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.

 

Russian Pilot photos 9/11 as it happens

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Primarily fluorescent lighting and color TV tubes, which I'm sure there were a lot of inside the building.


Any ideal how many lights and CRTs it would take to get a level of radiation found, 1 thousand, 10 thousand?



[edit on 6-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]




posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Any ideal how many lights and CRTs it would take to get a level of radiation found, 1 thousand, 10 thousand?

[edit on 6-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Beats the hell out of me. You'd have to find out who manufactured the lights, CRTs, etc.. Then if they would let you know, find out how much of the stuff is used to coat the insides. Then you'd have to find out how many of each item were in the buildings.

I'm sure you could trace it all, but that would take a long time.

My guess would be in the thousands of lights and CRTs. But then, there are other building materials that use chemicals that are slightly radioactive.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I will try to make this as simple as i can since you seem to have a hard time understanding.

Why would the EPA state that the levels of raditaion at the sites were caused by DU when the 757 and 767 do not carry DU?

Where did the radliation come from if it was not from DU?


I was asking you where for an official source that the EPA stated 1) there was high radiation attributed to DU 2) the DU came from the planes.
I don't want to be linked to a blog. I'd like a source from a major news outlet or the EPA.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
My guess would be in the thousands of lights and CRTs. But then, there are other building materials that use chemicals that are slightly radioactive.


Don't forget the smoke detectors.

Oh sorry i believe the smoke detectors were ruled out in another thread, let me see if i can find it again..



[edit on 6-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Maybe not just them alone. There are numerous sources of radioactivity from inside, on, and around the towers. Crush them all into one big pile and factoring in that some of it gets turned into airborne dust, I'm not surprised radiation was picked up.

But we're slightly off topic now too. Productive, but off topic...



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
But we're slightly off topic now too. Productive, but off topic...


Well not really off topic when you consider all the things that happened that day but most people only see what they saw on TV and are told by the media.

They do not do research or ask questions, like why was radiation blamed on the DU from the planes if the planes used did not carry any.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
They do not do research or ask questions, like why was radiation blamed on the DU from the planes if the planes used did not carry any.



I was asking you where for an official source that the EPA stated 1) there was high radiation attributed to DU 2) the DU came from the planes.
I don't want to be linked to a blog. I'd like a source from a major news outlet or the EPA.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I'd like a source from a major news outlet or the EPA.


Are you for real?

Why don't you use the e-mails or the phone number from the quote i posted? Its not that hard to figure out is it?

I have posted a diagram that shows older planes carried DU. Its very easy to look up about the 757 and 757 do not carry DU.

I am sure the Boeing site would be a good start to find out about DU in planes, i am not going to do all the work for you.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Any ideal how many lights and CRTs it would take to get a level of radiation found, 1 thousand, 10 thousand?


Isn't this kinda jumping the gun here?

Barium and Strontium are common elements found in natural compounds.

How much of the detected amounts of these elements was of the unstable radioactive isotope form EG Strontium 90?

Barium oxide is mostly used as a coating on filaments because it's a dense element that willingly produces a cloud of electrons when heated. Barium compounds also tend to flouresce green light. Strontium flouresces red light. Both are also used extensively in fireworks - to produce the nice green and red colours. None of these applications require radioactive forms of either element but there is a natural (although rare) occurence of isotopes of them much the same as the occurence of Carbon 14 which is used for dating organic objects.

The radiation at the WTC is wholly accounted for by Tritium from beta light exit signs, watches etc. These nifty lights are filled with low pressure Tritium gas which radiactively decays causing the phosphor on the inside of the glass to glow - no electricity required for a light that stays lit for many years. The Tritium is harmless unless the glass container is broken.

There is nothing strange about finding Barium and Strontium in stable form after such a large amount of electrical/electronic equipment was smashed by falling buildings.

A nice pic from the OP but how did we get onto radiactivity?



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The radiation at the WTC is wholly accounted for by Tritium from beta light exit signs, watches etc.


Well do you have evidence of this or just your opinion?

Also why would the EPA want to blame it on DU from the planes if the planes di dnot evne carry it?



