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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Why are you afraid to discuss melting points when it goes along with what caused the molten metal and steel?

The subject we are talking about is if fire, radiation or something else caused the molten metal and steel right ?


Wrong
I'm talking about credible evidence of radiation from nuclear sources with measurements of intensity and even what the source material producing that radiation was if possible. When I say 'hotspots' in the context of nuclear radiation I'm not referring to heat in the thermal sense (infrared radiation) so this has nothing to do with any molten material.

I've read that USGS survey data before and nowhere does it mention any nuclear radiation being detected or even scanned for which doesn't mean they didn't scan for radiation, just that there's no mention of any being detected.

Let's just stick with ionising radiation here.




posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Perhaps you should read the statement i posted from the USGS source.

The USGS source i posted clearly states that the EPA requested the use of the AVIRIS. How many sources do i have to post before you can be mature enough to admi thtat the EPA requested the AVRIS?


Perhasp you shoud re-read the statement I posted from the NASA source.
The NASA source I posted clearly stated that 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.

How many times do I have to post before you can be mature enough to admit that Roger Clark from the USGS initiated the request?



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Those temperatures fall far short of what would be necessary to support some claims of what was going on in the rubble fires.


Not when you consider that those are surface tempatures. You can be rest assurred that the temperatures underneath all that insulation was far greater than what the temperatures on the surface were (1000 Kelvin (1340 F)).

And if it wasn't insulated, how did they stay hot for so long?



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Granted

But thermal characteristics are not necessarily caused exclusively by radioactive sources and I'm trying to get to whatever knowledge there is of actual radiation associated with the 9/11 sites rather than drift off into meteorites, melted bolts & beams, fires etc. Not that those issues aren't important but they've been covered more than a few times already.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Agreed.

Although I feel radioactive isotopes are going to be hard to detect as bsbray mentioned. Even granite gives off radiation. Not to mention just background radiation from our 21st century lives.


Natural Radiation
Granite is a normal, geological source of radiation in the natural environment. Granite contains around 10 to 20 parts per million of uranium. By contrast, more mafic rocks such as tonalite, gabbro or diorite have 1 to 5 ppm uranium, and limestones and sedimentary rocks usually have equally low amounts.

Many large granite plutons are the sources for palaeochannel-hosted or roll front uranium ore deposits, where the uranium washes into the sediments from the granite uplands and associated, often highly radioactive, pegmatites.

Granite could be considered a potential natural radiological hazard as, for instance, villages located over granite may be susceptible to higher doses of radiation than other communities.[7] Cellars and basements sunk into soils formed over or from particularly uraniferous granites can become a trap for radon gas, which is heavier than air.

However, in the majority of cases, although granite is a significant source of natural radiation as compared to other rocks it is not thought an acute health threat or significant risk factor. Various resources from national geological survey organisations are accessible online to assist in assessing the risk factors in granite country and design rules relating, in particular, to preventing accumulation of radon gas in enclosed basements and dwellings.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


And rapidly pulverising a vast amount of concrete containing granite type aggregate could cause a temporary increase in the background radiation due to the release of radon gas and radon daughters without it being in any way suspicious apart from the crushing mechanism itself.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by Griff
 


And rapidly pulverising a vast amount of concrete containing granite type aggregate could cause a temporary increase in the background radiation due to the release of radon gas and radon daughters without it being in any way suspicious apart from the crushing mechanism itself.



Also the granite panels that made up the lobby walls. Granite panels making up most of the facade at WTC 7. And a plethora of other natural (and non-suspicious) sources of radiation and unnatural ones too (tritium from exit signs etc.)

Which is why I said that comming to any conclusion based on the radiation amounts wouldn't really get us any closer to a source.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
The NASA source I posted clearly stated that 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.


Yes and the reason that Roger Clark called NASA was that the EPA REQUESTED THE AVIRIS, according to the USGS site.

Do i have to keep posting more facts that the EPA requested the use of the AVIRIS for you to finally be adult enough to admit that the EPA requested the AVIRIS?


