Extremely powerful new clip by 911eyewitness

The element in smoke detectors tends to be Americium which is an alpha emitter.
It's fairly harmless unless consumed in some way as I believe it only gives off Alpha particles which can't even penetrate skin. You even need pretty specialised equipment to detect it, a normal geiger counter which detects Beta and Gamma won't even pick it up, you need a special kind of detecting sensor because the particles can't even penetrate the very thin glass of a Geiger Muller tube.
You would have to be in close proximity as well as it can't penetrate a certain amount of air even, I can't remember how much but i think we're talking centimetres, certainly not feet.
If ingested/inhaled though it is highly dangerous.

Yeah but here we dont talk about only one fire detector, we are talking about 2 of the biggest tower on earth and wtc7 full of fire detectors.

plus isnt anything in computer that is nasty for your healt, som exotic metal i dunno but i saw this 9/11 congress who took place in Toronto Canada 2 years ago i think. In that video of the conference, theres a lady who 1st speach and mention the quality of the air in manathan was especialy nasty during several weeks after 9/11. Im trying to find the link but my previous link on google video just dont work anymore.


Ok heres the link , i hope you like french subtitle lol
video.google.com...

Jenna Orkin talked around 12:00 everything that could posibly harm you from those tower, its a long video but make sure you dont miss the end of the vid , ppl can ask question and the firefighter from NY who made the trip up north is very very interesting.

[edit on 25-5-2006 by eagle eye]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Couple things.

1. There is such a thing called a Construction Nuke

2. The counterweights on a 757, 767 are Tungsten not Uranium

I'd like to hear more about this "Construction Nuke" Are you referring to Operation Plowshare?

Operati on Plowshare

By the way Boeing switched to Tungsten weights in 1994, purely as a public relations move. It would depend on when these planes were constructed as to what weights they had.

Just another piece of an already clear picture. If the thermite charges or flashes don't convince you then nothing ever will. Also look at footage just seconds before the first tower started to fall and you'll clearly see the ground shake and hear a massive explosion. The fact this is still debated is sickening.

Originally posted by YIAWETA
If the thermite charges...don't convince you then nothing ever will

What thermite charges? All I have seen is people inferring the use of thermite charges from this logical fallacy:


1 There is no way slamming passenger jets into the towers would cause them to collapse

therefore

2 They must have been brought down by controlled demolition

however

3 Conventional explosive charges would not explain the way the buildings collapsed

therefore

4 They must have used thermite as well

or it's more sci-fi alternative

5 They must used mini-nukes(!)


There is no reasonable evidence of thermite and there is no evidence that mini-nukes even exist, let alone were used to bring down the buildings.

On the evidence provided I do not think it was a controlled demolition (of the twin towers at least), and in fact going through all these threads has convinced my there wasn't.

I do however believe that much of the official story of 9/11 is BS, and that in some way the Bush administration or a key "ally" (Saudi Arabia?) was complicit in either the build up or covering up of the attacks.

Unlike some people I can maintain the position that the Bush administration are Very Bad People and there were no explosives in the twin towers....

Originally posted by YIAWETA
Just another piece of an already clear picture. If the thermite charges or flashes don't convince you then nothing ever will. Also look at footage just seconds before the first tower started to fall and you'll clearly see the ground shake and hear a massive explosion. The fact this is still debated is sickening.

One small problem. Thermite doesn't explode, it burns. The way that thermite damages metal is that it heats it to the melting point, this takes time. You are not going to see just a flash, you are going to see a bright white light for a duration of at least several seconds. This is the reason that thermite wouldn't be practical for demolitions. The flashes you see are transformers, junction boxes and maybe even lighting ballasts.

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
All I have seen is people inferring the use of thermite charges from this logical fallacy:

Having argued demolition for a while myself, I can say with 100% certainty that if this is all you've seen, then you haven't looked very hard.

You've confused arguments, I would wager, because you don't really understand them.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You've confused arguments, I would wager, because you don't really understand them.

Or perhaps it's because there isn't a single argument. The people who believe the buildings were taken down by something other than the planes being flown into them each have a different, often contradictory, hypothesis about what happened. I don't get the idea you think there were nukes used for example.

I've looked through the threads quite a bit (although I often flick through some of the more excruciating bits) and, in my opinion, the evidence for thermite used is very weak.

FatherLukeDuke,

Can you please explain what we see in the video (don't have the link at the moment) where it shows a molten metal dripping from the area of impact before the tower fell? It is not molten aluminum as molten aluminum is silver in color and this molten metal was glowing a bright orange (like how molten steel looks). That is one thing I can't ignore.

Also, how are pools of molten steel going to be in the basement for weeks due to fire alone? These two anomolies are what makes me believe thermite (or some varient) was used.

Edit: Not sure if I believe the mini-nuke theory. Also, the differing theories are there because for one, there are lots of gaps in the official story and people are just trying to fill in the gaps. With several people, obviously there is going to be several different theories. Just because there are different theories, doesn't negate the fact that the holes still exist in the official theory.

[edit on 5/26/2006 by Griff]

[edit on 5/26/2006 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff
Can you please explain what we see in the video (don't have the link at the moment) where it shows a molten metal dripping from the area of impact before the tower fell? It is not molten aluminum as molten aluminum is silver in color and this molten metal was glowing a bright orange (like how molten steel looks). That is one thing I can't ignore.

Who says that molten aluminum is always silver in color? Who is to say that this might not be molten copper or some other metal?



Molten Aluminum



Molten Copper

Do you mean molten copper wires? Seams like a lot of copper to be running off the side of the building.

