Thermate, C4, Micro Nukes Prove 911 Was and Inside/Outside Job

reply to post by pteridine


Got any references for this BS? Or is this just more false BS. I'm tired of proving your unreferenced BS as BS. After about the 3rd or fourth time of proven BS, I'm not inclined to be bothered. Get some references.

DrEd

Originally posted by EdWardMD
reply to post by pteridine

 

Got any references for this BS? Or is this just more false BS. I'm tired of proving your unreferenced BS as BS. After about the 3rd or fourth time of proven BS, I'm not inclined to be bothered. Get some references.

DrEd

You seem to be fixated on BS. Five BS's in 3 lines is a record.

I am asking you, since you claim nuclear weapons, how you propose that the craters that you claim exist were made by the phantom nukes without blast to move earth or heat enough to melt earth. If you cannot provide a response, then you should reject your theory of nuclear weapons and admit that you have no real evidence.

reply to post by pteridine


You stated no radionuclides found. Fissionable products and radionuclides were found. I don't need to prove exactly which portion was attributable to which, MERELY PROVE THEY WERE THERE. WHICH I HAVE DONE.

One does not need to know the exact size to know what was done FROM VERIFIED REFERENCED EVIDENCE. Like saying someone that has been murdered by a bullet hasn't been murdered by a bullet unless you can tell the exact force/size of the bullet without having the bullet in hand. A straight through and through circular hole is a projectile/bullet until proven otherwise. Just like massive craters, massive heat in 6 acres of earth, 2 billion pounds of instant dust, vaporized people, impossible chlorine fueled anearobic fires, wilting spires, hiroshima cancer effects, BILLIONS OF TRITIUM UNITS and even more evidence is a NUKE until proven otherwise.

DrEd

reply to post by EdWardMD


This is a repeat of your previous post. The only radioactive material that was found was tritium and small amounts of uranium and thorium from the granite and aggregate. No nuclear blast. No nuclear heat. No neutrons. No other radioisotopes.

Your theory is without merit.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

2 bits of nostalgia:

www.checktheevidence.co.uk...

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by izopen


checktheevidence.scam problems?

checktheevidence? Now that's funny considering it told me it had not read my articles fully - let alone taken the time to follow more than 250 verified facts/evidence - your response to my original post was only hours after you read it. Yet, you have problems. Submit some factual evidence - you know like the joke title of this unverfied, statement of unreferenced BS you post. As stated, If you have problems WITH ANY OF THE VERIFIED FACTS OF MY ARTICLES I'LL ADDRESS THEM HERE.

UPDATE: Needless to say, checktheevidence.scam did not post my response posted at checktheevidence.scam - front for the BYU crew and Woodhead in particular and did not respond.

Ed Ward

So I send this to some chucklehead at check the evidence.scam, and Dr. Wood - Head of the BYU crew address pops up.

Isn't it a small world. Does Dr. Wood - Head of the BYU crew - have any referenced, verifiable evidence that contradicts any of my more than 250 references in my review of ALL the WTC evidence? Anyone with factual, verifiable facts, that contradicts my references? Anyone? Anyone?

Ed Ward, MD


Posted in
check the evidence
Dr. Judy Wood
etal
etc
the BYU crew
Submitted by Ed Ward MD on Thu, 2009-01-01 11:14.

AS STATED WOODHEAD KNOWS AND STILL HIDES 55 X BACKGROUND TRITIUM LEVELS AS "TRACES".

Izzy, here's some nostalgia for you and the BYU crew. See Below Me:

groups.yahoo.com...

DrEd

reply to post by EdWardMD


The quoted section on the radionuclides is at www.ehponline.org... and essentially says that the background of "thorium, uranium, actinium series, and primordial radionuclides" is not unexpected. The things that would indicate a nuclear explosion would be a series of daughter elements that were themselves radioactive, showing a string of decay, or radioisotopes that were formed from neutron irradiation of the materials in proximity to any nuclear fusion device. No such materials were found.

No materials from a bomb were found. No explosion was detected. No evidence of neutron irradiation was detected. Craters were only foundations and excavations after the fact. There is absolutely no evidence for a nuclear weapon.

If you have any scientific background, it is not apparent, as your logic and understanding of the data is faulty and incomplete. I recommend that you speak with those who do understand science and you will soon see the fallacy of your arguments.

