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: 25
12
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Has everyone gone bananas? If depleted uranium on airplanes and ‘americium-241’ in smoke detectors are such hazards, then wouldn’t they always a problem in building fires and plane crashes???

There couldn’t have been that many more smoke detectors PER SQUARE FOOT at the WTC’s than in any other building in North America.

Why don’t firemen ALWAYS get sick from this ‘americium’ then if it’s so dangerous? And why don’t seasoned plane crash site investigators ALWYAYS pick up terminal health problems when walking across airplane rubble if DU counterweights are so radioactive?

Blaming smoke detectors, exit signs and DU counterweights for WTC-related illnesses is ridiculous.
Let’s keep it real. The true culprit was alpha particles (=helium atom missing two electrons). It’s the thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium) which produces these in large quantities, one for every deuterium and tritium atom.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods




posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Has everyone gone bananas? If depleted uranium on airplanes and ‘americium-241’ in smoke detectors are such hazards, then wouldn’t they always a problem in building fires and plane crashes???

There couldn’t have been that many more smoke detectors PER SQUARE FOOT at the WTC’s than in any other building in North America.

Why don’t firemen ALWAYS get sick from this ‘americium’ then if it’s so dangerous? And why don’t seasoned plane crash site investigators ALWYAYS pick up terminal health problems when walking across airplane rubble if DU counterweights are so radioactive?

Blaming smoke detectors, exit signs and DU counterweights for WTC-related illnesses is ridiculous.
Let’s keep it real. The true culprit was alpha particles (=helium atom missing two electrons). It’s the thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium) which produces these in large quantities, one for every deuterium and tritium atom.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



Yeah, lets not go bananas people ! Next thing we'll hear is that there really weren't planes but they were holograms


So where's the evidence of an EMP burst?



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   
EMP at the WTC



Here is an extract from Rense with relation to the EMP effect.



Missing mirrors - all vehicle mirrors in use today are a glass or plastic plate with an aluminum reflective coating on the back. This coating is conductive to electricity and hence, eddy currents. A strong magnetic pulse induced into the mirror would cause tremendous stress as the field interacted with the steel mirror housing. The glass would shatter, blowing out most of the glass and the surrounding gasket. It appears that a small fragment of the mirror can still be seen in the housing above. Note the metal trim around the wing window on the driver's door appears as though it was overheated as well.Although the steering wheel appears to be intact, it is possible the steel body of the vehicle has shielded the steering wheel from the pulse. Any magnetic pulse will have less strength with the square of the distance, so it is possible this truck was near the outer fringes of the damage threshold.



This windshield damage may have resulted from an intense magnetic field in the metal trim around the windshield which became magnetic and interacted with the steel body. Two headlights appear blown out, and two others do not. It's also possible another vehicle was parked between the blast or pulse source and the driver's front side of the truck. This could shield the driver's side headlight from the magnetic pulse. There may have also been a pressure wave involved as well that caused this damage, as considerable trash is seen embedded in the grill. It cannot be easily determined whether a blast wave or a magnetic pulse blew out this windshield. This vehicle was clearly not exposed to the pulse magnitude which other vehicles were, or the damage would be far more. Again, the distance and orientation from the pulse source is not known.

What May Have Melted The WTC Vehicles?
Read more here: www.rense.com...



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Has everyone gone bananas? If depleted uranium on airplanes and ‘americium-241’ in smoke detectors are such hazards, then wouldn’t they always a problem in building fires and plane crashes???

There couldn’t have been that many more smoke detectors PER SQUARE FOOT at the WTC’s than in any other building in North America.



I don't know, have you? Good gawd settle down. What difference does it make if there were more or less smoke detectors per square foot? The problem doesn't arise until the detector is compromised AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, until it is subjected to fire/extreme heat.

Listen, if you want to believe a big ol' hydrogen bomb brought the towers down - be my guest. But you're going to have to accept there were other MORE PLAUSIBLE sources of radioactive material on location as well. Else you'll look real silly.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Listen, if you want to believe a big ol' hydrogen bomb brought the towers down - be my guest.

Hey Val, You do know they make little ones too? They make them specifically for demolitions of large structures no less.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by Valhall
Listen, if you want to believe a big ol' hydrogen bomb brought the towers down - be my guest.

Hey Val, You do know they make little ones too? They make them specifically for demolitions of large structures no less.


Thats interesting. Are you referring to the "bunker busters"?
Also, do you know what the nuclear threshold is? In other words, what is the smallest size in kilotonnes or tonnes for a nuke?

what is the kt rating for the "little ones"?



