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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 02:47 PM
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
Unless the windows were made of DU too
Or they'd run out of places to store the excess DU




Not really. They'd just put the uranium in the glass.


Vaseline and Uranium Glass (ca. 1930s)


General
Vaseline glass, like the candlestick holder shown here, is a term for the transparent yellow to yellow-green glass that owes its color to its uranium content. Purists might argue that the green sugar bowl in the picture should not be considered Vaseline glass because an additional colorant (probably iron) has been used in addition to the uranium to produce the green. These cognoscenti might describe it as “Depression Glass,” a less desirable commodity.


www.orau.org...

This shows they can produce glass with all sorts of things in it.

And here's an interesting article.


Uranium glass is glass which has had uranium, usually in oxide diuranate form, added to a glass mix prior to melting. The proportion usually varies from trace levels to about 2% by weight uranium, although some 19th-century pieces were made with up to 25% uranium.[1][2]


en.wikipedia.org...

I wonder what color the windows at the pentagon are?




posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Seems like the EPA really made a lot of mistakes that day, specailly lying about the air quality being ok.


Yes, my thoughts exactly. Seems like a lot of screw ups that day for the mightiest nation on earth eh?



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Yes, my thoughts exactly. Seems like a lot of screw ups that day for the mightiest nation on earth eh?


Yes and it only would have taken them about 30 seconds to find out that the 757 and 767 do not carry DU.

[edit on 28-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I can't claim any expertise on radiation but I believe that shielding involves putting a sufficient thickness of a dense enough material in the way so that particles like neutrons are unlikely to get through without encountering a nucleus in their path. When water is used it's normally metres of it and its main advantage is its cheapness and ease of maintenance (just drain and refill) plus, being a liquid, it fills all voids. DU has the advantage of relatively massive nuclei tightly packed so the targets are easier to hit in a shorter travel distance.

If the source was DU or something similar in the Pentagon used as shielding, well I'd think that's a very likely place place to find something like that being used for that purpose.

As for the EPA 's error in suggesting it came from the plane, I put that on par with ringing the Boeing general call number and asking how fast a 767 can fly at sea level. The quality of the answer depends on who takes the call but I wouldn't consider it a hanging offence under the circumstances (reflex answer from someone not totally clued up).



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The quality of the answer depends on who takes the call but I wouldn't consider it a hanging offence under the circumstances (reflex answer from someone not totally clued up).


Problem is that if you called and asked about DU in the 757 and 767 you would be told a very asured answer they do not carry it. There would be no difference in depending on who answers or how you asked.

Also it only takes about 30 seconds to find out on the proper sites on the net.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Just on a slightly different tangent I've been going over many hours of recently 'declassified' nuclear test footage (more like partially declassified). It's highly interesting, I suggest you check it out if you want some more experience with nukes and their effects. After all these videos were used for educational purposes. You can find most of the videos on youtube at this users page:

uk.youtube.com...

Be aware though these videos are still censored, sections still deemed as classified have been removed/sanitised. And to say we thought we knew all the effects of these older generation nukes? It appears still much research from the tests is left out and kept under wraps. I think one of those particular issues they often seem to leave out is the real juicy details of the direct effects on materials in close proximity. But there are some shots showing this which is one of the things that really strikes me in these videos - is the corrosive like effects on steel. There are a few shots scattered through the videos of this. In some of the videos you can see ships and vessels that have turned bright rusty orange from the thermonuclear effects. Some of the footage mentions metal ablation but it seems most info on that has been removed.







[edit on 28-7-2008 by Insolubrious]



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Interesting stuff there


They don't call it 'ionising radiation' for no reason

There's more chance of a fast particle encountering an electron than a nucleus and removing one or more electrons from an otherwise stable element or compound results in a charged ion which will readily bond with other atoms around it, ceating new compounds which may be detrimental to the surrounding undamaged molecules. This is the radiation poisoning caused to living cells but inert compounds are changed in the much the same way with unpredictable results like the accelerated 'rusting' (oxidation) seen on that exposed steel.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Also it only takes about 30 seconds to find out on the proper sites on the net.


But was Boeing consulted about it at all (except for after the wrong advice had been given)?