[edit on 2/15/2009 by pteridine]

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by EdWardMD

You keep repeating your previous obnoxious posts. You have not responded to posts with anything except the "tritium above background" piece and the limited "BS-scumbag-liar-scam" rants. You have no evidence of a nuclear explosion and can't accept that fact. You bully and harass everyone who questions you.
You can't possibly be a physician as you don't even display the minimal scientific requirements for medical school entry. I think you are impersonating the real Dr. Ward.

reply to post by pteridine


More proven lies by my referenced verifiable facts.

USGS report pubs.usgs.gov...
Radionuclides. We analyzed the gamma spectrum of the samples using an EG&G/Ortec high-purity Ge detector (50% relative efficiency) gamma counter (EG&G/Ortec Instruments, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN). We analyzed approximately 50 peaks based on statistical significance (counting/lack of interferences). These included thorium, uranium, actinium series, and primordial radionuclides. Liquid scintillation analyses were conducted for emissions on the total dust and smoke samples using a Packard Tri-Carb Model 2770 TR/SL (Packard Instrument, Meriden, CT). The MDA [mimimum detectable activity] for alpha radioactivity was 0.30 DPM (0.14 pCi) based on a NIST-traceable 226Ra standard (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD). When placed in the liquid scintillation fluid, the WTC samples are somewhat darker than the backgrounds and calibration standard, which may cause slight underreporting of the beta activity due to quenching and standard-to-sample efficiency bias. 2

50 RADIONUCLIDES FOUND AND THEY ARE ELEVATED even when using 50% efficiency as well as UNDERREPORTED IN COMBINATION.


One does not need to know the exact size to know what was done FROM VERIFIED REFERENCED EVIDENCE. Like saying someone that has been murdered by a bullet hasn't been murdered by a bullet unless you can tell the exact force/size of the bullet without having the bullet in hand. A straight through and through circular hole is a projectile/bullet until proven otherwise. Just like massive craters, massive heat in 6 acres of earth, 2 billion pounds of instant dust, vaporized people, impossible chlorine fueled anearobic fires, wilting spires, hiroshima cancer effects, BILLIONS OF TRITIUM UNITS and even more evidence is a NUKE until proven otherwise. All are textbook classic examples for a nuclear event - individually and in total.

Perhaps you need to notify Ed Ward MD someone is impersonating him then. I'm sure he'll appreciate knowing that information.

DrEd

reply to post by EdWardMD


You said: "50 RADIONUCLIDES FOUND AND THEY ARE ELEVATED even when using 50% efficiency as well as UNDERREPORTED IN COMBINATION."

These do not appear in your referenced articles. If they are merely isotopes of the actinides, they prove only that background exists.

If you are speaking of the elemental analyses of the dust samples, those are not radionuclides.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by EdWardMD

 

You said: "50 RADIONUCLIDES FOUND AND THEY ARE ELEVATED even when using 50% efficiency as well as UNDERREPORTED IN COMBINATION."

These do not appear in your referenced articles. If they are merely isotopes of the actinides, they prove only that background exists.

If you are speaking of the elemental analyses of the dust samples, those are not radionuclides.

USGS report pubs.usgs.gov...
"""""""""""""""""RADIONUCLIDES"""""""""""""""". We analyzed the gamma spectrum of the samples using an EG&G/Ortec high-purity Ge detector (50% relative efficiency) gamma counter (EG&G/Ortec Instruments, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN). We analyzed approximately 50 peaks based on statistical significance (counting/lack of interferences). These included thorium, uranium, actinium series, and primordial radionuclides. Liquid scintillation analyses were conducted for emissions on the total

More proven lies.

DrEd

reply to post by EdWardMD


What proven lies? The 50 peaks are various naturally ocurring isotopes in the actinides. No Sr-90, no Tc. No bomb related elements.

reply to post by pteridine


First you stated none were found despite them referenced in the article. They were found and at elevated levels. Then stated not in the articles. etc, et al

