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

page: 8
1
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   

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


That is a good point and worth looking into. Personally, I would be surprised if the granite in WTC 7 were even enough to raise the ppm uranium of WTC 7's dust alone, to 7 ppm, but that could only be determined by finding how much ppm uranium that particular granite contained and then doing the math with regard to it and the other materials and contents of WTC 7. When the twin towers enter the calculations, I think the figure of 7 ppm uranium would be out of the question.

But you have made a good legitimate point, which begs further examination.

One reservation that could be raised almost immediately though, is the question of how much granite was turned into dust? Photos of the rubble of WTC 7 show a lot of the granite still intact. If very little of it turned to dust, then it would have a negligible effect on the ppm uranium of the WTC dust.

s10.invisionfree.com...

edit on 6-12-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Uranium isn't just going to be in granite in the building. It will also be in the sand used to make concrete. Manhattan island also happens to be humungous sandpile, made from sediment coming down the Hudson river. The country rock from which this sediment comes is made up of granite, as well as other primarily granitic rocks. It is not surprising that a relatively robust amount of Uranium is found in the composition of material analyzed from the 9/11 debris.

And if there were "mini-nukes" used in 9/11, there would be other much more exotic, short-lived radioactive nuclides from the explosion. Yet there has been no sign of such fallout. As I understand it, cities such as NYC have radioactivity monitoring. If there had been a nuclear blast, or abnormally elevated radiation from a dirty bomb or bombs, this would have been detected.

As for the rapidity of people getting lung ailments, did you see the pictures of people with faces covered by silica dust and such? The intake was way above the normal exposure levels for people working with asbestos and other related micro-particles. It should be no surprise that people -- particular first responders -- have gotten major lung elements. What is shocking is that in the days that followed 9/11 Christie Todd-Whitman and her EPA said there were no environmental concerns in lower Manhattan.

As for explosives being used in 9/11 I have seen no good evidence for them; however, non-explosive, high-heat burning, steel cutting, thermite charges do seem to be a possibility. In some 9/11 video I saw, there was a connection made between businessmen involved with the WTC and a company that made thermite nails. It seems thermite nails would be a quick way to put in place a lot of thermite charges; however, I don't know what their heat of combustion is or whether they would have to be wired to ignite.

But attempting to make a big thing about low-level amounts of uranium seems to be barking up the wrong tree, and undercutting one's own credibility -- should you care to be taken seriously by those who are not conspiracy-theory extremists.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   

MrInquisitive
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Uranium isn't just going to be in granite in the building. It will also be in the sand used to make concrete. Manhattan island also happens to be humungous sandpile, made from sediment coming down the Hudson river. The country rock from which this sediment comes is made up of granite, as well as other primarily granitic rocks. It is not surprising that a relatively robust amount of Uranium is found in the composition of material analyzed from the 9/11 debris.


The point I am making about the uranium is the amounts (ppm) involved. They are too high. Check the table of common building materials, including cement. Even the granite in WTC7 would never have the concentrations of uranium needed to lift the total ppm of the dust to over 7.

Granite can have very large concentrations of uranium but that granite isn't used in construction. It is used to extract the uranium.

On your other point about deposits, Lower Manhattan appears on this map, to be a Cambrian (limestone) outcrop.

3dparks.wr.usgs.gov...




Much of the modern landscape in Manhattan and the Bronx only has a thin veneer of soil developed after the most recent episode of glaciation.




Alluvial deposits (in grey) appear off the island.
edit on 18-3-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-3-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
1
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join