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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Roger Clark contacted NASA, to request the AVIRIS flyover.


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

I will keep posting this fac that has been proven untill you can get it into your immature, closed mind.




[edit on 25-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]




posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Its is just hilarious that you are so narcissistic, you cannot even admit my statement is correct. It is a fact, confirmed by a NASA link, and one you cannot deny.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron you cannot even admit my statement is correct.


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

I will keep posting this fact that has been proven untill you can get it into your immature, closed mind.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

Its is just hilarious that you are so narcissistic, you cannot even admit my statement is correct. It is a fact, confirmed by a NASA link, and one you cannot deny.

I will keep posting this fact because it is so funny.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
It is a fact, confirmed by a NASA link, and one you cannot deny.


Why are you ignoring the facts? You cannot even admit that your statment is only half correct. It is a fact confirmed by Rogers own USGS site that the EPA requested the AVIRIS.

Please can the mods come in here and settle this becasue it is getting out of hand.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 08:33 AM
link   
C'mon

It doesn't really matter here who requested the AVIRIS scans or whose credit card was used to pay for it.

What I'm interested in is whether radiation was actually scanned for and if so, was anything out of the ordinary recorded. From the USGS site AVIRIS scans over 200 individual wavelengths of infrared and there's no mention of ionising radiation there.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
It doesn't really matter here who requested the AVIRIS scans or whose credit card was used to pay for it.


Yes it does matter. The point is that the facts clearly state that the EPA requested the AVIRIS through the USGS. I have asked a mod to come in and help clear this up.

As far as radiation i have shown the e-mail with addresses and a phone number that can be used to futher check the facts out.

There is jsut the problem of why the EPA stated the radiation was caused by DU from the planes when the 757 and 767 do not carry DU.



[edit on 26-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes it does matter. The point is that the facts clearly state that the EPA requested the AVIRIS through the USGS. I have asked a mod to come in and help clear this up.


The mods most likely clicked on m links already, and saw that I was telling the truth: Roger Clark contacted NASA to request the AVIRIS flyovers. The NASA documentation confirms this. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that fact.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
I'm not sure why you have a problem with that fact.


I have a problem with you not stating the complete fact. As stated in Rogers own USGS site the EPA requested the AVIRIS from them.

I can also post more facts and evidence of the EPA using the data form the AVIRIS.

I have contacted a mod and shown them these facts.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

But what I am stating is true, is it not? I am not lying, and not posting false information. My statement is true, and backed by NASA. They have information confirming my post on their site.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
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



The problem with that suggestion is that the walls have windows in them.

But - I see some info on the Pentagon saying that it was built with 7 floors, 2 of which are below ground so maybe it isn't outrageous to suggest that the ground level floor was hardened in places against radiation to provide a fallout bunker at some stage during the cold war. Pure speculation of course but sounds plausible to me.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
But what I am stating is true, is it not? I am not lying, and not posting false information.


But you are not posting the complete facts. The fact is as stated on the USGS site that it was the EPA that requested the AVIRIS throught them.

I am not lying or posting false infomration from the USGS site.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The problem with that suggestion is that the walls have windows in them.


What do windows have to do with if the walls having DU in them?



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Think about material density and thickness in relation to effectiveness at arresting dangerous radiation like a bombardment of fast neutrons and you'll see what I'm getting at there.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Think about material density and thickness in relation to effectiveness at arresting dangerous radiation like a bombardment of fast neutrons and you'll see what I'm getting at there.


But that still has nothing to do with if the walls of the Pentaogn had some DU in them. DU that could have caused the radiation readings.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


You're missing the point
It would make no sense to put DU in a wall with windows in it
Unless the windows were made of DU too
Or they'd run out of places to store the excess DU



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
You're missing the point
It would make no sense to put DU in a wall with windows in it


Well you would have to ask the people that did the walls if and why they put DU in the walls.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The problem with that suggestion is that the walls have windows in them.


I don't believe all rings have windows do they?


But - I see some info on the Pentagon saying that it was built with 7 floors, 2 of which are below ground so maybe it isn't outrageous to suggest that the ground level floor was hardened in places against radiation to provide a fallout bunker at some stage during the cold war. Pure speculation of course but sounds plausible to me.


Interesting concept.


Radiation shielding

Uranium-238 is also used as a radiation shield — its alpha radiation is easily stopped by the non-radioactive casing of the shielding and the uranium's high atomic weight and high number of electrons is highly effective in absorbing gamma rays and x-rays. However, it is not as effective as ordinary water for stopping fast neutrons. Both metallic depleted uranium and depleted uranium dioxide are being used as materials for radiation shielding. Uranium is about five times better as a gamma ray shield than lead, so a shield with the same effectivity can be packed into a thinner layer.

DUCRETE, a concrete made with uranium dioxide aggregate instead of gravel, is being investigated as a material for dry cask storage systems to store radioactive waste.


en.wikipedia.org...

Could actually be our source of radiation and DU at the pentagon IMO. And obviusly it wouldn't be a conspiracy either. Other than the EPA screwed up and didn't know what they were talking about.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Think about material density and thickness in relation to effectiveness at arresting dangerous radiation like a bombardment of fast neutrons and you'll see what I'm getting at there.


Water actually works better than DU for fast neutrons. See my wiki quote above. Concrete is made with water though. So, I beileve a combination of the two (DU and concrete) could be effective. I'm just wondering if they imbed the DU in the concrete somehow or just encase a wall of DU with concrete on both sides. I'll have to look into this more. Thanks for a research topic.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Other than the EPA screwed up and didn't know what they were talking about.


Just like the EPA screwed up and automatically blamed the radiatin at the WTC on the DU from the planes (even though the newer planes like the 757 and 767 do not carry DU).

Seems like the EPA really made a lot of mistakes that day, specailly lying about the air quality being ok.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join