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Nope, bunker busters are a different animal. Google SADM. Atomic Demolitions Munitions or something to that effect. As I said before, I'm no expert in nuclear physics, but to my understanding they can be as small as a large coffee can and are made specifically for demolitions. Small enough for a single individual to parachute with one apparently...


johnmtaylor.com/foe/sadm.htm
US Army Sergeant Major (Retired) Joe Garner describes what was probably the first parachute jump with a W54 Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM)...
Reportedly 300 SADMs were assembled and remained in the US arsenal until 1989

Wonder if all 300 of those are accounted for?

I've ssen them called W54 and Mk-54 on the net. Here's a pic of one I think...





www.active-duty.com/BackPackNukes.htm
The carrying case for the W54 Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM). The SADM had a yield of 0.01, or 0.02-1 kiloton..



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition
The Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) was a United States Navy and Marines project that was demonstrated as feasible in the mid-to-late 1960s


[edit on 10-11-2007 by twitchy]



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


I know there is a minimum charge threshold to start the chain reaction but have not been able to find any info to determine what that threshold is. This info would give us the minimum starting radius for both EMP fallout which will in turn tell us whether a nuke was used.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
The problem doesn't arise until the detector is compromised AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, until it is subjected to fire/extreme heat.

But you're going to have to accept there were other MORE PLAUSIBLE sources of radioactive material on location as well.


Duh.

Who would have thought that buildings turn radioactive whenever they burn down if they have smoke detectors or exit signs in them. That’s big news.

Who would have imagined that these devices whilst designed to save lives from fires initially, later turn into deadly dirty radioactivity bombs when they unavoidably burn up. Silly, silly us. We missed the memo.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 


Here's some info about ionized chamber smoke detectors


The ionic chamber smoke detector is the most popular choice with American homeowners.

Am-241 was discovered in 1945 during the Manhattan Project. According to the Uranium Information Center, the first sample of americium was produced by bombarding plutonium with neutrons in a nuclear reactor at the University of Chicago.

Am-241 has a half life of 432 years and emits alpha rays.

If alpha particles are ingested or inhaled, they can do significant internal damage including cancer.

recommended disposal of detectors are as follows:
Send them back to the manufacturer for proper disposal.
or
contact your local Waste Management office and find out when the next hazardous waste round-up will occur.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


source
www.greenfeet.net...

My personal opinion is that ionized smoke detectors are the new version of lead paint.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 



Again though, smoke detectors, to my knowledge, are not controlled by the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). If they posed a danger, I would suspect that they would be.

On the other hand, I'm glad we have all told the terrorists in this thread that they can build dirty bombs with easily obtained and non-monitored smoke detectors.


[edit on 11/10/2007 by Griff]



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by jfj123
 



Again though, smoke detectors, to my knowledge, are not controlled by the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). If they posed a danger, I would suspect that they would be.

On the other hand, I'm glad we have all told the terrorists in this thread that they can build dirty bombs with easily obtained and non-monitored smoke detectors.

[edit on 11/10/2007 by Griff]


Again, the info I posted show they do pose a danger. If you have other data showing my info is incorrect, please post it.

And I'm sure if the terrorists have web access, they can also read and use google. The information is all over the web.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by jfj123
 


Again though, smoke detectors, to my knowledge, are not controlled by the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). If they posed a danger, I would suspect that they would be.

On the other hand, I'm glad we have all told the terrorists in this thread that they can build dirty bombs with easily obtained and non-monitored smoke detectors.


[edit on 11/10/2007 by Griff]


Also keep in mind that for the longest time, lead paint wasn't regulated.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Also keep in mind that for the longest time, lead paint wasn't regulated.


Because we didn't know the dangers of lead paint. We do know the dangers of radiation. It's not like it's something we don't know about that will one day creep up on us and we'll say "oops, forgot what radiation was". Just saying.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods


Who would have imagined that these devices whilst designed to save lives from fires initially, later turn into deadly dirty radioactivity bombs when they unavoidably burn up. Silly, silly us. We missed the memo.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


Apparently you did. Good deal I was here to point you to it.

www.uic.com.au...

The Americium becomes a problem when the smoke detector is subjected to flames. It becomes an inhalable hazard. The reason that it is not controlled is that each detector has a small amount. I think what you are missing is that 107 stories (rather large square foot stories to boot) compacted into an area just slightly more than the footprint of the building.

