Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Possible Solution to the Khalezov, Deagle 9/11 Nuclear Demolition Theory

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Ever heard of elevators? Jet fuel happens to be a liquid, and elevators go down.

It is not a great leap of logic to say that burning jet fuel found its way down the tower, especially when each tower had a single elevator which traversed the length of the building, plus a few others which reached various lobbies on the way down.

To deny that jet fuel is a liquid is to be obtuse.




posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 

At any rate, there is also the fact that infrared radiation travels at the speed of light. I don't know how to calculate the amount of IR from the fireball, but it was no doubt considerable. I believe this could be the explanation.

Edit: Anyway this has nothing to do with depleted uranium.
edit on 10/13/2011 by DrEugeneFixer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 



A jet fuel fire 80 stories up is going to generate heat at street level . . . at the moment it starts?


Radiant heat travels for considerable distances

I've seen houses ignite from radiant heat 100 ft from a fire

Several thousand gallons of Jet fuel igniting would create a massive fireball, also large amount of fuel poured
down. into the street burning a number of people, many fatally......

Cars burning on street after impact of American 11





Here is link to numerous witnesses reporting massive fireballs after the impact

Suggest you read them.....

North Tower

sites.google.com...

South Tower

sites.google.com...



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by pteridine
 

Why is this fire chief feeling heat from an explosion, at ground level, when the second plane hits?


Heat can be transferred by convection or IR radiation, called "black body" radiation. Burning hydrocarbons act as black body radiators because of the carbon particles in the flame. Many thousand gallons of burning fuel radiate heat at the speed of light so feeling the heat is instantaneous.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by pteridine
 

Why is this fire chief feeling heat from an explosion, at ground level, when the second plane hits?


Heat can be transferred by convection or IR radiation, called "black body" radiation. Burning hydrocarbons act as black body radiators because of the carbon particles in the flame. Many thousand gallons of burning fuel radiate heat at the speed of light so feeling the heat is instantaneous.


As someone who experienced an oxygen-filled balloon explosion in chemistry class in high school, I can verify that a wave of heat hits you the moment the thing explodes. It is not an unusual effect.

A blast of Thermal Radiation is what causes the heat. Basically, a wave of heat expands from the explosion rapidly like a pressure wave.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Ever heard of elevators? Jet fuel happens to be a liquid, and elevators go down.

It is not a great leap of logic to say that burning jet fuel found its way down the tower, especially when each tower had a single elevator which traversed the length of the building, plus a few others which reached various lobbies on the way down.

To deny that jet fuel is a liquid is to be obtuse.


The firemen in the lobby reported jet fuel in the lobby and the stair wells. I believe firemen are trained to deal with all types of fires and seeing as how they were part of the Port Authority, and ships that use diesel for power come in and out of the bay all the time, I think the firemen are trained to know what that is.

Ok, have they ever seen what happens when a gasoline trail is set on fire? The fire follows the gas trail.

Here is one such video of a very ignorant person+gasoline+fire...it = fire follows the guy trying to get away....

www.youtube.com...

Now we know that gasoline and jet fuel are not the same thing, jet fuel is kerosene

And just look at all the smoke coming from this tanker truck
www.youtube.com...

I don't think people actually know how fire works, considering the very ignorant person in the first video.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
To deny that jet fuel is a liquid is to be obtuse.


Even to state that it is a liquid would be obtuse.

The best I can do is reserve judgement on the radient heat issue. He felt heat, to be sure. Was it from a cloud of burning kerosene hundreds of feet in the air or did something much hotter explode? I'm puzzled.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by Varemia
To deny that jet fuel is a liquid is to be obtuse.


Even to state that it is a liquid would be obtuse.

The best I can do is reserve judgement on the radient heat issue. He felt heat, to be sure. Was it from a cloud of burning kerosene hundreds of feet in the air or did something much hotter explode? I'm puzzled.


Yes, various pieces of computer equipment, walls, furniture, pictures, gas stoves, air conditioning units, windows, and everything else a building full of offices contains, along with a restaurant. Air explodes too. And jet fuel is a liquid because it is neither gas or solid. We call it gas but Brits call it petrol.

