

i asked a few direct questions about something you gave the impression you had information on, and you just kinda blew me off.

if you dont know, just say "i dont know"...of course that will call into question all the times youve made these claims about DU so i can see why you'd want to avoid that.

if you just choose not to answer thats fine. just say so.

but i guess the answer you gave is better than "maybe you should do some research"



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
so, you dont know or you dont want to answer my questions? cuz thats not really an answer is it?


Well it was pretty easy to look up.

en.wikipedia.org...

Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas discontinued using DU counterweights in the 1980s.


www.shunpiking.com...

It has been confirmed by Boeing that the first 550 Boeing 747 aircraft constructed use depleted uranium as ballast. However, according to the Boeing, the aircraft that crashed in Amsterdam was carrying less than 400 kg of DU, as some of the standard DU ballast was replaced with tungsten.


[edit on 7-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Damocles
[but when exactly did they stop using DU on their planes? had the 767's already been built? did they have DU counter weights already? if they did were they retrofitted with new counter weights?


As stated Beoing stopped using DU with the 747s.



How do you know they did?
Also does "stop using" mean no longer installs or no longer installs and has removed all DU that was previously installed??



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
How do you know they did?
Also does "stop using" mean no longer installs or no longer installs and has removed all DU that was previously installed??


www.shunpiking.com...

It has been confirmed by Boeing that the first 550 Boeing 747 aircraft constructed use depleted uranium as ballast. However, according to the Boeing, the aircraft that crashed in Amsterdam was carrying less than 400 kg of DU, as some of the standard DU ballast was replaced with tungsten.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
oh i apologize. really. in my delerium i thought you had some real inside info given your available resources and didnt realize you were getting your info from wiki.

but as to the rest of the questions i asked...since the 767's were introduced in the 81-82 time period does this preclude the possibility that they had DU counterweights? if they had them initially were they retrofitted?

i mean sure i can search wiki to find these answers but i had gotten the impression that your sources were probably more reliable and so i asked you.

my apologies



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
oh i apologize. really. in my delerium i thought you had some real inside info given your available resources and didnt realize you were getting your info from wiki.



I just gave you some information. How much more would you like?

Do you have any information to debate mine ?

More information,

www.denverspiritualcommunity.org...

"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. "Sometime ago, we switched to tungsten, because it is heavier, more readily available and more cost effective."



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
How do you know they did?
Also does "stop using" mean no longer installs or no longer installs and has removed all DU that was previously installed??


www.shunpiking.com...

It has been confirmed by Boeing that the first 550 Boeing 747 aircraft constructed use depleted uranium as ballast. However, according to the Boeing, the aircraft that crashed in Amsterdam was carrying less than 400 kg of DU, as some of the standard DU ballast was replaced with tungsten.



Well that says they still used DU.

Also does "stop using" mean no longer installs or no longer installs and has removed all DU that was previously installed??



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Well that says they still used DU.

Also does "stop using" mean no longer installs or no longer installs and has removed all DU that was previously installed??


Please read, it states 747, not 757.

Maybe if i post over a dozen posts about the 7857 not carrying DU you might belive it.

Do you have any facts or evidence to debate me?

www.wise-uranium.org...

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)


[edit on 7-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


OK works for me for now
thanks for the post. I don't currently have any information that contradicts what you posted


I still have the same problems with the whole NUKE idea
1. No nuclear fallout.
2. No evidence of EMP
3. No need for a nuke when conventional explosives could take the building down. Why use a bomb that is VERY detectable (ie radiation and EMP) when you can use more easily hidden conventional explosives that would leave a minimal footprint. It simply doesn't make sense.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   
www.911-strike.com...


There should also be heavy tungsten (not Depleted Uranium) counterweight ballasts to have survived. (These counterweights are used to balance the ailerons, flaps and tail control surfaces, to prevent flutter.) Depleted Uranium is used as ballast on 747s, L1011s, and DC10s, not 757s or 767s.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
OK works for me for now
thanks for the post. I don't currently have any information that contradicts what you posted


I still have the same problems with the whole NUKE idea
1. No nuclear fallout.
2. No evidence of EMP
3. No need for a nuke when conventional explosives could take the building down. Why use a bomb that is VERY detectable (ie radiation and EMP) when you can use more easily hidden conventional explosives that would leave a minimal footprint. It simply doesn't make sense.


