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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
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.


Bt it would have taken hardly any research or even talking with someone with aviation experience that those planes did not carry DU since Boeing stopped using DU years ago.




posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


But I'm not convinced that sufficiently detailed and accurate info on what was the airline's 'dirty little secret' was available easily & quickly in 2001 to be able to be 100% certain that any individual plane had no DU on it. The safest answer at short notice would be to say 'there could be'.

If I'd asked you on 9/11 could you have replied with absolute confidence that there was none - sufficient to stake your career on it?

Was the source of that increased gamma radiation ever identified?



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
If I'd asked you on 9/11 could you have replied with absolute confidence that there was none - sufficient to stake your career on it?


With some quick research i could have replied with total confidence.


Was the source of that increased gamma radiation ever identified?


Not that i know of.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Was the source of that increased gamma radiation ever identified?


Not that i know of.


I think the more important question is: Did they ever try?



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I think the more important question is: Did they ever try?


I have not seen any reports or follow ups.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 08:07 AM
link   
What I could find on the EPA suggestion of DU


On Sept. 11, a hijacked plane crashed into the Pentagon. Dr. Janette Sherman, research associate with the Radiation and Public Health Project, had spoken a few days earlier at a Sept. 6 press conference in Hunters Point. After the Sept. 11 attacks, Dr. Sherman notified the Nuclear Information and Resource Service that she detected elevated levels of radiation in her home, located seven miles from the Pentagon. Dr. Sherman still had a gamma meter she had borrowed for her visit to Hunter’s Point. The EPA, the FBI, and other federal agencies, including HMRU (Hazardous Materials Response Units), USAR teams, the local fire department and the Virginia HAZMAT were notified, and an investigation began at the Pentagon.
A pile of rubble from the crash was found to be radioactive, but EPA official Bill Bellinger of the agency’s Region III Environmental Radiation Monitoring Office was unconcerned when contacted by Diane D’Arrigo from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. Bellinger indicated that it was probably depleted uranium and mentioned that americium 241 could also be scattered around the crash site. He was convinced that depleted uranium is not radiologically toxic, but commented that it is more of a hazard when aerosolized.


So if Bill Bellinger is the source of that suggestion, it doesn't seem like he did any research, internet or otherwise, before giving his opinion on the phone. Americium 241 is commonly used in ionisation type smoke detectors but I can't imagine all of them in the damaged part of the building ending up in a single pile.

In a letter from Leuren Moret (geoscientist) of Feb 21 2003 to Washington congressman Jim McDermott, I found this statement


The EPA has verified that depleted uranium was in the plane that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11 and that the crash site was contaminated.


Here's a couple of pics attributed to Jocelyn Augustino of FEMA

Workers undergoing decontamination at the Pentagon cleanup



The 'Pentalawn' getting some major topdressing



[edit on 4/8/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

The EPA has verified that depleted uranium was in the plane that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11 and that the crash site was contaminated.



What source did they use to verify DU was in the plane? Becasue any good source will tell you that the 757 does not arry DU but Tungsten.



[edit on 4-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   
If we read a little deeper into Ms Moret's theories, we find that she's suggesting it wasn't a 757 at all and was, in fact, a missile with a DU penetrator. Is there any engine capable of propelling a 12' diameter DU projectile?

There's no doubt that there was contamination at the Pentagon consistant with DU (or a variety of other radioactive materials) and if you're in a conspiracy frame of mind you could consider that there's signs of a coverup of something that was within the Pentagon that the DOD doesn't want to talk about hence the attempt to blame it on the plane and sweep another 'dirty little secret' under the rug. Must be getting crowded under that rug by now



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Is there any engine capable of propelling a 12' diameter DU projectile?


Well the projectile would not have to have been 12' in diameter, the impact of a projectile hitting at very high speed would have produced a larger hole.

I know if i wanted to hit the Pentagon (knowing the wall on that side had been reinforeced) i would have used a missile first to penatrate the wall and then send in the plane after to cause even more damage.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I know if i wanted to hit the Pentagon (knowing the wall on that side had been reinforeced) i would have used a missile first to penatrate the wall and then send in the plane after to cause even more damage.


I think you're combining unnecessary complication with unheard of precision there if you mean a large aircraft perfectly impacted on the hole created by a missile milliseconds earlier.

The way this is adding up, the only source for the radioactive material appears to have been in the building before anything struck it which fits in with the deafening silence about it now.

[edit on 6/8/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I think you're combining unnecessary complication with unheard of precision there if you mean a large aircraft perfectly impacted on the hole created by a missile milliseconds earlier.


Not really, not if the plane fired the missile before it impacted.



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Sometimes I almost take your ideas seriously but this isn't one of those times. I would have expected the obvious alternative from a conspiracy point of view to be that the plane that struck the Pentagon was carrying DU - that way you can claim it wasn't a DU-free 757. If you're suggesting the outer wall was breached by a missile carrying DU, how many missiles are we talking about here to breach all the outer columns that were removed?

The plane itself was the missile, why try to make it more complicated than that.



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
If you're suggesting the outer wall was breached by a missile carrying DU, how many missiles are we talking about here to breach all the outer columns that were removed?


I never stated anything about a missile carrying DU. I stated that if i was going to hit the Pentagon i would use a missile to pentatrate the wall then fly the plane in.



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


What are your ideas on the radioactive material then - how did it get there at the crash site?

I'm thinking the possibilities are it was either there all the time in the building (probably for months or even years prior) or it was carried by the aircraft that struck the building. The existance of such material after the crash seems undeniable.



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
it was carried by the aircraft that struck the building. The existance of such material after the crash seems undeniable.


If it was carried by the planes is thier any reports of it being cargo or did the hijackers put it on board.



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
If the plane had a payload I don't think it was just packed on board like luggage, more like a plane was modified into a large and deadly bunker buster and some kind of switch took place. Think about how much the US spend on hundreds of laser guided bombs, projectiles and penetrating warheads comparatively the whole modded plane could of been relatively cheap and simple to build. One of the other guys on the forum did a thread on how 175 wasn't even in the area when it apparently hit so if that's true you have to assume something else hit the towers.




top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join