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Also why would the EPA want to blame it on DU from the planes if the planes di dnot evne carry it?


I haven't seen anything other than one email relating third party information that says they did. I see a third hand account involving anonymous parties quoted on a site that thinks DU is the worlds greatest evil. I don't think "inadmissible hearsay" (as you are fond of [mis-]using legal terms) is going to convince me...

"I called a nameless doctor and she told me a nameless EPA representative said it's 'probably' DU from the planes..."

Did the EPA actually blame the radiation on DU from the aircraft? If they did, I would agree that it would be odd/incorrect.

Please show me an official report/statement that would verify this. Why is this third hand account more credible than any of the evidence you reject?

[edit on 6-6-2008 by _Del_]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


From Lawrence Livermore study of WTC radiation here:



Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at the World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.164±0.074 (2σ) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L, respectively. These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure. Several water and vegetation samples were analyzed from sites outside ground zero, located in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and the Kensico and Croton Reservoirs. No HTO above the background was found in those samples. Tritium radioluminescent (RL) devices were investigated as possible sources of the traces of tritium at ground zero. It was determined that the two Boeing 767 aircraft that hit the Twin Towers contained a combined 34 Ci of tritium at the time of impact in their emergency exit signs.
There is also evidence that many weapons from law enforcement were present and destroyed at WTC. Such weaponry contains by design tritium sights. The fate and removal of tritium from ground zero were investigated, taking into consideration tritium chemistry and water flow originating from the fire fighting, rain, as well as leaks from the Hudson River and broken mains. A box model was developed to describe the above scenario. The model is consistent with instantaneous oxidation of the airplane tritium in the jet-fuel explosion, deposition of a small fraction of HTO at ground zero, and water-flow controlled removal of HTO from the debris. The model also suggests that tritium from the weapons would be released and oxidized to HTO at a much slower rate in the lingering fires at ground zero.


Note that only traces were found "well below the levels of concern to human exposure".

Hardly evidence of hydrogen bombs.

As for the Pentagon, the source of the DU (if there was any) could have been within the Pentagon itself but here, in this thread, the WTC is the topic of discussion. The press release or whatever the source of the statement re DU on the planes was is obviously an error made by someone not totally knowledgable about the planes in question. It wouldn't be the only erroneous statement made that day either.


[edit on 6/6/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Note that only traces were found "well below the levels of concern to human exposure".

Hardly evidence of hydrogen bombs.


Do you know how many gun sights it would take to to even show levels of radiation? Do you have the amount that is in each site ?

Was i talking about hydrogen bombs?


The press release or whatever the source of the statement re DU on the planes was is obviously an error made by someone not totally knowledgable about the planes in question. It wouldn't be the only erroneous statement made that day either.


1. It only takes about 30 seconds of research to know the 757 and 767 do not carry DU.

2. So with all the erroneous statements that you talk about how can people still beleive the official story?






[edit on 6-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 




It was determined that the two Boeing 767 aircraft that hit the Twin Towers contained a combined 34 Ci of tritium at the time of impact in their emergency exit signs.


There's 34 cubic inches for starters. Tritium is very radiactive but the beta particles it emits are safely stopped by the glass containers it's held in. Break the containers and it floats around the same as common non-radioactive hydrogen.



[edit on 6/6/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
There's 34 cubic inches for starters.


So how much was found at all the crash sites?

So with all the erroneous statements that you talk about how can people still beleive the official story?



[edit on 6-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I forgot about the tritium. That would explain things too.

So there were some misreports of DU by someone. If it was the EPA and then they later rejected the reports, I see nothing wrong with that. I would actually prefer them to have done that.

If it was a news agency misreporting the radiation to DU, then you must remember that news agencies are there to get ratings too. Why not first report it first as possible DU? That way, they can get lots of people to tune into their station and then later they can make another statement saying that it wasn't DU without anyone complaining. Great way to pull off a double hit for ratings.

I personally am not willing to throw out the "official story" completely just because of this error by someone (I don't believe you posted anything saying the EPA said it was DU yet). Mistakes happen. There isn't a single investigation on the planet that is 100% thorough.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
So there were some misreports of DU by someone.