Gas, liquid, solid, the three states of matter...

www.science.uwaterloo.ca...

A solid has a definite shape and volume. A liquid has a definite volume but it takes the shape of a container whereas a gas fills the entire volume of a container.


A jet engine's fuel tank contains kerosene at its liquid phase.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

Could you run that by me again please?

How about a history of elevators? I'm told by varemia that they go down.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 


Is the buzzing sound referred to in this quote the effect of an EMP? I'm not familiar with the ways that an EMP manifests.

graphics8.nytimes.com...


Also, after I was running, I remember running, and I remember somebody yelling on the radio May Day, May Day, I'm trapped! Over the EMS radio. I was thinking May Day? That's not a term we use, you know 10- 13 or 85 forthwith, but somebody's yelling May Day, I'm trapped. Then you heard this loud buzz, and you didn't hear any more transmissions after that until I would venture to guess it was 20 minutes to a half (h)our later, and the first thing I remember hearing was somebody saying the North Tower is leaning. Within five minutes of that statement, the second tower came down.


It is also interesting that the North Tower was reported to be leaning. I'm assuming the person meant that the top portion of the North Tower was leaning, because at that point, according to the official explanations, there was no reason for the rest of the tower to lean. Right?



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 



Is the buzzing sound referred to in this quote the effect of an EMP? I'm not familiar with the ways that an EMP manifests.


Most likely from PASS alarms carried by FDNY members

Emitts loud shrieking noise (110 DB) when triggered - designed to detect if person has not moved in last 30 secs

Starts by emitting buzzing noise which grows in intensity if not reset. Reset by motion which can lead to
some strange gyrations on the fireground as FF jump up and down or "shake their ooty" to reset the device

Also if device if covered up by body or debris the sound will be more in nature of buzzing sound than the loud
shriek.....



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 

Thanks for the info. I think you are probably right about the buzz.

I looked into EMP phenomena and could find nothing about this phenomenon that was associated with a ground level or underground level nuclear detonation. Everything that I read about required the involvment of the ionosphere in some way.

EMPs are caused when nuclear detonations occur above the ionosphere, forcing charged particles from the ionosphere down to ground level where they overload electrical power lines or any unshielded electronic devices. The notion of an EMP on 9/11 seems like a non-starter to me, unless I hear some new detail about EMPs that I haven't read about.

The business of the North Tower leaning prior to collapse, is a story that seems to have been reported by police sources and to have been seen by helicopter pilots flying near it. If the entire tower was leaning, that would point strongly toward damage at a level much lower than the plane impact. That would back up witness claims of explosions in the building, particularly in the sub levels.

edit on 29-11-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   
I keep telling everyone but it just falls on deaf ears. On 9/11 the towers were attacked using a multitude of systems, this is why they cannot pin down what happened. Everyone is correct, there were bombs, planes thermite, and so forth. If you cannot identify what happened you cannot easily identify who did it.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by TheMindWar
 

I agree with what you are saying.

This is also why I think that it is likely that depleted uranium demolition charges were used on the building. I have no doubt whatsoever that the US military has them and I think I know enough about the mindset of these people to be confident that they would use what's in the toolbox, particularly if depleted uranium shaped charges gave them more penetrating bang for the buck.

They might get away with using ten percent less explosives than they would need if depleted uranium were not used, particularly on the core columns.

The type of cancer you get from asbestos fibres embedded in your lungs has a long incubation period, sometimes thirty or forty years. There is at least one 9/11 EMT who was diagnosed with mesothelioma only three years after 9/11.

I don't know the details of her case. She may have been exposed to asbestos fibres as a child, and diagnosing this kind of cancer with certainty requires specialized tests that I don't know were done on her.

I said it earlier in the thread, but it bears repeating, that epidemiology will probably tell the true tail of what caused all the illnesses among 9/11 responders.

If depleted uranium were definitely tied to the event, it would be a massive blow to the US government, and particularly to the Bush administration alumni. This, if true, is a secret that nobody would want to get out.
edit on 29-11-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 



This is also why I think that it is likely that depleted uranium demolition charges were used on the building. I have no doubt whatsoever that the US military has them and I think I know enough about the mindset of these people to be confident that they would use what's in the toolbox, particularly if depleted uranium shaped charges gave them more penetrating bang for the buck.


