Study concludes explosives used on 911

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

The reason USGS found high rates of thorium and other by products of nuclear fission is because nuclear fission had taken place there.

REALLY Everyday products containing radioactive MATERIALS

YOUR as bad as informer YOU don't check things do you

a reply to: Salander

By your logic.....

Why would a supper secret unconventional nuclear bomb with unseen powers still create thorium?

Stupid logic!

a reply to: Salander

Say the atomic mass of uranium is 230 something.

Say the atomic mass of thorium is also 230 something.


A nuclear bomb releases power by splitting an atom with an atomic mass around 230 something. Say uranium?

The smallest newly created atom likely to result is Germanium. Atomic mass 70 something.

The largest newly created atom to likely result is samarium. Atomic mass 150 something.


How in the heck is a nuclear bomb roughly splitting uranium 235 atoms in half going to create any measurable amount of thorium 232?

Sorry. To be correct. How is splitting uranium 235 through fission going to result in any DETECTABLE Thorium?

a reply to: pteridine

The Thorium data comes from footnotes from Jeff Prager's ebook "America Nuked". USGS conducted the survey on September 17 & 18 2001.

Prager also offers the testimony of Sergeant Matt Tartaglia of the Perkasie PA Fire Company #1. By 2005 Tartaglia's teeth were falling out and he soon died of radiation poisoning. He described how radiation contamination protocol was in effect when he worked at GZ.

a reply to: firerescue

Yes, and thorium is also formed by decay of uranium. The interesting part is that as USGS crew collected samples from 35 sites within 1KM radius of GZ, on one girder sample they found thorium at 6 times higher than the lowest level recorded in those sites.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

The Thorium data comes from footnotes from Jeff Prager's ebook "America Nuked". USGS conducted the survey on September 17 & 18 2001.

Prager also offers the testimony of Sergeant Matt Tartaglia of the Perkasie PA Fire Company #1. By 2005 Tartaglia's teeth were falling out and he soon died of radiation poisoning. He described how radiation contamination protocol was in effect when he worked at GZ.

Thorium is not a fingerprint of a nuclear explosion. It is a legacy contaminant in many large cities that had gas street lighting. Chicago is loaded with it from a thorium extraction company from the 1890's that disposed of the sandy waste from their process by using it as fill. NYC has a site that was from a company extracting rare earths and leaving the Thorium or washing it down the sewers.
Sgt Tartaglia is one case and there would have been thousands had a nuclear bomb gone off. He could have been poisoned elsewhere; Am-241, a radioactive element, is used in smoke detectors.
Did Prager ever explain why there was no shockwave, radiation, or fallout or how the collapse started at the impact point? He can't.

a reply to: Salander

What nuclear bomb works through radioactive decay?

Nuclear bombs work through fission!

The process of induced nuclear fission is different than half life radioactive decay, and will result in different elements. I couldn't say results in fission products because half life radioactive decay results in decay products.

PROVE the nuclear reaction used to create nuclear explosions results in Thorium!

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: firerescue

Yes, and thorium is also formed by decay of uranium. The interesting part is that as USGS crew collected samples from 35 sites within 1KM radius of GZ, on one girder sample they found thorium at 6 times higher than the lowest level recorded in those sites.

What samples are you talking about?

Background radiation or sampling contamination through swipes.

A large building just collapsed, turned much of the building material containing natural occurring radioactive elements into dust, yes the swipe samples are going to collect more dust with natural occurring radioactive elements for higher radiation readings.

www.cdc.gov...
What building materials contain radioactive material?

Some building materials contain low levels of radioactive material.Building materials that are made up of sandstone, concrete, brick, natural stone, gypsum, or granite are most likely to emit low levels of radiation.

Radioactive materials in sandstone, concrete, brick, natural stone, gypsum, and granite contain naturally-occurring radioactive elements like radium, uranium, and thorium.These naturally-occurring elements can break down or decay into the radioactive gas radon. Depending on the amount of these materials present, they may also cause small increases in radiation levels. Amounts (doses) of radiation in building materials depend on the type and amounts of materials used.

originally posted by: Salander
Are you aware of the rare cancers amongst those who worked on the pile, as they called it, Ground Zero? Is that a Freudian slip by the perps? Did you know that those cancers are virtually the same as the cancers found in survivors of Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

Cancers from radiation are caused by radiation. Unless you're trying to claim there's some sort of nuclear 'hushaboom' weapon that explodes with no radiation but still causes radiation induced disease (in some magical way), then your point fails on the lack of radiation after the collapse.

And it's not the only place. You might start with "how much overpressure does it take to break windows" or "how much overpressure does it take to strip the facade from a building" and note that you didn't see any of this happen. Either on the building that supposedly contained the 'nukes' or in the surrounding area. So now you've got a non-radioactive, no-residue tiny nuke that doesn't produce much in the way of heat, light, or overpressure. It's getting a bit strained.

a reply to: Bedlam

I'm going with observed phenomena. Check out the Zadroga Bill, championed by Jon Stewart.

