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.

 

Alex Jones, Steven Jones, Judy Wood, 911Truth' Call 55 X Normal Tritium= Traces

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Prof. Jones Denies/Ignores/Misrepresents Proven Tritium Levels 55 Times
Background Levels

HardEvidence (Jones' handle on the new pseudo 911 scholars site) wrote: Actual measurements of tritium levels in pre-1950 (pre-H-bomb testing) rain and wines shows that ordinary tritium background levels vary over a broad range, but withvalues up to about 10 or 11 Tritium Units. (Jones paper in the Journal of 9/11Studies,
journalof911studies.com...\-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf )

But the tritium found at Ground Zero, after 9/11, was BELOW 10 tritium units!
That is, the tritium found at GZ is totally consistent with measured prosaic
background levels.

Absence of tritium above background levels implies absence of mini-hydrogen bombs at the WTC." (No response when the levels were proven 55 Times Higher than Background.)

More from the Jones letter:
“Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at the World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained (0.164±0.074) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained
3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L, respectively. These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure…”

www.clayandiron.com...

How does this fit in with a supposed 'Scientific Method'? It doesn't. This is
entirely inconsistent with the scientific method of evaluating ALL THE EVIDENCE.

I would also suggest you take a look at: Phenomenon Archives: Heavy Watergate, The War Against Cold Fusion
video.google.com...
About midway through the documentary goes into Jones' muon BS.

I would also suggest you listen to the Fetzer interview regarding the California Grand Jury initiative with John McCarthy: A very insightful interview with John McCarthy on 911 Truth and the Citizens Grand Jury debacle. Part of the coincidental self destruction of a TOO POPULAR movement.
johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com...\w_john_jimfetzer_20070605.mp3

Proof of 55 Times Background Levels via USGS data: Update: Proves Micro Nukes in the WTC www.thepriceofliberty.org...

The USGS report also states there were NO Tritium 'exit signs' in the WTC. It also gives examples of 100 times the supposed plane's Tritium values that did not show any residual Tritium and a massive amount of Tritium in another accident that were thousands of times greater than supposed WTC sources of Tritium that did show residual Tritium levels.

The next time anyone sees any of my above buddies be sure and ask them how 55 times normal = traces or show how my basic math calculations are incorrect. Because until then the Doc says that in his opinion based on the facts, -they are scumbag liars HIDING THE NUKE EVIDENCE and ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT TO MURDER - have been and still are.

Ed Ward, MD

[edit on 14-2-2009 by EdWardMD]




posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 03:02 AM
link   
whats Alex Jones have to do with this?



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ats__fan039
whats Alex Jones have to do with this?


Just part of the scumbag liars that will not address 55 times backround = traces is a scumbag lie - part of the crew - he knows too.

DrEd



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Edit ... nevermind I misread your post.

[edit on 14-2-2009 by EverythingYouKnowIsWrong]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Right you are. IF ONLY MORE WOULD USE THEIR HEADS. But I didn't take the lowest level for background range, I took a higher number for background range to use as the calculation point. I don't want to call anyone a lying scumbag and accessory after the fact to murder without giving them all the help I can give them to not be lying scumbags. Unfortunately, even 55 times normal CAN NOT BE CALLED 'TRACES'. You dig for gold and expect to find 1 lb of gold in an acre. You dig the acre up and find 55 pounds of gold instead, then you report only 'TRACES' of gold found.

Lying scumbags.

EXCELLENT FACTUAL POST. KUDOS.
Anyway here are my rudimentary calculations.