The internet has grown considerably since 2001 - maybe that sort of extremely detailed info wasn't available online back then. That 747 crash in Amsterdam was probably the first time (or one of the first) that brought knowledge of DU in (some) planes and the potential hazards of it burning to the general public. From what I could find on the DU counterweights, it seems the airline companies were 'quietly' replacing it with tungsten throughout the 90s because of the stigma associated with anything radioactive (bad for business).

The EPA was still actively performing 'epidemiological' studies of previous crash sites and surrounding areas where DU was believed to have been present so would they even consult Boeing up front when told that radiation had been detected after a crash resulting in a fire that destroyed some or all of the plane wreckage?

Not that it matters very much, a 50/50 'educated' guess went wrong and later research revealed it was wrong. It doesn't look like deliberate disinfo to me.



[edit on 29/7/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The internet has grown considerably since 2001 - maybe that sort of extremely detailed info wasn't available online back then.


Well just to show the information was availiable you might want to check out this site from November 2001, it talks about the dangers of DU in aircraft. It even has a diagram showing Haz-Mat on aircraft including the location of the DU.

www.aeronautics.ru...



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Nice page & interesting reading - thanks for the link

It's not really specific enough to be able to say with 100% confidence that any particular individual large aircraft doesn't carry any DU though as some that originally had it were in the process of having it replaced (ongoing process) and those programs were being conducted 'quietly' at the discretion of the airlines themselves. I just picture the scenario: plane crash, fire, increased radiation reported and that info reported to the EPA who were sensitive about DU at the time. Maybe they didn't feel the need to do a google search to come up with a plausible answer.

What I found very interesting on that site is the claim that the US govt was supplying DU free to arms, armour, ammunition, aviation type industries (virtually anyone who wanted it) at the time. It's from a russian page so I'm wondering how accurate that info is and whether it's still the case.

I haven't seen any confirmation of AVIRIS detecting any radiation over the WTC site as yet.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Nice page & interesting reading - thanks for the link

It's not really specific enough to be able to say with 100% confidence that any particular individual large aircraft doesn't carry any DU though as some that originally had it were in the process of having it replaced (ongoing process) and those programs were being conducted 'quietly' at the discretion of the airlines themselves.


Sure, no problem. The site does state that the first 550 747's had DU in them. If you look at a Boeing or other pages you can find out when they started removing DU.

[edit on 30-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 05:56 AM
link   
So what do we have so far

Slightly elevated radiation in the vicinity of the WTC consistant with the release of the known tritium from its containers and confirmed in later measurement of tritiated water on site. The reports of that radiation came from unoffical sources and the Hazmat teams detected nothing of note on the ground zero site.

The presence of stable isotopes of strontium and barium in the dust is not an indication of anything nuclear.

Perhaps more elevated levels of radiation reported downwind of the Pentagon. The source could be DU or any of a number of other sources which could have been on the plane (cargo perhaps?) or within the building before the plane struck it.

EPA erring on the side of caution and suggesting it could be from DU on the planes, a suggestion shown to be incorrect later.

NASA AVIRIS scans of the WTC site for thermal hotspots to aid in the safety of the recovery/cleanup teams on the ground with no mention of radiation being scanned for or detected. I note also there's no mention of an AVIRIS scan being conducted over the Pentagon even though the radiation there was reportedly more substantial which suggests it was not looking for radiation other than infrared which is what it's designed to do.

I'm not seeing anything suspicious here with the possible exception of non-disclosure of radioactive sources within the Pentagon. Such secrecy is not unusual for the military.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The source could be DU or any of a number of other sources which could have been on the plane (cargo perhaps?) or within the building before the plane struck it.


How could DU be a source from the planes when the 757 and 767 do not carry DU as counterweights?

Do you have any reports of DU cargo in the planes?

Do you have any reports of DU being used in the consruction of the towers or buidling 7?