50 RADIONUCLIDES FOUND AND THEY ARE ELEVATED even when using 50% efficiency as well as UNDERREPORTED IN COMBINATION.

USGS report pubs.usgs.gov...
"""""""""""""""""Radionuclides""""""""""""""""""""""""". We analyzed the gamma spectrum of the samples using an EG&G/Ortec high-purity Ge detector (50% relative efficiency) gamma counter (EG&G/Ortec Instruments, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN). We analyzed approximately 50 peaks based on statistical significance (counting/lack of interferences). These included thorium, uranium, actinium series, and primordial radionuclides. Liquid scintillation analyses were conducted for emissions on the total dust and smoke samples using a Packard Tri-Carb Model 2770 TR/SL (Packard Instrument, Meriden, CT). The MDA [mimimum detectable activity] for alpha radioactivity was 0.30 DPM (0.14 pCi) based on a NIST-traceable 226Ra standard (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD). When placed in the liquid scintillation fluid, the WTC samples are somewhat darker than the backgrounds and calibration standard, which may cause slight underreporting of the beta activity due to quenching and standard-to-sample efficiency bias. 2

50 RADIONUCLIDES FOUND AND THEY ARE ELEVATED even when using 50% efficiency as well as UNDERREPORTED IN COMBINATION.


One does not need to know the exact size to know what was done FROM VERIFIED REFERENCED EVIDENCE. Like saying someone that has been murdered by a bullet hasn't been murdered by a bullet unless you can tell the exact force/size of the bullet without having the bullet in hand. A straight through and through circular hole is a projectile/bullet until proven otherwise. Just like massive craters, massive heat in 6 acres of earth, 2 billion pounds of instant dust, vaporized people, impossible chlorine fueled anearobic fires, wilting spires, hiroshima cancer effects, BILLIONS OF TRITIUM UNITS and even more evidence is a NUKE until proven otherwise. All are textbook classic examples for a nuclear event - individually and in total.

DrEd

[edit on 15-2-2009 by EdWardMD]

reply to post by EdWardMD


NO Bomb related isotopes were found. NONE. There is no evidence for a bomb based on the elemental analyses. There is no evidence for a bomb based on neutron or other irradiation. There is no evidence for a bomb based on blast or shock wave damage.

reply to post by pteridine


Need references and quotes for that BS, it's not like you haven't been proven a liar multiple times. Especially since we have proven elevated radionuclides and MASSIVE TRITIUM LEVELS EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT DISPERSED IN THE 60 WITH MEGATONS OF NUKE TESTING

Just like massive craters, massive heat in 6 acres of earth, 2 billion pounds of instant dust, vaporized people, impossible chlorine fueled anearobic fires, wilting spires, hiroshima cancer effects, BILLIONS OF TRITIUM UNITS and even more evidence is a NUKE until proven otherwise. All are textbook classic examples for a nuclear event - individually and in total.


DrEd

[edit on 15-2-2009 by EdWardMD]

reply to post by EdWardMD


Your own references provide it. They don't show any radionuclide that would come from a "fusion only" bomb, fission bomb, or a fission boosted bomb.
All of the videos prove it. No boom of an atomic bomb. No windows being blown out for miles. No fireball.

Lack of radiation deaths within hours and days prove it.

There is no evidence in your references that is consistent with any nuclear device.

It would be good if you could at least find synonyms for "BS," "scumbag," and "liar."


[edit on 2/15/2009 by pteridine]

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by EdWardMD

 

Your own references provide it. They don't show any radionuclide that would come from a "fusion only" bomb, fission bomb, or a fission boosted bomb.
All of the videos prove it. No boom of an atomic bomb. No windows being blown out for miles. No fireball.

Lack of radiation deaths within hours and days prove it.

There is no evidence in your references that is consistent with any nuclear device.

It would be good if you could at least find synonyms for "BS," "scumbag," and "liar."


[edit on 2/15/2009 by pteridine]

Just more scam BS that has been addressed. NEED REFERENCES AND QUOTES FOR ALL THIS BS.

Meanwhile the already proven referenced facts show just the opposite. BTW, I sent in your 'alledged' criminal activity to ATS. Will be interesting to see the response.

Need references and quotes for that BS, it's not like you haven't been proven a liar multiple times. Especially since we have proven elevated radionuclides and MASSIVE TRITIUM LEVELS EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT DISPERSED IN THE 60 WITH MEGATONS OF NUKE TESTING

Just like massive craters, massive heat in 6 acres of earth, 2 billion pounds of instant dust, vaporized people, impossible chlorine fueled anearobic fires, wilting spires, hiroshima cancer effects, BILLIONS OF TRITIUM UNITS and even more evidence is a NUKE until proven otherwise. All are textbook classic examples for a nuclear event - individually and in total.


DrEd