www.clayandiron.com...
More on Tritium Units and Micro Nukes in the WTC
1 Tritium Unit = 3.19 pCi/L = 0.00319 nCi/L.
3.53 nCi/L = 1,106.6 TU = 20 TU (0.0638 nCi/L - the average environmental level) X 55.33 = 55.33 Times the Tritium level that should have been found after some degree of 16 million liters of water diluted the Tritium present.
2.83 nCi/L = 887.2 TU = 20 TU (0.0638 nCi/L - the average environmental level) X 44.36 = 44.36 Times the Tritium level that should have been found - even after some degree of 16 million liters of water diluted the Tritium present.
0.164 nCi/L = 51.4 TU = 20 TU (0.0638 nCi/L - the average environmental level) X 2.57 = 2.57 Times the Tritium level that should have been found - even after some degree of 120 million liters of water diluted the Tritium present.
Now based on the Tritium report which mentions these values are 7 times less than EPA reportable. What would it take to be EPA reportable? At least 7,746 TU based on the information in the USGS Tritium report.
7 x 3.53/0.00319 = 7,746 TU. This is 6 to 7 times higher than the maximum amount of Tritium dispersed by hundreds of MegaTons Atomic Blasts in the 60's. This is at least 387.3 Times the standard amount of Tritium present in the environment - the reportable EPA level
- That's some awesome protection level from the EPA, possibly even worse than the EPA's "The air is safe..." right after 911.
An old and still popular unit of measuring radioactivity is the curie (Ci). 1 Ci = 37 GBq = 37000 MBq. One curie is a large amount of radioactivity. Commonly used subunits are mCi (millicurie), µCi (microcurie), nCi (nanocurie), and pCi (picocurie). 1 Ci = 1000 mCi; 1 mCi = 1000 µCi; 1 µCi = 1000 nCi; 1 nCi = 1000 pCi.
Another useful conversion formula is: 1 Bq = 27 pCi.
Becquerel (Bq) or Curie (Ci) is a measure of the rate (not energy) of radiation emission from a source
In SI units, one tritium unit is about 0.118 bequerels per liter (Bq/L), where the bequerel is one decay per second. In picocuries per liter, 1 TU is approximately 3.19 pCi/L. (a pico is a trillionth, a nano is a billionth).
The standard range for environmental Tritium is 0.1 to 0.2 nCi/Liter.
Testing in areas other than the WTC revealed levels (less than) < 0.13 nCi/Liter.
The actual words from the report "Tritium occurs in the environment primarily as tritiated water, and much less as organically bound tritium. typical current concentrations of HTO in water in the US are 0.1-0.2 nCi/L (16)."
"1 2 9/17 water Manh., 55 Broadway, 32 fl., roof tank



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by EverythingYouKnowIsWrong
 


Even so, you are right. If I had used the most correct reported value IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ALOT HIGHER. IMO, that's exactly why it was reported the way it was. One had to do basic conversions to see how much tritium was actually there compared to more precise measurments. AND WHO WAS GOING TO LOOK AFTER THEY CALLED THEM TRACES AND BELOW CONCERN AND 7 TIMES LESS THAN REPORTABLE LEVELS.

Ed



[edit on 14-2-2009 by EdWardMD]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by EdWardMD
 


So you'll do the calc to try and disprove that tritium can't come from expected sources, but NOT do it to try and disprove that the blast effect from setting off a nuke would be inescapapable?

Very telling.........



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
From the original article:

www.thepriceofliberty.org...

This program produced (partial list) the following information for a regular 0.01 kt yields, air ignition: Fireball max light radius = 25.4 meters, Max time light pulse width = 0.011 seconds, Max fireball airburst radius = 10.6 meters, Time of max temperature = 0.0032 seconds, Area of rad. exposure = 0.12 sq. miles; Blastwave Effects: Overpressure = 5 lb/sq. inch (160 mph) radius = 0.09 km, 1 lb/sq. inch radius = 0.26 km; Underground ignition: Crater diameter = 56 feet with a Richter magnitude of 3.52. Thermal radiation damage range is significantly reduced by clouds, smoke or other obscuring materials. Surface detonations are known to decrease thermal radiation by half. A neutron bomb produces much less blast and thermal energy than a fission bomb of the same yield by expending its energy by the increase in the production of neutrons. Even the older neutron bombs produce very little long term fallout, but made considerable induced radiation in ground detonations. The half life of induced radiation is very short and is measured in days rather than years.

Isn't it amazing what one can find when they actually look at what it is they are supposedly talking about?

DrEd



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by EdWardMD
 


It takes 6,259,000,000,000 Joules to vaporize just 1000 metric tons of steel.

The best values that i could find at all your links indicate that blast yield will be ~ 15% total yield.

Let's improve that even further in your favor, and say that only 2% of total yield is realized as explosive blast yield.

So what will the explosive blast yield be to vaporize just 1000 mt of steel through neutron activation?



[edit on 14-2-2009 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Butz - proven multiple liar - keeps reposting this BS on multiple threads to shift the topic from one of REFERENCED PROVEN NUKE EFFECTS to some extraneous, immaterial tangent that can not be known without knowledge of the exact nuke used. One must first calculate neutron energy per neutron - easy - AND HOW MANY NEUTRONS WERE PRODUCED and distance from the immediate explosion - IMPOSSIBLE and nearly impossible number of variables to even get close to the figure even if one knew the exact nuke used.