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


There seems to be an obsession about DU and considering its prevalence and apparently free availability perhaps it's justified. I haven't come across any data stating what the Pentagon radiation source was, just somewhat vague reports of an increased count downwind of the site. If it had been a serious contamination incident there'd be people in radiation suits with geiger counters swarming all over the place scooping up every bit of dirt that appeared radioactive for safe disposal but there's no reports I've seen of that happening which doesn't mean it didn't happen but it would be virtually impossible to keep it a secret. If it was serious enough to warrant a cleanup the source would have been identified.

There's nothing to suggest DU at the WTC site but there could have been at the Pentagon and if so, it could only have come from either the plane or the building unless you're aware of another possible source. You actually posted a suggestion that the material was in the building and I consider that a plausible possibility.

I'm not aware of any radioactive material being in the WTC buildings or the planes that impacted there other than tritium.

I'm interested in hearing any better info than I already found on radiation associated with the 9/11 events. Depleted Uranium was suggested by the EPA as a possible risk factor from the planes and subsequently proven wrong (with more than a few sighs of relief too I'd think). I can't find any info on analysis being done to reveal the actual source of radiation from the Pentagon crash site which doesn't mean it's not out there somewhere.


[edit on 2/8/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
There's nothing to suggest DU at the WTC site but there could have been at the Pentagon and if so, it could only have come from either the plane or the building unless you're aware of another possible source. You actually posted a suggestion that the material was in the building and I consider that a plausible possibility.


1. The 757 and 767 do not carry DU. There is no evidence of them carrying DU as cargo.

2. I stated there could have been DU used in the walls of the Pentagon but NOT the towers or building 7.

3. According to the e-mail i posted, the EPA assumed the radiation at the WTC was caused by DU from the planes, but as stated we know the 757 and 767 do not carry DU as counterweights.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   
The only reason I can see for this fascination with DU is that the EPA considered it a credible risk but, as you say, the planes did not have it installed for counterweights and also there's no report of DU being specifically found at any of the sites or any serious radiation contamination for that matter - nothing sufficient to require site decontamination.

DU is not the only radioactive material and it's actually one of the least active.

The reason I suggested cargo as a possible source is that short half-life isotopes are specially produced at reactors and shipped all over the country (and the world for that matter) to be used for radiotherapy of cancer patients. These isotopes are far more radioactive than any DU and due to the short halflife they need to be used within a day or two of being prepared so air transport is the only practical way to get them to their destination in time.

An iodine isotope specificallly used for radiotherapy was detected in silt on the riverbed near the WTC. This was radioactive enough to require identification but in very low concentrations and assumed to be from sewerage treatment plants upstream. Patients receiving this sort of treatment pass the isotope out of their systems in the normal way.



[edit on 2/8/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The only reason I can see for this fascination with DU is that the EPA considered it a credible risk but, as you say, the planes did not have it installed for counterweights and also there's no report of DU being specifically found at any of the sites or any serious radiation contamination for that matter - nothing sufficient to require site decontamination.


Well i guess someone thougt it was serious enough to call the EPA and several other government agencies to notify them of radiation.

www.xs4all.nl...


On Sept. 11, I called a medical doctor who lives 7 miles from the Pentagon and warned her that DU could have burned in the hijacked jets that crashed (up to 3000 pounds were used in 747's). She turned on her gamma meter - radiation levels were 8 times higher than normal inside her house. She informed the Nuclear Information Resource Service in Washington DC[Phone: 202-328-0002], and the EPA, FBI, HazMat and other emergency response agencies went to the Pentagon to investigate.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

She turned on her gamma meter - radiation levels were 8 times higher than normal inside her house. She informed the Nuclear Information Resource Service in Washington DC[Phone: 202-328-0002], and the EPA, FBI, HazMat and other emergency response agencies went to the Pentagon to investigate.



Do you see the problem there?

DU is an alpha source but she detected gamma radiation?

You can protect yourself from alpha radiation with a piece of cardboard and in the case of DU counterweights, the shielding is accomplished by a thin plating of inert metal like cadmium or nickel. You can't hide from gamma radiation though.

[edit on 2/8/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Do you see the problem there?


Yes thats why i have a problem with why the EPA and everyone else automatically assumed it was DU from the planes.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
I hope you'd be even more outraged if they had said there was no DU on the planes and it turned out they were wrong. They took appropriate precautions in my opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join