How many tines do you have to be told - THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS DEPLETED URANIUM SHAPED
CHARGES !!!

Never have been, never will be......

There are depleted uranium tank shells designed to defeat armour by kinetic energy. Because uranium is
very dense does not lose velocity and the high density allows it to concentrate energy

Besides uranium is radioactive, would have left traces. Haz Mat teams were crawling all over the the scene for
months looking for radiation



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
How many tines do you have to be told - THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS DEPLETED URANIUM SHAPED
CHARGES !!!


You tell me.

www.freepatentsonline.com...


1. A shaped charge Blasting Device comprising a cylindrical charge of detonating explosive, a cavity disposed in one end of said charge, said cavity being in the shape of a cone, and a metal liner disposed in said cavity, said liner comprising depleted uranium.


Here's another patent description for a process of introducing particulate depleted uranium into copper (and other metal) shaped charge liners. Such liners have been manufactured and tested and found to be more efficient than liners of copper, for example.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Patent 4,592,790
Globus June 3, 1986
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Method of making particulate uranium for shaped charge liners

Abstract

A process for the production of depleted uranium metal particles comprising heating depleted uranium metal to red heat, rapidly chilling the heated metal, grinding the resulting brittlized metal to form powder size particles, annealing the particles and coating the particles with silver, copper, or lead, wherein the grinding and annealing are carried out in an inert argon atmosphere. The invention also contemplates the resulting depleted uranium metal powder, compositions containing the same as well as the liners for shaped charges formed therefrom.

. . . .

After annealing, but prior to removal of the powder from the inert argon gas atmosphere, the inert gas is drawn off so as to provide a high vacuum atmosphere. Under maintenance of this high vacuum, silver or its equivalent, i.e. copper or lead, is vapor deposited onto the particles of depleted uranium metal. This is carried out while the uranium powder is maintained in an agitated state, as for instance, by slow tumbling and ensures the uniform, even deposition of the metal (silver) coating on the individual uranium particles. This has the effect of rendering the uranium powder inert to the atmosphere and facilitates its further processing by the conventional metal powder treatment techniques. The danger of oxidation of the uranium metal by exposure to the atmosphere is avoided as is any possibility of the generation and release of low level radiation.


This last patent description is well worth reading in detail. It gives a good idea of the variety of ways it would be possible to conceal the use of depleted uranium charges even from the people who were using them.

I'm absolutely certain that such charges exist. I'm all but certain that they were used on 9/11.


edit on 29-11-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
In Joseph Heller's Catch 22, one of the characters is a war time racketeer operating in the black market selling military equipment, if I recall. One of his scams was to buy up tons of surplus cotton balls from the Army's medical supplies ( . . . or to steal them perhaps! It's been years since I read the novel). He then has the balls dipped in chocolate and makes a killing selling the concoction as candy. Hello Donald "Aspartame" Rumsfeld.

This, in essence is what is going on in the world today with depleted uranium.

Hucksters. Hucksters. Hucksters are trying to find uses for it. It does have very useful properties. It has one big drawback though. It's poisonous!!!!

Since George W. Bush was elected, the US government has been all about hucksterism. It's all a scam. It's all a fraud. It's all a rip-off. Everywhere you look.

One of the keys to understanding 9/11 is that it is an exercise in hucksterism.

All politics since 9/11 has been of the same sort, unadulterated hucksterism. . . . Obama's birth certificate. Another fraud! The banker bailouts. The bonuses. etc., etc., etc.

Wake up America, you're being played like fools.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
I forgot to include a link to the second patent abstract, above. Here it is.

www.patents.com...

Here is a press report dated May 14, 1986, about the granting of the patent.

www.highbeam.com...


United-Guardian Inc. (NASDAQ: UNIR) announced today that the U.S. Patent Office has granted the company Patent No. 4,592,790 covering a method for producing shaped charges capable of enormous destruction in their ability to penetrate even heavy armor.