Now reposted as to how much heat is required to vaporize 'just' 2.2 million pounds of steel for his 'proven' calculations which he has never shown in full nor has he shown any neutron activation figures which is impossible to know unless one has the exact kiloton size, and type of nuke that was used. Exactly why it was not used AT ALL in ANY of my articles with multiple referenced proven nuke effects.

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, wilting spires, hiroshima cancer effects, BILLIONS OF TRITIUM UNITS and even more evidence is a NUKE until proven otherwise.

DrEd

[edit on 14-2-2009 by EdWardMD]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by EdWardMD

1-One must first calculate neutron energy per neutron - easy - AND HOW MANY NEUTRONS WERE PRODUCED and distance from the immediate explosion - IMPOSSIBLE and nearly impossible number of variables to even get close to the figure even if one knew the exact nuke used.

2-Now reposted as to how much heat is required to vaporize 'just' 2.2 million pounds of steel for his 'proven' calculations which he has never shown in full

3-Exactly why it was not used AT ALL in ANY of my articles with multiple referenced proven nuke effects.



1-no, doing it this way would give an estimate of how much heating from neutron activationl a given weapon would produce.

2- I know how much energy it would take to vaporize 1,000 mt of steel already:

www.chemicool.com...

Heat of vaporization for FE: 349600J/mol
Atomic mass of FE: 55.85 g/mol
Heat of vaporization for 1g FE= 349600J/mol /55.85 g/mol= 6259 J/g.

To vaporize 1000 tonnes of Fe, we get 6259J/g * 1,000,000,000 g= 6,259,000,000,000 J

3- no, it was avoided on purpose cuz you know that if you provided this, it would expose just how laughable this whole idea is.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
How does knowing how many joules it would take to vaporize 1000 tons of steel tell what weapon was used - you used iron, not steel, that's close enough and you appear to have only used heat of vaporization which is significantly lower than getting the steel to the temp required and temp required to go to from solid to liquid, and the change from ambient temp to last solid temp - I would suspect your entirely unrelated energy requirement is considerably short on number of joules. Where is your evidence 1000 tons of steel is missing. Certainly not anywhere IN MY PROVEN RERERENCED FACTS.

I'm sure you can find alot of things not included in my article, but they have nothing to do with my verified proof. NONE OF WHICH STATES MORE THAN THERE WAS SOME VAPORIZATION OF STEEL AS PROVEN PER SUPPOSED RAPID OXIDATION SCAM. Although, I have decided that this may need further investigation since the nuke caused high chlorine concentrations in an impossible fire, it MAY BE responsible for the loss of steel in some beams. It certainly was not oxygen oxidation. But, chlorine oxidation from the nuke high temperatures may have allowed chlorine oxidation to run rampant. Interesting.

Yes, excellent. You may have added another proven fact to my arsenal. I've never really pushed the oxidation vs neutron destruction because I didn't like the pattern. But, this further recent research on low atmosphere chlorine rich high temperature 'fire'- can only be caused by nuke - would fit perfectly with the evidence. VERY INTERESTING.

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

[edit on 15-2-2009 by EdWardMD]



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by EdWardMD

1-How does knowing how many joules it would take to vaporize 1000 tons of steel tell what weapon was used - you used iron, not steel, that's close enough and you appear to have only used heat of vaporization which is significantly lower than getting the steel to the temp required and temp required to go to from solid to liquid, and the change from ambient temp to last solid temp - I would suspect your entirely unrelated energy requirement is considerably short on number of joules.

2-Where is your evidence 1000 tons of steel is missing. Certainly not anywhere IN MY PROVEN RERERENCED FACTS.



1-Yes, my number for J is low, I did it on purpose. In my post that I linked to in another thread I mentioned this.

I'm looking at the issue from an energy requirement standpoint. The enrgy required to do the work would have to come from the device, agree? And once we know the energy requirement, we then know what size device was supposedly used, according to you.

The device can't create nor destroy energy, according to known laws of physics. It is no great mystery as to HOW neutrons heat steel. Neutron activation sounds "sciencey", but steel is heated by simple friction - converting the KE into thermal energy - by the speeding neutrons. In "sciencey" terms, one might call this "excitation". They have very little mass, easy to find figures on this just about anywhere. But they move at a very high velocity - IIRC 28,000 m/s. And there's a lot of them. Of course you will ask how many neutrons - but it's not important to know. All you need to know is the proposed work done by them - and I've low estimated this at 6.259*10^12 J, and work backwards if you really need to know.