So...the question becomes not whether there were more smoke detectors per square foot when the building was standing, but how many smoke detectors per square foot when the building had collapsed. Assuming the same average number of detectors per square foot as any other building, that would leave us with 107 x the average number per planform square foot.

That's a tad more than normal....and they were in the debris pile to add insult to injury.

[edit on 11-10-2007 by Valhall]



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jfj123
Also keep in mind that for the longest time, lead paint wasn't regulated.


Because we didn't know the dangers of lead paint. We do know the dangers of radiation. It's not like it's something we don't know about that will one day creep up on us and we'll say "oops, forgot what radiation was". Just saying.


Again, the info I posted show they do pose a danger. If you have other data showing my info is incorrect, please post it.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Well Val you solved the case... too bad it's tritium, not americanum, that was found in elevated levels at the WTC site. I'm surprised you of all people would have overlooked that. They make smoke detectors with tritium these days or are you perhaps talking about something else entirely?


[edit on 10-11-2007 by twitchy]



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Well Val you solved the case... too bad it's tritium, not americanum, that was found in elevated levels at the WTC site. I'm surprised you of all people would have overlooked that. They make smoke detectors with tritium these days or are you perhaps talking about something entirely?


twitchy,

I haven't stated anything about identification of substances. I've only spoke to the fact there are common radioactive sources available. In fact, if you look back through my posts, that's all I've centered on.

By the way, it's nice to see some things never change. Keep up the good work... and maintain the status quo.

[edit on 11-11-2007 by chissler]

(Mod note: Warning issued. Yes it's an emotional topic but let's please keep it civil. -- Majic)

[edit on 11/11/2007 by Majic]



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Has everyone gone bananas? If depleted uranium on airplanes and ‘americium-241’ in smoke detectors are such hazards, then wouldn’t they always a problem in building fires and plane crashes???



Well the point i was making that why would the EPA state that radiation came from DU in the planes when the 757 and 767 do not carry DU. It would be easy for anyone with basic knowledge of aircraft or how to do research to quickly know this is wrong.

If you do any research you would find out that Boeing stopped putting DU in their planes becasue they had a problem with radiation in a crash. Thats why they changed to Tungsten for counterweights.

Here is the information on a crash that casued radiation.

www.wise-uranium.org...

On October 4, 1992, an El Al Boeing 747 crashed in Amsterdam's Bijlmermeer, killing 43 people. In recent years questions have remained about the cause of the crash, health problems among citizens and rescue workers, the exact cargo, depleted uranium counterweights, and other issues. Last year a Parliamentarian Inquiry (called Commission Meijer, after its chairman) was started to resolve these questions. On 22 April 1999 the Commission Meijer published its results.


One of the Bijlmer crash issues was the presence of depleted uranium (DU) in the plane's counterweights. A total of 282 kilograms was constructed in the plane's tail wings. Laka made this public in October 1993[1] after which a discussion started on the potential burning of DU and the risks for citizens and rescue workers.


From the beginning, Laka pointed out emphatically that bystanders and Bijlmer residents ran potential health risks as a result of airborne uranium from the burning wreck. The presence of DU is among others based on a publication by Paul Loewenstein[2], then technical director and vice-president of the American company Nuclear Metals Inc. (currently named Starmet), the supplier of the DU to Boeing. Loewenstein says in this document that each Boeing 747 contained DU in the form of counterweights. Loewenstein says in his article that "large pieces of uranium will oxidize rapidly and will sustain slow combustion when heated in air to temperatures of about 500 degrees celcius".

The great danger from this chemical reaction is that the escaping cloud of dust with thousands of microparticles of uranium oxide can be inhaled or swallowed by bystanders. The American physicist Robert L. Parker wrote in Nature[3], in a worst-case scenario involving the crash of a Boeing 747, that about 250,000 people would run health risks (or near-poisoning) as a result of inhalation or swallowing of uranium oxide particles. Parker's conclusion assumed the presence of 450 kilos of DU in a Boeing 747. He says: "Extended tests by the American Navy and NASA showed that the temperature of the fireball in a plane crash can reach 1,200C. Such temperatures are high enough to cause very rapid oxidation of depleted uranium."



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Again, the info I posted show they do pose a danger. If you have other data showing my info is incorrect, please post it.


I'm not disputing that they don't pose a danger. What I am wondering is why they are not regulated? I guess it would have been better if I had said "significant danger". But, then again, I imagine cancer is pretty significant.

So, why no regulation of smoke detectors?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join