Originally developed for perforating oil and gas wells, this new "super perforator" is capable of penetrating several feet of solid concrete or armor plate almost a foot thick.…
edit on 29-11-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Here in tabular form, Chemistry Figure 1, is the USGS breakdown of what was found in the dust from the WTC.

The methodologies used to arrive at these findings are explained at the following link. Suffice it to say that a number of dust samples from different parts of ground zero and from other locations in lower Manhattan were were gathered to arrive at an overall representative sample of the WTC dust.

pubs.usgs.gov...


On the evenings of September 17 and 18, the field crew collected samples of dust and airfall debris deposits from 33 outdoor locations within a 1-kilometer radius of the WTC; this sampling occurred after a major rainstorm on September 14. Two samples of indoor dust deposits unaffected by rainfall, and two samples of material coating a steel beam in the WTC debris close to Ground Zero were also collected.




One of the interesting things about this list and other more detailed expositions of what was found in the dust of the WTC, issued by the USGS, is that they are not exhaustive and complete.

Don't get me wrong. They went a country mile for America in publishing what they did publish.

However, they themselves acknowledge that their study is not the whole story. (All emphases in the following are mine.)

pubs.usgs.gov...


The trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment. Further detailed SEM studies of dust and beam coating samples are needed to develop a better understanding of the residences of metals in the samples. A detailed review of the materials used in construction, and the elemental composition of materials commonly found in office buildings would also be useful to understand more completely the potential sources and compositions of the materials in the dusts.


Let us take one of the elements from Chemistry Figure 1, above and do our best, as laymen, to come to a better understanding of what the table is or is not telling us about the element in question.

Let's look at the element Uranium.

The first thing to note about it, on the list in the table, is that the exact isotope or, nuclide, of uranium found in the WTC dust is not given.

What are isotopes and nuclides? They are basically different names for the same thing. A good explanation is given on the following Wikipedia page.

en.wikipedia.org...


Isotopes are variants of atoms of a particular chemical element, which have differing numbers of neutrons. Atoms of a particular element by definition must contain the same number of protons but may have a distinct number of neutrons which differs from atom to atom, without changing the designation of the atom as a particular element. . . .

A nuclide is an atom with a specific number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example carbon-13 with 6 protons and 7 neutrons. The nuclide concept (referring to individual nuclear species) emphasizes nuclear properties over chemical properties, while the isotope concept (grouping all atoms of each element) emphasizes chemical over nuclear.


In very basic terms an element like uranium can have several isotopes or nuclides and still be considered uranium.

There are three, naturally occurring nuclides of uranium. They are listed in this useful article on uranium from Wikipedia.

en.wikipedia.org...


In nature, uranium is found as uranium-238 (99.2742%), uranium-235 (0.7204%), and a very small amount of uranium-234 (0.0054%).


The average person, knowing this, would say to himself,

"Well, they must have found Uranium 238 in the WTC dust, since that is by far the most common naturally occurring nuclide of uranium. There is a 99.2742% chance that they found U238. Hey, they might have found all three nuclides in naturally occurring amounts."

That takes us back to the table. How much uranium did they find in the dust?

The table is a little hard to read, but it would appear that uranium was found in the WTC dust in an amount between 7 and 10 parts per million (ppm). One commentator I read on the web put the figure at 7.75 ppm. He represents himself as a nuclear physicist, but since I am a layperson, I'm going to err on the side of caution and use the figure 7 ppm of uranium found in the WTC dust by the USGS study.

7ppm. Is that natural? Does everything contain 7ppm of uranium?

The short answer is no.

Antiques can be a source of small amounts of radiation because they were manufactured before the hazards of radioactive materials were well understood.

These figures are so called "vaseline" glass, which contain uranium as a colorant and glow a yellowy green under black light.

epa.gov...



Although uranium can be found almost everywhere in trace amounts, even in our bodies, the amounts for naturally occurring environmental uranium are significantly below 7ppm and more in the range of 1 to 3 or 4 ppm or even lower ppm.

Here is a list of some common building materials and their naturally occurring amounts of uranium, thorium and potassium in parts per million (ppm) and also in amounts of radiation released per gram.