Now, another believer posted these 2 :

www.saunalahti.fi...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Both say that 4th gens would put out around 80% of their total energy yield as high energy neutron that could heat steel, and both indicate that blast effects would use about 15%.

I am saying reduce the blast effects by roughly an order of magnitude to just 2%, just to show how ridiculous this is.

Now work from there:

If 6.259*10^12 J are necessary to vaporize 1000 mt of steel from neutron excitation, and 98% of the total device's energy goes to that, then what will be the blast effects?

2/98, right? Or 2.04%

6.259*10^12L * .0204 gives .1276 *10^12 J.

Now standardize .1276 *10^12 J to tons of TNT to get an idea of the blast.

en.wikipedia.org...

1 gram TNT = 4184 J (exactly).

127,600,000,000J / 4184J/g = 30,497,000g

= 30,497 kg

= 30.497 mt

= 33.5 US tons of TNT equivalent, and that's after 2 admitted reductions that I didn't really need to take.

Now go here: www.makeitlouder.com...

"213 (N) BOMB 1 TON TNT, 23 FOOT WIDE CRATER OR 175.8 db (P) AT 250 FEET."

"10 db = 10 times more power
3.01 db = 2 times the power"

33 tons of TNT gives around 190 Db at 250'.


2-ok, maybe I'm misunderstanding your "craters" then. What are they?

If you're saying that the steel has vaporized, causing these craters, then what's a rough estimate of how many tons of steel is missing?



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
""""""""""""""""""""""Where is your evidence 1000 tons of steel is missing. Certainly not anywhere IN MY PROVEN RERERENCED FACTS.""""""""""""""""""""" IFs and no reference for this and only 2 DIRECT IFs directly noted BUT MULTIPLE IMPLIED IFS - IFS nulify any supposed fact.

According to the referenced proven facts noted in the article a crater is anywhere from 35 foot deep and 250 feet wide from 45 foot deep and 120 foot wide - referenced and proven in LIDAR images.

crater (n)
Synonyms: pit, depression, hole, cavity, hollow - I can get you synonyms for those too since you are so confused.

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.

Absolutely all '911 truthers' should be checking 'the anomalies' THAT ARE INDIVIDUALLY AND IN TOTAL A CLASSIC TEXTBOOK NUCLEAR EVENT. But, ifs, maybes, could be, etc, et al are not my field. I DEAL IN REFERENCED PROVEN FACTS.

DrEd









[edit on 15-2-2009 by EdWardMD]



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by EdWardMD
 


the size of the craters aren't in question.

I asked what accounts for the depression? That is to say, what USED to be there?

Is it steel that has vaporized?

Or what exactly?



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
But, ifs, maybes, could be, etc, et al are not my field. I DEAL IN REFERENCED PROVEN FACTS.

Craters are proven referenced facts.

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



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Steel was there, right?

What happened to it?

Did it vaporize, or melt, or just collapse?

Why can't you answer a simple question?



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Try reading for a change. If you keep asking the same questions dealing in what if, couldas, maybes, I'm forced to repeating the same response at least until I get a warning and some moderator can explain the acceptable procedure dealing with slightly different phrasing BS (Bogus Science) repeated over and over and over... Not to worry, I'm sure I'll be the one getting the warning, if history repeats itself. Interesting.

But, ifs, maybes, could be, etc, et al are not my field. I DEAL IN REFERENCED PROVEN FACTS.

Craters are proven referenced facts.

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]



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by EdWardMD

But, ifs, maybes, could be, etc, et al are not my field. I DEAL IN REFERENCED PROVEN FACTS.



But if you have no idea what happened to the steel/building, then how can you use it as evidence?

Or are you now doing the exact opposite of what you claim, and are speculating that a nuke is the cause?

You're guessing that this is evidence.




posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
ALL REFERENCED PROVEN FACTS ARE EVIDENCE. Sure I have plenty of opinions on the subject, but that would require more in depth research. I've spent years dealing with this subject and not putting in any more extensive research because of scamming BS. The ALREADY REFERENCED PROVEN EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING.

If you keep asking the same questions dealing in what if, couldas, maybes, I'm forced to repeating the same response at least until I get a warning and some moderator can explain the acceptable procedure dealing with slightly different phrasing BS (Bogus Science) repeated over and over and over... Not to worry, I'm sure I'll be the one getting the warning, if history repeats itself. Interesting.

But, ifs, maybes, could be, etc, et al are not my field. I DEAL IN REFERENCED PROVEN FACTS.

Craters are proven referenced facts.

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



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join