Get Smart! Epispde 52

a reply to: twitchy

Tritium was found in minuscule amounts.

Tritium is that glow in the dark substance you see in watches, but also weapon sights, exit signs etc.

Far more likely, with the amount found that it was from those above sources, than it is from some sort of nuclear detonation.

Oh and to address your OP, explosives have shelf lives, I'm sure this little fact has been pointed out to you already, but any explosives pre installed in the 60's or even the 80's would not work 20 years later.

a reply to: Chadwickus
The notorious exit signs were known to have been removed during renovations long before 9-11. The entire site was littered with tritium, in the basement of building 6 for example, water samples were taken by the Department of Energy on 9/13 and they found tritium there as high as 55 times background readings. That's after a thorough decontamination that estimates as much as 4 million gallons of water being used on the site and not counting what would have been released and dispersed in gaseous form. That's just building six's tritium, mind you, let alone what was tested at the freshkills landfill MONTHS later. I won't even get into the samples collected and tested by the USGS on Sept. 17 and 18 that found cesium, uranium, thorium, barium, strontium, yttrium, rubidium, molybdenum, lanthanum, cerium, chromium and zinc... etc. ad nauseum. Strontium was detected in levels as high as 3000 ppm, and I don't think many watches or gun sights would explain that, would they?
As to your 'little fact' about explosives, I'm guessing you missed the discussion on page 4 of this thread?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: twitchy
No need to paraphrase.

In response to this:

Most demolition companies pre cut beams to make it easier for the building to come down. some 911 images :

You said this:

I would venture to guess that they typically wait until fire/rescue and retrieval operations are over with though, wouldn't you? If you take a look at your pics, those are emergency responders taken long before the Loizeaux crew started cutting beams and hauling off debris.

In response to this:

You seem pretty sure about that. Are you sure you know when those pictures were taken? Are you sure those are emergency responders and not comrades on a recovery mission? Are you sure no cutting had been done?

You said this:

I'm pretty sure pulling survivors out of rubble comes before standing on top of them to cut up core columns.

It's quite clear what you actually said.

You're right Phage, I totally said Aliens did it. Sigh.
20.Kh3... Check lol

a reply to: twitchy

This lab report states that the amount of tritium found was well below human concern..

e-reports-ext.llnl.gov...

ETA: So the built Semtex in the building, so what's this nonsense about tritium?

They used nukes and Semtex did they?

Right....

originally posted by: twitchy
samples collected and tested by the USGS on Sept. 17 and 18 that found cesium, uranium, thorium, barium, strontium, yttrium, rubidium, molybdenum, lanthanum, cerium, chromium and zinc... etc. ad nauseum.

The chemical makeup of the dust samples, although quite variable, reflects the chemical contributions of mate- rials used in building construction or found in buildings, such as glass fibers, concrete, gyspum wallboard, steel girders, wiring, ductwork, electronics, computers, paper , and many others

pubs.usgs.gov...

Exactly what you would expect to find!

a reply to: Chadwickus
We're quoting figures from the same report lol. It's all about perception I guess. How much Strontium do you reckon gives cause for 'human concern'? How about 30.7 ppm of Thorium on one girder, would that be cause for human concern? 7.57ppm of Uranium in girder coatings... it's not just tritium, it's a soup of isotopes that are far above beyond what was anticipated.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: twitchy
samples collected and tested by the USGS on Sept. 17 and 18 that found cesium, uranium, thorium, barium, strontium, yttrium, rubidium, molybdenum, lanthanum, cerium, chromium and zinc... etc. ad nauseum.

The chemical makeup of the dust samples, although quite variable, reflects the chemical contributions of mate- rials used in building construction or found in buildings, such as glass fibers, concrete, gyspum wallboard, steel girders, wiring, ductwork, electronics, computers, paper , and many others

pubs.usgs.gov...

Exactly what you would expect to find!

Yeah maybe at the Trinity test site in Nevada.

a reply to: Chadwickus
I'm saying it was a demolition, I have no idea what they used, but it sure as hell wasn't gussied up kerosene and oxygen starved office furniture.

files.abovetopsecret.com...
For just a minute, set aside all the presumption and take a good look at the pic on the left, does that look like the first fire related collapse of a steel framed high rise in the history of modern construction to you?

a reply to: twitchy

The EPA has set a maximum limit of 20 nanocurie.

The highest found at WTC was 3.57

You do the maths

a reply to: twitchy

Wow that picture is one of the most disingenuous photos I've seen in relation to 9/11 for some time.

How about posting the videos of both to compare instead of a cherry picked photos?

Sudan Nuclear test (did you even know which test the photo came from?)



WTC collapse



Listen to the narration..

So many lies from "truthers"

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: twitchy

The EPA has set a maximum limit of 20 nanocurie.

The highest found at WTC was 3.57

You do the maths

Yeah I hate 'maths', but ok let's do some. 4 million gallons of water minus tritium devided by gaseous dispersal and add that number to the same DOE officials that earlier that year had maps of Iraq laid out at the energy policy meeting that year, then add cesium, uranium, thorium, barium, strontium, yttrium, rubidium, molybdenum, lanthanum, cerium, chromium and zinc and you still end up with a headache at 5am.

a reply to: Chadwickus

Disingenuous? I'm sorry you feel that way. 'Lies'... 'truthers'... I was wondering when you were going to start that crap. Maybe you missed the question, so I'll ask it again... does that look like the first fire related collapse of a steel framed high rise in the history of modern construction to you?

a reply to: twitchy

You brought the photo.