So with all these misreports how can people still put so much faith in the official story?

How long and how much research is needed to find out the 757 and 767 do not carry DU?



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So with all these misreports how can people still put so much faith in the official story?

How long and how much research is needed to find out the 757 and 767 do not carry DU?



I like the analogy one poster used. It's like a big jigsaw puzzle that's missing a piece here or a few there. I agree that there are questions yet to be answered and evidence yet to be released that could answer those questions.

Using the "official story" as a foundation is still acceptable. After all, if you have no starting point, how would you know what to compare your information to? To me, there are portions of the reports that do make sense to me based on my engineering knowledge. I definitely would have liked to have seen a longer and more in-depth report, though.

Another thing I would like to point out is that some portions of your questions about the "official story" also requires you to have a bit of faith as well. Lets pick the Pentagon for example. You yourself have said that since the FBI hasn't released all the evidence they collected at the Pentagon, there is no way to know what they found (not a complete quote, but more or less correct, yes?). So with that in mind, you have to hold onto some faith that this unseen evidence doesn't point to a 757, specifically AA Flight 77, yes?


I know it doesn't take long to get a basic knowledge of the application of DU in this day and age after the fact.

If you used Google, then take into consideration that Google was still relatively young in 2001 and nowhere near as robust (nor indexed as many web pages) as it is now. I don't believe any of the other search engines at the time would have produced results as well as Google now.

Also remember that Wikipedia wasn't launched until 2001.

So yes today it would take about a minute to type "depleted uranium" into Google and click on the Wikipedia link that shows up and scroll down to its civilian applications and find out where it's used. I'm sure there are other websites, but this is obviously the quickest.

However, back then, no one had this luxury, so the specific knowledge of depleted uranium not being used in 757s and 767s would have had to been found by more traditional means. Like phoning a Boeing engineer or finding a book of technical specifications of the 757s and 767s.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Pentagon, there is no way to know what they found (not a complete quote, but more or less correct, yes?). So with that in mind, you have to hold onto some faith that this unseen evidence doesn't point to a 757, specifically AA Flight 77, yes?


Problem with the official story is that there are a lot more questions then answers.

Actually i have stated many, many times we do not know what hit the Pentagon because most of the evidence has not been released, that does not mean i believe it was not AA77.


If you used Google, then take into consideration that Google was still relatively young in 2001 and nowhere near as robust (nor indexed as many web pages) as it is now.


I am sure the EPA and other agencies including the media have better resources then Google.

(NOTE: Google had been reported to censor 9/11 material)


[edit on 7-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Actually i have stated many, many times we do not know what hit the Pentagon because most of the evidence has not been released, that does not mean i believe it was not AA77.



Didn't I say that in my last post about you have been saying about the Pentagon? I was just showing that some faith is involved on both sides. Nothing more.

I figure in the few decades that'll pass when no one really deems the evidence so controversial anymore, it'll get released and we'll finally be able to answer these questions once and for all.




I am sure the EPA and other agencies including the media have better resources then Google.

(NOTE: Google had been reported to censor 9/11 material)

[edit on 7-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]


The Google censoring 9/11 items is new to me. I'd like to know if this can be confirmed.

Anyway, I'm sure the EPA and other agencies do have better resources back then. Most of it's probably indexed in folders and binders somewhere in their respective buildings. But it still requires someone to sift through it. That could take a very long time to find manually.

For example, I can tell you that obviously Sikorsky has many thousands of reports, technical specifications, drawings, data sheets, what have you on all of our products (pretty much anything you need/want to know is there somewhere). However, if you were trying to find information, in detail, on a specific assembly or component, it's not as simple as typing a phrase into a computer. You'd have to know the exact part number you're looking for otherwise it could take days to track it down.

Obviously a call is the best way, but you have to go through proper channels and we all know how long that can take for a company to respond in a way that is both sensitive to the event and doesn't put a negative spin on the company itself. Plus some of the information is proprietary, so the company has to be able to protect its own assets as well.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join