Do you have any facts or evidence where radiation might have come from ?



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   
As I said, there was a LOT of tritium in the exit signs for one thing. There were a HUGE number of things that are routine things found around everywhere that give off radiation either normally or when they get smashed.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Do you have any facts or evidence where radiation might have come from ?


Well, there are many possible sources for radiation
smoke detectors and exit signs as someone mentioned
Radon could also have been released from the ground after the collapse. I am speculating.

If you have seen any videos or photos showing a layer of dust on people, buildings, ground, etc.. in the surrounding area, all of those things would have been contaminated with radioactive fallout. So anywhere that dust landed from the building, there would be contamination which would make the environmental problems immense.


Fallout is the residual radiation hazard from a nuclear explosion, so named because it "falls out" of the atmosphere into which it is spread during the explosion. It commonly refers to the radioactive dust created when a nuclear weapon explodes. This radioactive dust, consisting of hot particles, is a kind of radioactive contamination. It can lead to contamination of the food chain. Fallout can also refer to the dust or debris that results from the nuclear explosion.

Severe local fallout contamination can extend far beyond the blast and thermal effects, particularly in the case of high yield surface detonations.

A nuclear weapon detonated in the air, called an air burst, will produce less fallout than a comparable explosion near the ground.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Sorry, here's the source

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   
you should listen to Steve Jones and Dr. Deagles discussion, its quite interesting. Deagle seems to think any type of radioactives used most likely had very short half lifes (days rather than centuries) and as stated previously tritium and other potential substances are not so easily traced when samples are dilute d (by say, high pressure water spraying).


Google Video Link



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I just gave you some information. How much more would you like?


well, i had asked like 4 very specific questions and you came back with "as stated...blah blah blah" rather than a real answer so to answer your question; any would have been helpful.




Do you have any information to debate mine ?


why is everything a debate? you have made several statements about the planes and DU as fact. so, i took that to mean that based on your research and experience as a crew chief, that you may just have knowledge of these things. i do not. so i was asking a few specific yet sincere questions not because i wanted to debate or challenge you, but because...and i know this will sound crazy...i really wanted to know and so i thought id ask someone who seemed to have some knowledge in the area.

but, rather than just answer me you chose to blow me off with that bs post and then get all defensive like i was attacking you for what you were saying.

no, i just figured id learn something today and figured that since you may just know about these things that you might be able to help me out.

so, thank you for since then answering my questions and providing information for me to read. i DO apologize for wasting your time by asking you questions rather than just doing my own research. i can assure you, it wont happen again.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by tazadar
LOL hydrogen bombs

More ridiculous theories and disinformation put out by either the conspirators or plain idiots. This just add more noise to hinder progress to the 911 Truth. Controlled opposition.


So true. You are presented with limited evidence in the case of 9/11 concerning what incendiary devices were used. Therefore i cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can draw any conclusions besides that thermate was used to cut the steel beams on the buildings. Anything else is just a guess a poor guess at that. I refer to thermate because a sample was collected in a womans New York apartment and analysed by Dr. Steven Jones. To come up with anything else with the evidence provided is simply ridiculous. People should begin to question the integrity of the poster after theyve made such a claim.

Either they are to stupid to understand that ridiculous speculation will harm this movement as the main stream media will use it as straw man cannon fodder or maybe they see the 9/11 incident as some sort of game where it is open season for fun speculation. Do you not realise this type of stupidity only divides people questioning 9/11 and destroys the credibility of those people trying to do real research on 9/11. It comes down to this either your an idiot or your actively trying to spread disinfo.

Honestly to demolish a building you would use demolitions, not a hydrogen bomb. Would you use an elephant gun to go duck hunting?

We've had holograms, pods, lazers, now H bombs, do you really think you are going to be able to sell this sort of bs to the wider public.

source: www.youtube.com...
DR. STEVEN JONES- 9/11 - THERMATE EVIDENCE PART 4

[edit on 7-11-2007 by blahdiblah]

[edit on 7-11-2007 by blahdiblah]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join