In the video he states the dome of the explosion reached a diameter of 5 miles.

And you're comparing the collapse of the WTC towers to that?

Yeah. Lie fits.

I have other words, but T&C's prevent me from using them.

I think we know where you're at now with this thread, and I'll bow out now.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: twitchy
I have other words, but T&C's prevent me from using them.

I have a few words as well, but honestly, just good ole fashioned decorum rather than T&C's keep them at bay generally for me. I have my moments though, and I thought it was a decent discussion right up until you pulled the 'lies' and 'truther' card. I'm not a 'truther', I'm just a regular joe. I'm not selling any books or producing the latest documentary on 9-11 for $19.95... I just don't like bullchit flavored kool aid, and if I can keep other people from drinking it, so much the better. Besides, what is the opposite of 'truther' you reckon? Always got a kick out of that particular ad hominem, what sickness of western propaganda could cause the word truth to become some kind of insult lol.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: twitchy
In the video he states the dome of the explosion reached a diameter of 5 miles.

LOL No, the dust cloud spread five miles. Yes I know what test the photo came from, I used it because it was a KT yield device and because of it's placement underground which produced a similar pyroclastic type dust we saw at WTC.

Source
A circular area of the desert floor five miles across was obscured by fast-expanding dust clouds moving out horizontally from the base surge, akin to pyroclastic surge...

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: twitchy
I think we know where you're at now with this thread, and I'll bow out now.

Ok sorry we couldn't make a love connection here. Another thread maybe.

a reply to: twitchy

That's just building six's tritium, mind you, let alone what was tested at the freshkills landfill MONTHS later. I won't even get into the samples collected and tested by the USGS on Sept. 17 and 18 that found cesium, uranium, thorium, barium, strontium, yttrium, rubidium, molybdenum, lanthanum, cerium, chromium and zinc... etc. ad nauseum. Strontium was detected in levels as high as 3000 ppm, and I don't think many watches or gun sights would explain that, would they?

Barium is used as an emitter in florescent lights

Barium oxide is used in a coating for the electrodes of fluorescent lamps, which facilitates the release of electrons

Care to guess how many such lights are in 2 110 story buildings...?

Strontium is used in TV and CRT tubes

Consuming 75% of production, the primary use for strontium is in glass for colour television cathode ray tubes. It prevents X-ray emission. All parts of the CRT must absorb X-rays. In the neck and the funnel of the tube, lead glass is used for this purpose, but this type of glass shows a browning effect due to the interaction of the X-rays with the glass. Therefore, the front panel has to use a different glass mixture, in which strontium and barium are the X-ray-absorbing materials. The average values for the glass mixture determined for a recycling study in 2005 is 8.5% strontium oxide and 10% barium oxide.[40] The amount of strontium used for the production of cathode ray tube is declining because the CRTs are replaced by other display methods. This decline has a significant influence on the mining and refining of strontium.

Rare earth (Yttrium, Lanthanum, etc) are used in CRT tubes

Care to guess how many CRT were in those buildings.......??

You lose .......... Again.......

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: twitchy

You lose .......... Again.......

I had no idea I was in a competition to begin with, but it's nice to see where your mindset is, blech. The only thing any of us have to 'lose' here is ignorance. Rather than quoting the source, as it is pretty extensive, I am going to post a link for you. You can read it, or you can ignore it, but it will help you understand a little more about the levels of different isotopes the DOE found and how the correlation of those levels indicate a fission reaction. I would quote the text here but it's pretty extensive and I'm curious to see what, if anything, you come back with from it...

donaldfox.wordpress.com...

a reply to: twitchy

I have no idea what they used, but it sure as hell wasn't gussied up kerosene and oxygen starved office furniture.

Where do people get these silly ideas?
How can you say the fires were O2 starved?
1. There was a huge hole in the building.
2. Rubber and plastic burns with thick black smoke.

If you don't believe me try it yourself.
Or watch this.

Look at the black smoke.
Jump to the 3:00 mark.
Is that fire O2 starved?

There are sooooo many lies being thrown about to support this conspiracy.

a reply to: samkent
A burning polystyrene flapping about in the breeze isn't really a comparison to an office building fire though is it? Yes plastics produce a black smoke, you flap it around in the breeze and low and behold, you're right it isn't starved for oxygen. You put it in a largely intact office building that has to draw air in through openings... well you're not going to agree with that though are you? Let's see your flapping piece of polystyrene melt structural steel in a giant heat sink frame and keep it at temperatures exceeding 1500 degrees for two months after it's been sprayed with 4 million gallons of water.

a reply to: twitchy

Let's see your flapping piece of polystyrene melt structural steel in a giant heat sink frame and keep it at temperatures exceeding 1500 degrees

Ah the ole heat sink myth again.
Jump to 1:45 and tell me just how far the white hot heat travels up the bar.

The thermal conductivity of steel is closer to rock than copper.
sandstone 1.7
stainless steel 16
low carbon steel 43
copper 401

You need to research beyond conspiracy sites.

a reply to: samkent

Well, that could possibly be the most pointless video I've ever seen. This genius pulls a piece of white-hot steel out of a furnace and then bends it...witchcraft!! Honestly, what is that supposed to prove? That you can heat steel then shape it? Sorry mate, but you're a few hundred years late with that marvellous discovery.....