It is the amount of uranium in parts per million, in which we are interested.

www.physics.isu.edu...



If you put a million "parts" of each one of these materials into a blender and then checked the blended mixture to see how many ppm of uranium were present, in the mixture, it should equal the total number of ppm in the table, divided by the number of materials in the table, as follows:

total ppm of uranium in mixed materials / number of materials = ppm of uranium in mixture

Total ppm in mixed materials (35.65), divided by number of materials (10) equals ppm of uranium in mixture (3.565).

If the dust of the WTC were composed of these ten building materials and if, as the USGS says, the WTC dust contained 7 ppm of uranium, then we could say that there is almost exactly twice as much uranium in the WTC dust as there should be.

At that point we could legitimately, and with serious concern, ask,

"Where did the extra uranium come from?"

Did it come from depleted uranium shaped charges for example?

We know that uranium exists in trace amounts in the environment and in building materials and human bodies, but the trace amounts are much less than 7 ppm.

Where did the extra uranium come from?

But of course the number crunching above is based on an artificial situation. In reality there would be more of some materials than others in the mix and this would alter the ppm of uranium present.

Let's look at the table again.

Clay brick, at 8.2 ppm and "By-product" gypsum, at 13.7 ppm, if present in sufficient quantities might act to boost the ppm of uranium in the mixture of building materials up to 7ppm.

That situation would serve to account for the USGS findings in a way that implied no unusual circumstances at all with regard to the presence of uranium.

Was there a lot of clay brick in the WTC, or rather, I should ask, was there clay brick in the WTC in sufficient quantities to overwhelm the volume of concrete and other building materials plus other environmental sources of uranium, as the predominent factor determining the amount of uranium in the WTC dust?

I think not. I think there was little clay brick in the WTC. Undoubtely some, but my guess would be that clay brick usage in the WTC was very small, practically negligible, when compared to other materials to be found there.

Consequently, clay brick probably had almost no effect on the ppm figure for uranium in the WTC dust, as determmined by the USGS.

What about "By-product Gypsum" (at 13.7 ppm) and what the heck is by-product gypsum anyway, and, most important of all, was it used extensively in the WTC, . . . enough to make a significant difference in the ppm total for uranium?

It turns out that those questions lead to an interesting little niche of information that is not well known by the general public.

In our table of building materials, above, there is listed "Dry wallboard" (1.0 ppm uranium), "By-product gypsum" (13.7 ppm uranium) and "Natural gypsum" (1.1 ppm uranium).

Most people are quite familiar with "Dry wallboard". Basically it consists of sheets of what looks like plaster sandwiched between layers of paper. It is a substitute for lath and plaster construction in the finishing of interior walls in houses and is screwed into sheet metal (formerly wooden) "studs" to create the wall surfaces of rooms. The hardened substance in the middle of the paper is gypsum.

I haven't consulted experts but I am assuming that "Natural gypsum" is the powdered form of dry wall gypsum. This would be used to make old fashioned "plaster of paris" and other materials applied with trowels or poured into molds.

"By-product gypsum" is the most interesting of the three.

www.enotes.com...


Gypsum produced as a byproduct of the flue-gas desulfurization process at electric power plants provides an economical, environmentally sound raw material for making high-quality gypsum board.


In other words "by-product gypsum" comes out of the smoke stacks of coal fired power plants.

The relatively (within the terms we are discussing) high quantity of uranium found in it (13.7 ppm) originates in the coal. (See link below.)

pubs.usgs.gov...

Now we know what "by-product gypsum" is and we know that it is used to make wallboard. Surely, there was a lot of wall board in the WTC?

Some people might say no. The WTC was mostly "open concept" office space with few partitions and consequently not much wallboard, certainly less per square foot of floor space than the average bungalow.

Others might say, "You're wrong. There were gypsum containing ceiling tiles, a significant amount of gypsum wallboard for interior rooms and a massive amount of gypsum board used as fire retardant material lining the core of the building.

It is true. There was a large amount of gypsum board used in the core of the buildings as fire retardant material, lining the walls and covering girders.

How much wallboard was used in the towers? Here is what one knowledgeable poster on a physics forum said about the materials used to build the towers. (Emphasis mine.)

www.physforum.com...