The facts are that the sample of people who worked at GZ did have higher rates of cancers and other disease associated with radiation poisoning as seen at Chernobyl and Hiroshima. Let Occam influence the analysis of the data.

If you're really curious, you should check out Jeff Prager's work.

a reply to: Salander

How does a nuclear fission bomb produce thorium as a fission product? Trick question, it doesn't!

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Bedlam

I'm going with observed phenomena. Check out the Zadroga Bill, championed by Jon Stewart.

The facts are that the sample of people who worked at GZ did have higher rates of cancers and other disease associated with radiation poisoning as seen at Chernobyl and Hiroshima. Let Occam influence the analysis of the data.

If you're really curious, you should check out Jeff Prager's work.

Radiation does not imply a nuclear weapon. Jeff Prager is just taking advantage of the gullible to turn a quick profit.
Ask Prager to explain how a nuclear weapon started a collapse at the impact point....why there was no shockwave, fireball, gamma, or fallout. He should also be able to state where the device was placed and what the yield was.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Bedlam

I'm going with observed phenomena. Check out the Zadroga Bill, championed by Jon Stewart.

You have to understand WHY the phenomena occur. In the case of radiation poisoning, it requires radiation. There wasn't any. QED.

The facts are that the sample of people who worked at GZ did have higher rates of cancers and other disease associated with radiation poisoning as seen at Chernobyl and Hiroshima. Let Occam influence the analysis of the data.

If you're really curious, you should check out Jeff Prager's work.

If radiation poisoning requires radiation, and you had none, then there's another source for the cancers. That's so obvious it should not require statement.

I don't suppose you've considered that these people were exposed to a metric crapton of toxic aerosols from the crushing and burning of the building materials?

a reply to: pteridine

The other issues of no apparent blast effects, even though the device was supposedly inside the building comes to mind.

I would actually put nukers as further out on the rationality scale than death beamers.

originally posted by: Bedlam
I would actually put nukers as further out on the rationality scale than death beamers.

What about nano-nukes?

(don't try to steal my patent)

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Bedlam
I would actually put nukers as further out on the rationality scale than death beamers.

What about nano-nukes?

(don't try to steal my patent)

At some point, it becomes wildly irrelevant.

Having blown up a number of things in my salad days for fun and profit, there are some constant behaviors on the part of buildings that you're setting off charges in.

One, it doesn't take a whole lot of overpressure to make all the windows blow out. At about 0.5psi, most of the double paned windows go bye bye. That's not a lot.

Two, it's a characteristic of any nuke that you get a very sharply defined initial shock wave, that gives them that characteristic sound which I've only heard on recordings, but it's a sharp crack. The effects of that on windows are even larger for the average overpressure. So even a 'nanonuke', something like one of those sub-ton munitions they've been tinkering with, would easily broach them all. It didn't.

Three, another characteristic of a nuke is that the initial shock wave is followed by a negative pressure wave. That will generally put paid to the rest of the windows. But none of them broke except the ones broken where the planes went through, and of course during the collapse.

Four, building facades are generally not really attached for structural support. It only takes about 5psi overpressure to remove them. Yet you didn't see that either.

Five, no initial radiation. No residual radiation. No neutron activation. The W54 "Davy Crockett" was not a particularly efficient warhead and it strews crap for miles. When they decided against using W54s in battle, they removed the warheads and built them into ALICE packs, and stuck them by the dozens in my old stomping grounds in one of the old WSAs. The idea was, if the Rooskies came through the Fulda Gap, we'd all grab a few and go give our lives for God and Country setting them off there. Not so much to directly blow the Rooskies to hell (although that was often offered as a palliative for said life giving) but that the ground would be so hot no sane Rooskie would traverse the area. In addition, a ground burst offers up a lot of readily available loose material to be irradiated by the neutron flux from the weapon, making it temporarily radioactive as well. This is where 'fallout' comes from, but if you toggle one off on the ground or in a building, the 'fallout' is massive, as opposed to a nice airburst where the fireball has to suck material off the ground a half mile below. Yet, no activated materials, either.

Six, in general, the smaller the nuke, the worse the efficiency. Are there/were there backpack nukes, you betcha. Most of them were old W54s. Were there smaller nukes, you betcha. Sort of. More like a smaller backpack nuke instead of a suitcase. Or a footlocker. About 6" by 36". A husky guy could pack it for a ways, but they weighed about 120 pounds. Those use geometry warping instead of implosion, and they're even crappier in terms of spewing radioactive sludge everywhere.

What I'm not sure of is why a nuke even comes to mind. It's obvious that there weren't any overt blast effects inside the building. Why invoke one of the 'blastiest' types of explosives there is?

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: pteridine

The other issues of no apparent blast effects, even though the device was supposedly inside the building comes to mind.

I would actually put nukers as further out on the rationality scale than death beamers.

Yes, I have truncated the blast effects to "shock wave" because explaining why a nuke is not really a possibility is getting tedious.

a reply to: Bedlam

That's why I like your posts. You can take a goofy, throw away comment and science the s*** out if it so we all learn something.

I would give you applause if I could but I cant so you get this instead: