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.

 

9/11 Radiation??

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 07:29 AM
link   
I'd like to raise the issue of radiation reportedly detected at 9/11 crash sites because I've seen a lot of quite obviously ill-informed reports in this regard. Especially the reports of strontium and other heavy elements detected in the dust from the collapsed towers which seems to automatically (and quite wrongly) be associated with nuclear fission. Strontium 90 is a byproduct of splitting heavier atoms like uranium but strontium also exists commonly in natural stable form (eg as strontium carbonate) which is used in glass manufactured for CRTs and as a flux or glazing component of ceramics like tiles etc. Barium compounds also get a large mention in the spectrogaphic analysis but, again, it was not detected in the form of unstable isotopes but the naturally occuring stable forms which are used in electrical/electronic equipment. Barium oxide is coated on the filaments of CRTs and fluorescent lamps where it acts as a source of electrons when heated for example.

As an example of how common stable strontium compounds are used, it's the source of the red colour we see in red flares and fireworks and none of that is radioactive.

The only verifiable reports of abnormal amounts of unstable radioactive isotopes found are associated with tritium which is used in the 'beta light' type exit signs in the planes (they need no external power to remain lit) and it's also used in watches and the illuminated sights of some handguns for example. A small amount of a short halflife isotope of Iodine was detected in silt on the river bed but that's evidently discharged from sewerage treatment plants upstream and comes from patients receiving injections of it as treatment for cancers.

FDNY hazmat special operations formed two four-man teams immediately after the collapses of WTC 1&2 to check the area for signs of radiation, nerve and blistering agents and the results were negative.

The source of the elevated radiation reports appears to have come from a few private individuals with geiger counters who noticed *some* apparently increased activity. Their observation could be from the tritium released and also the huge amount of dust in the air bringing naturally occuring radioactive material in closer contact with their detectors. Yes radioactive isotopes do occur naturally but they are generally safely locked up in solid compounds like concrete, gypsum drywall etc and a vast amount of this sort of material was crushed to dust which stayed airborne for a long time over the city.

Then there's the Pentagon and the wrongly suggested source being depleted uranium from the planes but, as we've learned, those counterweights had been previously replaced with tungsten. That doesn't rule out the DU source as being from within the Pentagon itelf if it was, in fact, DU causing the increased radiation and it could simply be the tritiated water created when tritium was burnt in the fire there (plane exit signs, watches etc) and the vapour drifted downwind.

I'm interested to hear any further information on this subject of radiation whether it's for or against it. Some better information may convince me of something more sinister than what I've been able to find on the subject.




posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Hmmm

Obviously this isn't the 'hot' evidence I thought it was being claimed to be.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Radiation Shows 9-11 Pentagon Hit Not By 757: Something With DU?
By Christopher Bollyn

More damning fuel for the funeral pyre of the 9-11 'official story' that is completely dead by now.

"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. One week after 9-11, in Leesburg, 33 miles northwest of the Pentagon, soil readings taken in a residential neighborhood showed even higher readings of 75 to 83 cpm. "That's pretty high," Cindy Folkers of the Washing ton-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) told AFP. Folkers said 7 to 12 cpm is normal background radiation inside the NIRS building, and that outdoor readings of between 12 to 20 cpm are normal in Chevy Chase, Md., outside Washington. The Radalert 50, Folkers said, is primarily a gamma ray detector and "detects only 7 percent of the beta radiation and even less of the [very short lived] alpha." This suggests that actual radiation levels may have been significantly higher than those detected by the doctor's Geiger counter. "The question is, why?" Folkers said. If the radiation came from the explosion and fire at the Pentagon, it most likely did not come from a Boeing 757, which is the type of aircraft that allegedly hit the building. --- "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.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
From everything I've read on the subject, the available data is inconclusive mostly because too little testing was done too late -- the half-lives of most radioactive isotopes don't extend the 4+ years it took before people started taking samples, not to mention the millions of gallons of water dumped all across the GZ site, which is dilution. Neither was any of the steel ever tested for evidence of abnormal levels of isotopes or evidence of neutron bombardment, etc., though steel was found in WTC7 that had been vaporized by an unknown mechanism pre-collapse.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Radiation Shows 9-11 Pentagon Hit Not By 757: Something With DU?
By Christopher Bollyn


I have already brought up many times about why the EPA and others blamed radiation on DU from the planes when the 757 and 767 do not carry DU for counterweights they carry Tungsten. It takes about 30 seconds of research to find this information.

Funny also how the black boxes were found but no evidnece of tail debris including the Tungsten counterweights.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I've seen a statement (can't find a link to it now) from Phil McArdle who headed up one of 2 NYFD hazmat teams at the WTC specifically sampling for radiation, nerve gas and blistering agents. He stated the results were negative for all of those immediately after the towers collapsed (he was fortunate enough to survive both tower collapses). This guy seems very believable and is far from being pro-government plus he's currently pursuing compensation for firefighters and rescue/cleanup workers suffering respiratory problems caused by the ground zero dust.

The Pentagon radiation - why does it have to be DU?
Could the source (for whatever it was) have been within the building itself? I doubt the Pentagon would be responding to any enquiries on this matter.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Short answer (in no way meant as disrespect): radiation levels were never (and no evidence has ever been uncovered) reported as being anything beyond normal background levels.

The Irreducible Delusion is that there was/is something amiss concerning radiation levels. This is incorrect.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


That's pretty much what my searches on this subject have revealed and the tritium from the emergency exit beta-lights on the planes has been the only identified source of radioactive material which doesn't amount to much at all. I'm asking for any better info than what I've been able to dig up so far.

Pointing to levels of strontium in the dust is clearly misleading - I see nothing to suggest unstable isotopes were detected at anything above normal background occurrence. Stable strontium is not a rare element.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
That's pretty much what my searches on this subject have revealed and the tritium from the emergency exit beta-lights on the planes has been the only identified source of radioactive material which doesn't amount to much at all.


Well the EPA must have been worried about something or they would not have requested NASA fly over with the AVIRIS system.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well the EPA must have been worried about something or they would not have requested NASA fly over with the AVIRIS system.


They were checking for thermal hotspots:

pubs.usgs.gov...

More information about the AVIRIS system directly from NASA:

aviris.jpl.nasa.gov...

It doesnt appear to check for radiation at all.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Can you find any sources or more detailed information on this? Because I'm not sure all Geiger counters (or even most of them) test for alpha and/or beta radiation, which require different testing methods. Alpha or beta radiation are the least penetrating and for that reason would be preferably with anything anyone would be trying to hide, so that's what you would want to look for. They also don't travel far from their source, beta traveling farther but still not beyond several meters. The rubble piles alone were deeper than that.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
It doesnt appear to check for radiation at all.


Thats funny to think all that equipment does it take images, maybe you should do a little more reading. But then again i have different resources.

We also have the e-mail about radiation at the 9/11 sites, the EPA blames it on DU form the planes but the 757 and 767 do not carry DU.





[edit on 23-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 23-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Thats funny to think all that equipment does it take images, maybe you should do a little more reading. But then again i have different resources.


Thats funny. I linked the actual AVIRIS website from NASA. It shows all the details, plus what it does. It doesnt say anything about detecting radiation. Gee, I hate it when facts get in the way of your lies.

Please show us on NASAs own website where it states it detects radiation.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Thats funny. I linked the actual AVIRIS website from NASA. It shows all the details, plus what it does. It doesnt say anything about detecting radiation.


Are you for real?

Do you actually think from reading what the AVRIS does that it still only can do images? Don't you think it would also pick up radiation hotspots besides thermal hot spots?

Also you do not even know what all the AVRIS system does you just read something from the public site and think you know all about it, arent we impressed,,NOT.


Gee, I hate it when facts get in the way of your lies.