I have certainly never seen a detailed calculation of the mass of WTC 1 or 2; but there are plenty of references on the web for the weight of the materials used in the construction of the WTC Towers. For example, the weight of structural steel used in each Tower is generally reported to be 96,000,000 kg and the weight of concrete is said to be 48,000,000 kg per Tower. I have also seen the weight of aluminum cladding reported to be 2,000,000 kg, and the weight of wallboard quoted at 8,000,000 kg per Tower, giving a total weight of structural materials of 154,000,000 kg per Tower.


The above quoted figure for gypsum wallboard in each tower is obviously not exact. I don't even know where the poster got the figure. But if it were accurate and if the figure for concrete were accurate, it would mean that the mass of concrete in the towers was six times the mass of the wallboard. The ppm uranium of the concrete could be multiplied by six, added to the ppm uranium of the "by-product gypsum" and the result divided by seven to give a ppm of the mixture that is still less than 7 ppm uranium in the WTC dust, determined by the USGS.

And that is not including other materials that would dilute the ppm uranium even further.

But it gets worse.

According to an overview of the gypsum building products industry published by The Athena Sustainable Materials Insititute in Canada,(Page 2-9)

www.athenasmi.org...


Use of by-product, chemical gypsum is new to the North American continent. In the U.S., by-product gypsum represented only 3.6% of the total gypsum supply in 1994.


And this:

www.gypsum.org...


Prior to the 1980s, virtually all the gypsum used to manufacture gypsum board and gypsum plaster was natural gypsum. While the technology to create synthetic ("by-product"-ipsedixit note) gypsum was developed in Europe in the 1930s and scattered references to its existence are found in industry records prior to World War II, the wholesale use of synthetic gypsum to manufacture gypsum board did not occur in the U.S. until the 1980s.


Thus the likelihood of "by-product" gypsum at 13.7 ppm uranium even coming into the calculations at the outset is diminished to near zero.

Upgrades of fire protection, in later years may have included "by-product" gypsum boards at 13.7 ppm uranium, but these would have been in the minority compared to standard gypsum wallboards rated at 1.0 ppm uranium.

Overall, the mathematics is against by-product gypsum boards at 13.7 ppm of uranium having enough of an effect to lift the ppm uranium of the WTC dust even over the level of 5 ppm uranium and that is leaving a lot of diluting factors out of the calculations.

We have already found, earlier in the thread, that Boeing 757s and 767s never used depleted uranium as balancing weights. So. . . .

Where did the extra uranium come from?
edit on 6-12-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 



The table is a little hard to read, but it would appear that uranium was found in the WTC dust in an amount between 7 and 10 parts per million (ppm). One commentator I read on the web put the figure at 7.75 ppm. He represents himself as a nuclear physicist, but since I am a layperson, I'm going to err on the side of caution and use the figure 7 ppm of uranium found in the WTC dust by the USGS study.

7ppm. Is that natural? Does everything contain 7ppm of uranium?

The short answer is no.


The longer answer is yes....

Many rocks contain trace amounts (in some cases more than trace) of uranium

One of them is granite


Granite is a natural source of radiation, like most natural stones. However, some granites have been reported to have higher radioactivity thereby raising some concerns about their safety.

Some granites contain around 10 to 20 parts per million of uranium. By contrast, more mafic rocks such as tonalite, gabbro or diorite have 1 to 5 ppm uranium, and limestones and sedimentary rocks usually have equally low amounts. Many large granite plutons are the sources for palaeochannel-hosted or roll front uranium ore deposits, where the uranium washes into the sediments from the granite uplands and associated, often highly radioactive, pegmatites. Granite could be considered a potential natural radiological hazard as, for instance, villages located over granite may be susceptible to higher doses of radiation than other communities. Cellars and basements sunk into soils over granite can become a trap for radon gas, which is formed by the decay of uranium. Radon can also be introduced into houses by wells drilled into granite. Radon gas poses significant health concerns, and is the number two cause of lung cancer in the US behind smoking.
.


The entire south face of WTC 7 was covered by red granite panels






top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join