Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC's Hypothesis

BTW. This would be pretty easy to verify. Just look in the codes, see how many detectors there would have been per floor. Equate that to the amount of americium in detectors and whoola, we have our amount of radioactive source.

Valhal,

Do you have the IBC? We actually don't have one at work (I've been trying to get one but until we need to use it, we probably won't get it).

I think any code will do just to get a round-about-number. Don't you? We have BOCA. I'll take a look on Monday.

Well, for the most part they are not a danger unless they are exposed to fire, Griff. So, basically firefighters would be the ones endanger...not occupants on a daily basis.

Originally posted by Valhall
Well, for the most part they are not a danger unless they are exposed to fire, Griff.

But, wouldn't that be GZ? I mean, supposedly the fires burned for months right?

Also, we could figure out the amount of tritium that one would expect from the codes. From the amount of exit signs.

Originally posted by Valhall
By the way, it's nice to see some things never change, like you acting like a flaming jack-ass. Keep up the good work... and maintain the status quo.

Flaming jackass, or simply a little more informed before I try to debunk or mitigate something?

Besides, I'm not the only flaming jackass on this thread...

Originally posted by Valhall
Apparently you did. Good deal I was here to point you to it.

Moral of the story is 'come to class prepared or get schooled'. The big question here is elevated levels of tritium, not americanium. You have this thread goose chasing around smoke detectors.


[edit on 11-11-2007 by twitchy]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jfj123
Again, the info I posted show they do pose a danger. If you have other data showing my info is incorrect, please post it.

I'm not disputing that they don't pose a danger. What I am wondering is why they are not regulated? I guess it would have been better if I had said "significant danger". But, then again, I imagine cancer is pretty significant.

So, why no regulation of smoke detectors?

Good question. My suggestion would be to contact the EPA for an answer. I'm sure you can email the question. Let me know what they say.

Originally posted by twitchy

Moral of the story is 'come to class prepared or get schooled'. The big question here is elevated levels of tritium, not americanium. You have this thread goose chasing around smoke detectors.

[edit on 11-11-2007 by twitchy]

Actually he doesn't. We were determining all possible radiation sources and types. There are many questions surrounding the whole radiation found thing. Who tested for radiation? Where was it found? What instrument(s) were used for testing?
If you read the thread in that area, you would have realized that before shooting your mouth off. Of course, that is just my humble opinion

Actually she is. The thread title is Hydrogen bombs brought down... Tritium is a form of Hydrogen, Americanium from smoke detectors is off topic and misleading to folks who are new to the H-bomb theory. Elevated levels of Tritium is the most compelling physical evidence to support such a hypothesis.
As to exit signs, if you look into it, the Port Authority has already said that there were no tritium signs in the WTC.

"Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center"
T.M. Semkow, R.S. Hafner, P.P Parekh, G.J. Wozniak, D.K. Haines, L. Husain, R.L. Rabun, P.G. Williams
Presence of RL EXIT signs in the buildings would have implied large available source of tritium. We were informed by PANYNJ authorities that there were no tritium signs at the WTC, only photoluminescent ones (33). This is entirely consistent with our observations.

55 times the amount of tritium that was expected. There's only a couple things that would explain that kind of elevation in tritium, and smoke detectors aren't it. There might have been some vaseline glass in the WTC, but it doesn't further the research to dwell on it when the question of H-bombs is a question of tritium, not americanium, not uranium, not deuterium.
Pardon my tone, but Val should know better than to bring irrelevant data here, and I didn't like the way she was talking to Griff. My apologies.

twitchy,

You better stop your games.

I have only made a few posts in this thread and they were directed ONLY at the subject of radioactive levels...not at traces of elements. So don't twist my comments and try to make them into derailing comments. My comments were solely at the debate that was taking place to whether there are common items that can cause elevated radioactive levels.

Second - when did I say anything rude or confrontational to Griff?! I didn't. Almost all of my comments were directed to wizard who wants to deny that there would have been significant sources of radioactive material in the buildings. And by the way, I got involved in the discussion BECAUSE I DIDN'T LIKE HOW HE WAS TALKING TO ANOTHER MEMBER. Why in the world would you act like I was being disrespectful to Griff? I think I made one post to Griff and it was to state that the hazards of the smoke detectors are presented when they are exposed to fire...how is that mistreating Griff?

I don't have any ideas on the elevated tritium levels. I think it is a good issue to be discussed and I'm not waving it off as explainable. In the papers I have read (including the one you excerpted) it appears that there is no sound explanation for it. So that should pretty much shut down any further attempts you make at trying to charge me with setting up a "goose chase".

Originally posted by Valhall
twitchy,
You better stop your games.

What games would that be Val? Is that some kind of a threat? I don't care who you are or who your husband is, wrong is wrong, and hypocrisy is hypocrisy. I apologised for my tone, but on second thought, I retract that apology. You're derailing the thread and I don't care for it.
Americanium smoke detectors and Exit signs are a goose chase, is it intentional? Probably not, but it's certainly irrelevant. You, assumably having read the report I cited, know it's irrelevant to the OP.

No, it is not irrelevant.

There are a number of "evidences" presented by the OP. One of them is elevated radiation levels post-collapse.

There are common sources that can create elevated radiation levels. So, as intelligent human beings, we should keep that in mind for that singular point of possible evidence.

If you prefer to act as unintelligent obsessed human beings, you can feel free to continue to state that elevated radiation levels could only be caused by a hydrogen bomb.

It's your call.

[edit on 11-11-2007 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Valhall
you can feel free to continue to state that elevated radiation levels could only be caused by a hydrogen bomb.

Two words... elevated tritium.

You're still not listening.

Here is a data point:

Elevated radiation levels.