The only lies are you posting opinions as facts. And still afraid to do research to get evidence to back up your opinions.








posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Now lets start with some FACTS about AVRIS. Its so fun and easy to post facts when you do research.

www.utsa.edu...

L., and Kaufman, Y. J. (1995), Remote
sensing of smoke, clouds, and radiation using AVIRIS during SCAR experiments. In Summaries of the Fifth Annual
JPL Airborne Earth Science Workshop, JPL Publ. 95–1, Vol.
1, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, pp. 63–66.


Will be posting more facts.



[edit on 23-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
www.utsa.edu...

L., and Kaufman, Y. J. (1995), Remote
sensing of smoke, clouds, and radiation using AVIRIS during SCAR experiments. In Summaries of the Fifth Annual
JPL Airborne Earth Science Workshop, JPL Publ. 95–1, Vol.
1, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, pp. 63–66.


Will be posting more facts.


Will you be "quote mining" those "facts" as well, ULTIMA1?

Seems you neglected to mention ALL of the instruments being used in the SCAR experiments, like the MODIS Airborne Simulator, the RC-10 mapping camera, the interuments used at the University of Washington, etc etc.

here is the actual report: popo.jpl.nasa.gov...

I agree. Doing research and posting the whole truth is fun.


[edit on 23-7-2008 by gavron]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Lets just cut to the chase,

Here is a NASA report on the AVIRIS data gathered from the WTC, including who requested the use of the AVIRIS system and what it was needed for:

trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov...


On the 14th of September, Roger Clark of the USGS called to say there was a concern with asbestos contamination at the WTC disaster site.

Through the support of NASA HQ and others AVIRIS flew the disaster site on the 16th, 18th, 22nd and 23rd.


More research.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by gavron]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 10:33 PM
link   
A perfect example of ad homenim. Golden Fleece posts information pertaining to the issue, Ultima posts something else and you attack him without adressing the issue.

Back to athe AVIRIS...


The China Syndrome is a notion that refers to a possible extreme result of a nuclear meltdown in which molten reactor core products breach the barriers below them and flow downwards through the floor of the containment building. The origin of the phrase is the facetious concept that molten material from an American reactor may melt through the crust of the earth and reach China.


AVIRIS can certainly identify this phenomenon. In the case of ground zero, there was no ongoing nuclear reaction, however there was a continuous heat source that should not have been there. Ultima did not say, there must have been something radioactive going on there, he said


Well the EPA must have been worried about something or they would not have requested NASA fly over with the AVIRIS system.


Something hot perhaps radioactive perhaps not...




posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
A perfect example of ad homenim. Golden Fleece posts information pertaining to the issue, Ultima posts something else and you attack him without adressing the issue.


I was only attempting to correct the mis-information ULTIMA1 was adding. The AVIRIS information was being used for heat and asbestos, not radioactivity....which is what this thread is about.



Ultima did not say, there must have been something radioactive going on there, he said


Well the EPA must have been worried about something or they would not have requested NASA fly over with the AVIRIS system.



ULTIMA1 was replying to Pilgrems post which stated the following:

That's pretty much what my searches on this subject have revealed and the tritium from the emergency exit beta-lights on the planes has been the only identified source of radioactive material which doesn't amount to much at all.


His post seems to imply the AVIRIS system was assisting in the search for radioactivity. As you can see by the link s I provided, it was not used for ANY radioactivity searches at the WTC locations.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
I was only attempting to correct the mis-information ULTIMA1 was adding. The AVIRIS information was being used for heat and asbestos, not radioactivity....which is what this thread is about.


What mis-information? I have posted facts and will keep more facts that the AVIRIS can be used to find radiation hotspots as wall as thermal hotspots.

I just hope sometime that you can be adult enough to accept facts that are posted and stop ignoring them.


I agree. Doing research and posting the whole truth is fun.


So then you agreee that the AVRIS system can be used to search for radiation hotspots as well as thermal hotspots?




[edit on 24-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join