[edit on 25-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


That comes back to the intention of my OP, that a casually observed slightly increased background count does not equate to the use of nuclear devices in the wake of such an event as 2 of the world's tallest buildings collapsing to the ground on the same day. The statements from downwind of the Pentagon are a bit more substantial though which makes me wonder what exactly was in that part of the building at the time.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The statements from downwind of the Pentagon are a bit more substantial though which makes me wonder what exactly was in that part of the building at the time.


Well at least you are admitting that was radiation.

Here is a note about rumors of the Pentagon having DU in the walls.

www.xs4all.nl...

PS
there are rumours the walls of the Pentagon are made radiation-proof with reinforced concrete mixed with depleted uranium particles to keep the radiation out in case of a nuclear attack/accident. So the Pentagon-personnel can keep functioning during the USA citizens die from radiation sickness.
Hans de Jonge



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Why are you so immature as to ignore the facts posted that the EPA originally requested the AVIRIS? Please be adult enough to anwer the following question.

Does this statment say that the EPA requested the AVIRIS, YES or NO?


In response to requests from the EPA through the USGS, NASA flew AVIRIS on a De Havilland Twin Otter over lower Manhattan at mid-day on September 16 and 23, 2001.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Why are you immature to not admit my statement was correct?

I am 100% correct. Roger Clark from the USGS contacted NASA to request the flyover due to concern with asbestos contamination at the WTC location. A fact proven by NASA.

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

Don't you hate it when the truth comes back to bite you in the butt?

[edit on 25-7-2008 by gavron]



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Why are you immature to not admit my statement was correct?


Thats funny coming form someone who will not admit to a fact when shown to him. Please be adult enough to answer the question.

Did the EPA request the AVIRIS, YES or NO?


In response to requests from the EPA through the USGS, NASA flew AVIRIS on a De Havilland Twin Otter over lower Manhattan at mid-day on September 16 and 23, 2001.



[edit on 25-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


If you are not mature enough to even click the link in my post to get your answer, you shouldnt even be allowed to post.

Just because you have lost this debate, it doesnt mean you cant use the information to find your truth.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
If you are not mature enough to even click the link in my post to get your answer.


Please be adult enough to answer the question.

Everyone on here but you can see the fact that the EPA requested the AVIRIS. It states in on Roger Clark's USGS site.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Everyone else here is not afraid to click on the NASA link that shows the truth. Unless you think NASA is lying, or somehow part of your conspiracy theory.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Everyone else here is not afraid to click on the NASA link that shows the truth.


I GUESS I AM GOING TO HAVE TO CALL IN THE MODS AND HAVE THEM SHOW YOU THE FACTS I HAVE SHOWN SINCE YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THEM FROM ME.

Why are you stating the USGS site is lying?

[edit on 25-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I GUESS I AM GOING TO HAVE TO CALL IN THE MODS AND HAVE THEM SHOW YOU THE FACTS I HAVE SHOWN SINCE YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THEM FROM ME.


Please don't cry, ULTIMA1. I'm only posting facts.

I'm sure they will be mature enough to click on the NASA link above and see the following statement:


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.


Perhaps it is summed up nicely here by fellow member re22666:

Originally posted by re22666
there is no point in any of these threads anymore. each one is run afoul with the same 2 characters that start fights, attack people for asking questions, instigate and insult. they send harrassing U2Us and then when you show them you are not like the rest of the pansies these bullies pick on, they cry. mods, help, he is picking on us.



[edit on 25-7-2008 by gavron]

[edit on 25-7-2008 by gavron]



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron

I'm only posting facts.


Stop being a baby and act mature for once, you are only posting half the facts. I am sure the MODS will read and point out the fact that the EPA requested the AVIRIS through the USGS.

Please be mature enough to asnwer questions, Are you stating that the USGS site lied when stating the EPA requested the AVIRIS?


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.


But the EPA requested that the AVIRIS through the USGS. So Roger was calling NASA becasue the EPA requested the AVIRIS.


In response to requests from the EPA through the USGS,


[edit on 25-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


So you agree my statement is true then? Roger Clark contacted NASA, to request the AVIRIS flyover.



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.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join