Is that aluminum at 1300 F or C?

Source: www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc

Please note the color of the aluminum that is poured on rusty steel. It's silver at 600C. That's 1112F. I'm willing to bet that the orange aluminum in your picture is at 1300C. Which far exceeds the temperature at the WTC.

Originally posted by Griff
Source: www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc

I'm willing to bet that the orange aluminum in your picture is at 1300C. Which far exceeds the temperature at the WTC.

If 1300C is exceeds the temperature at the WTC I guess it isn't molten steel then.

Melting Temperature of Steel

Originally posted by JIMC5499

If 1300C is exceeds the temperature at the WTC I guess it isn't molten steel then.

Melting Temperature of Steel

I guess you forgot what we were talking about? Thermite would exceed 1300C in localized spots. That's the whole point of this arguement. So, yes it could be molten steel running off the thermite reaction.

If thermite was used and I don't believe that it was, how much was used? It would take a hell of alot to have molten steel running all over the place.

I agree with you there. I'm not sure what my theories are of buildings 1 and 2. I can see points of view on both sides that I agree with.

BTW, go Steelers!!!!! I'm originally from the Pittsburgh area and go to the 'burgh lots. "Yins guys wanna go downto'n an get some pop an'at" The Pittsburgh people will get what that means. Take care.

[edit on 5/26/2006 by Griff]

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Or perhaps it's because there isn't a single argument.

Then why do you focus on one in your post that I've never seen and that's extremely weak in comparison to just about all the others I have seen? My point was that you weren't being fair.

I've looked through the threads quite a bit (although I often flick through some of the more excruciating bits) and, in my opinion, the evidence for thermite used is very weak.

Check out this page. It compares a thermite reaction with molten steel/iron seen running out of the corner of WTC2 shortly before it collapsed.

How can we tell it wasn't aluminum? Because at the temperatures in the WTC from fire alone, aluminum wouldn't have been anything but silvery gray:



Professor Steven Jones' experiments with molten aluminum as per Greening's theories:



As Griff pointed out, that wouldn't make the stuff running out of the side of the building fire-melted aluminum. And most everyone on any side has sense enough to realize and agree that the hydrocarbon fires in those buildings could not have melted the steel.

And yet it appears to be steel coming from WTC2. That's an indication of thermite. The lack of explosive bursts as WTC2 began to collapse, is also an indication of thermite.

It still hasn't been established that the fires could have done the job to sufficiently weaken the structures in addition to what the impacts had done anyway. The fires would've had to have done over 4x the damage of the impacts to the structural columns on any given floor for that one floor to collapse. And yet we have no videos or photos of enough "buckling" or anything else to indicate this ever happened. We would've seen it. The cores remained standing in both buildings after the rest fell. So we would've seen messed up perimeter columns. We didn't.

And yet we see what is apparently molten steel, when there shouldn't have been any, and it looks exactly like a thermite reaction was going on at WTC2's corner there. I think you should at least have some information to consider now, Luke.

[edit on 26-5-2006 by bsbray11]

If it was a controlled demolition, wouldn't it have taken a while to get all of the explosives or whatever material it was, in and set up ? How would no one have not noticed anything out of the ordinary ? I don't get that. Where were the charges when they went off ?.. corners of offices ? How do you not notice that the "maintenance guy" or who ever left something behind ?... Nothing about the whole thing sits right in my mind. Too many things just don't jive.

Ok, Ive watched this blurry video for the third time, maybe it's just blurry on my PC. I don't not see the molten metal pouring out the sides of the building that is being talked about, can someone reference it for me.

It amazes me how many people can make definative statements on so many topics here at ATS with such inconclusive video/photographic/ audio evidence. Just for once I would love to have a crisp clean picture of an event to talk about.
Is it just me or does the narrator have a weird tempo with his words?

Sorry, got off track there. The video offers no actual proof for their claims of planned explosions nor any evidence for a thermo nuclear device other than there were sheets of paper left unburned by the fire? It's not as if every floor in the WTC was burning. Of course some papers and other objects were forced out with the compression of air when the towers collapsed, how is that evidence of a thermo nuclear device like the video claims?

Like the posts just above me I have asked on other threads just exactly how and when would these supposed demo charges have been placed and exactly how many charges per floor in pounds and how many in number per floor would be needed to achieve the results claimed. No one has ever come forth with satisfactory explanations.

It seems strange to me with all the people in the WTC, the level of security there (after the 1st WTC attack) that no one saw anything out of the ordinary in regards to said supposed demo charges. I must assume that the placed demo charge theory is either:

A. They were placed there well before 9/11 covertly, just waitng to be used the day the planes struck. or

B. They were placed there the day of 9/11 during the evacuation of the towers.

Either way is seems very odd that no one ever saw them being placed. Even though there were tens of thousands of people each day who would have mentioned anything suspicious, nothing was reported, nor discovered. Sporadic flashes of light and unburned pieces of paper do not make for compelling evidence of planned demolition.


Occam's Razor

Man how many times do we have to re-hash all the stuff that's been debated to death on ATS? Go through some of the 9-11 thread here on ATS and all your questions will be answered in detail...

So in a nutshell....

There were power downs in the buildings the weeks prior to 9-11.
Bomb sniffing dogs were removed the week before 9-11.
G.W. Bush's brother was on the board of the security company in charge of the WTC, United Arlines and the DC airport.

With help on the inside it would not have been that hard to rig the buildings.

This info is out there, please do some research so we can move on, not keep running on the spot with the same questions...