Here is another data point:

Elevated traces of the element tritium.

Those are two different points of possible evidence. They could be connected - THEY COULD NOT BE. In fact, they could be interconnected and the tritium not be at levels sufficient to explain the elevated radiation levels. One issue deals with radiation emission; one deals with physical testing of soil/water - chemistry. I have spoken to the former - I have nothing to assist in explaining the latter.

If the OP had been civil and open-minded enough to listen when a member is trying to assist in the knowledge generation concerning this topic as a whole, I most likely wouldn't have got involved at all. But as is typical of many theorists in this area, he chose to treat a bringer of information with derision and disrespect.

So, if my stepping in to provide support on information that is factual derailed this thread, blame it on the closed-minded behavior of the OP...and yourself, because the debate was on topic until you showed up and got accusatory and personal.

[edit on 11-11-2007 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Griff

Valhal,

Do you have the IBC? We actually don't have one at work (I've been trying to get one but until we need to use it, we probably won't get it).

I think any code will do just to get a round-about-number. Don't you? We have BOCA. I'll take a look on Monday.

Griff,

Sorry, I missed this question from you. What is the IBC and BOCA? Not familiar with those. Are these civil engineering standards or something? or are they some form of reference material on radioactive substances?

It isn't personal, and it isn't absolutely about you Val, it's about taking irrelevant data and speculating about it to the detriment of the H-bomb theory. Elevated Tritium is amungst many things, a signature of a nuclear demoltions device, but the thread is going off into Exit signs, smoke detectors, and wrist watches. Someone who is new to this material sees that, passes it all off as Americanium and Timex Watches, and the thread is consequently made useless. Of course there was elevated levels of radiation, in a modern structure that large, that's to be expected, but elevated radiation isn't the problem, tritium is. I'm not attacking you, I'm trying to make you understand that elevated radiation and 55 times the normal level of tritium are completely different animals. One is possibly indicative of an H-bomb, one is circumstantial, and misleading to people who don't know an isotope from a soap on a rope.
Nothing personal, honest. My apologies if I seem jackassish to you, but I can't in good conscience let what could be vital information to 9-11 research get relegated to wristwatches and exit signs.

Edit:

Originally posted by Valhall
the debate was on topic until you showed up and got accusatory and personal.

As to that, hello kettle, I'm pot.

[edit on 11-11-2007 by twitchy]

Originally posted by twitchy
Actually she is. The thread title is Hydrogen bombs brought down... Tritium is a form of Hydrogen, Americanium from smoke detectors is off topic and misleading to folks who are new to the H-bomb theory. Elevated levels of Tritium is the most compelling physical evidence to support such a hypothesis.
As to exit signs, if you look into it, the Port Authority has already said that there were no tritium signs in the WTC.

Yes thank you but I can read the thread title. Since you missed my point, I ask it again. How do we know there was an elevated level of Tritium? What type of device was used to find the Tritium? Where was the Tritium found? When was it found?

If you can answer the above questions, I can tell you why the radiation from the smoke detectors MAY be relevant.

Originally posted by Valhall
No, it is not irrelevant.

There are a number of "evidences" presented by the OP. One of them is elevated radiation levels post-collapse.

There are common sources that can create elevated radiation levels. So, as intelligent human beings, we should keep that in mind for that singular point of possible evidence.

If you prefer to act as unintelligent obsessed human beings, you can feel free to continue to state that elevated radiation levels could only be caused by a hydrogen bomb.

It's your call.

[edit on 11-11-2007 by Valhall]

Here is some interesting information:



So unless all the WTC's were retrofitted with photoluminescent exit signs AFTER 1992, then they didn't have them installed which means they had Radioluminescence exit signs (Tritium based).

I'm also wondering if anyone recently, has been to the site to look for traces of Tritium?

jf,

Here is the Lawrence Berkeley document detailing how the testing was done and the levels found. In addition it goes into the common sources, plane sources, etc.

repositories.cdlib.org...

Basically what it boils down to is:

1. PA says there were no tritium-containing exit signs,
2. If you add the possible tritium-containing sources of the planes to an estimate of tritium-containing watches...
3. You would have to assume at least 115 tritium-containing weapons (weapons with tritium-containing sights) were completely destroyed in order to get to the levels of tritium detected.

So, one would assume that additional sources might be involved and need to be investigated.

What's in smoke detectors? I once opened one to have a look and noticed a cool looking 'module' that had the radioactive symbol on it.

Originally posted by Valhall
jf,

Here is the Lawrence Berkeley document detailing how the testing was done and the levels found. In addition it goes into the common sources, plane sources, etc.

repositories.cdlib.org...

Basically what it boils down to is:

1. PA says there were no tritium-containing exit signs,
2. If you add the possible tritium-containing sources of the planes to an estimate of tritium-containing watches...
3. You would have to assume at least 115 tritium-containing weapons (weapons with tritium-containing sights) were completely destroyed in order to get to the levels of tritium detected.

So, one would assume that additional sources might be involved and need to be investigated.

Do you know when the exit signs were installed? If they were installed before 1992 then they were wrong and the signs did indeed contain Tritium.

I am wondering if what happened regarding the exit signs were as follows:
Tritium based exit signs were used because they were cheaper, but the punch list showed Phosphorescent signs were installed to satisfy the building requirements for the project. This happens a lot in construction especially during large projects.
After the WTC attacks, and the exit signs were investigated, I wonder if they just looked at the punch list and saw Phosphorescent signs and called it good. This of course is complete speculation on my part so please do not take it as my position of fact but merely a possibility.

The NIST report states that the 1993 bombing at the WTC led to a $250 million upgrade to safety systems including

LED exit signs for extra brightness and visibility through smoke conditions.

wtc.nist.gov...