[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
9/11 See other 9/11 Articles Title: Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers Poster comment: Read the PDF link for better formatting and charts. Chose to believe what you want to believe but this paper presents facts rather than the space beams of Fetzer. Nuclear bombs are not needed to take down a building. They could have easily taken down all of Manhattan with one mini-nuke, but then everyone would know they did it. I really even shouldn't waste my time on this, but I get tired of the trolls pushing the absurd. 2 We do not need to endlessly discuss hypotheses that have been ruled out by empirical data. We will apply the modern scientific process in studying the hypothesis that mini-nuclear bombs were used to bring down the Towers. The WTC Mini-Nuke Hypothesis An hypothesis has been suggested that a small nuclear bomb was placed in each Tower and used to demolish the buildings on 9/11/2001. [Ref. 1 below.] We collect and analyze empirical evidence to find out whether or not the hypothesis is valid. Tritiated water tests: Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at the World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained (0.164±0.074) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L, respectively. These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure
http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf Tritium from a thermonuclear (fusion) bomb would be way above these trace levels of a few NANOcuries per liter. (A nanocurie = nCi, 1 billionth of a curie. That is a very tiny amount of radioactivity.) A major fusion reaction in hydrogen bombs is deuterium + tritium Helium + neutron. Many millions of curies of tritium are present in even a small thermonuclear (hydrogen) bomb. (Note that tritium can be generated during the blast from the reaction of neutrons on lithium deuteride.) Yet the observed tritium levels at GZ were in the billionth of a curie range. Note 3 that atomic or fission bombs are based on the fissioning of heavy elements such as uranium and plutonium, rather than the fusing together of light hydrogen isotopes (such as deuterium and tritium) in the hydrogen or fusion bomb. But to date, all known hydrogen bomb-explosions have been started (ignited) by fission bombs. Our technology is not yet sufficient to have a pure fusion device of any significant size we struggle to ignite small d-t pellets in a laser-bombardment environment. Indeed, this problem of igniting the fusion reaction explains why we do not yet have hydrogenfusion reactors producing power. Furthermore, the fission-fusion bomb is designed to release enormous amounts of energy by combining effects from fission and fusion -- see, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bomb . Note: controlled, even room-temperature pure fusion is possible using elementary particles known as muons, in muon-catalyzed fusion. See paper by the author in Nature 321: 127-133 (invited paper), also Rafelski and Jones in Scientific American, July 1987. The energy yields are not enough by muoncatalyzed fusion for commercial power generation (unfortunately) nor for a nuclear bomb (fortunately). The graphs below show that hydrogen-bomb testing boosted tritium levels in rain by several orders of magnitude. (Ref.: http://www.science.uottawa.ca/~eih/ch7/7tritium.htm ) 4 The data clearly demonstrate the large amount of tritium released due to hydrogen bombs, the first of which was tested in 1951. Thus, tritium is a tracer for hydrogen bombs, the smoking gun. Can proponents of the WTC-mini-nuke hypothesis explain how large releases of tritium did NOT happen on 9/11/2001? Mere trace amounts of Iodine-131 (produced in fission reactions) found in Hudson River sediments Sediment cores pulled from the Hudson River near the World Trade Center site just a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks contain a thin layer of metal-rich ash and pulverized debris. The top 3 cm of silt contained layers with unnaturally high concentrations of copper, strontium, and zinc from the towers, says Sarah D. Oktay, a geochemist
Oktay and her colleagues also found that the sediments contain small but measurable quantities of iodine-131, a human-made radioactive isotope with a half-life of about 8 days. Total iodine concentrations were actually lower in the [WTC] debris-filled layers, which means the source of the element probably isn't related to the attacks. Also, the iodine probably didn't leak from nuclear power plants upstream because other telltale radioactive isotopes didn't turn up. Instead, says Oktay, the iodinewhich is used in various medical treatments and sometimes carried home internally by patientsprobably entered the river through local sewage systems. The researchers report their findings in the Jan. 21 Eos. 5 So, Iodine concentrations were LESS in the upper debris layers associated with the WTC dust! And Iodine-131 (produced in fission reactions) was only found in very low-level trace amounts anyway. These data provide strong evidence against mini-nuke-caused-WTC-destruction hypothesis involving fission reactions, including a small fission bomb to set-off a fusion bomb. References: Science News, Volume 163, No. 7, February 15, 2003, p. 109. Oktay, S.D., et al. 2003. WTC geochemical fingerprint recorded in New York harbor sediments. Eos 84(Jan. 21):2128. Sept. 2006: Radioactive hot spots in NY City but is it the kind and amount evidencing mini-nukes? We need to be cautious just because there is a small amount of radioactivity found that does not mean that nuclear bombs were used to bring down the World Trade Center. As careful researchers, we check the AMOUNT and the RADIOACTIVE SPECIES involved. From a news article: Radioactive 'hot spots' threat to city, BY JAMES GORDON MEEK, DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON - A helicopter survey revealed 80 radioactive "hot spots" in New York City, including a Staten Island park with dangerously high levels of radium, a congressional report disclosed yesterday
The GAO did not identify the park, but Brian Feeney of the National Park Service said a 1-acre section of Great Kills Park on Staten Island, part of Gateway National Recreation Area, had been shut down in August 2005 after federal officials discovered old industrial equipment contaminated with radiation. RADIUM is NOT used in nuclear weapons (e.g., mininukes), although it can be one of many products of fission. It is not fissile (like plutonium and uranium). But it is used in some industrial equipment. It should have been disposed of properly, 6 yes, but this radioactive radium is NOT indicative of a nuclear bomb. Radioactive isotopes A published study by Paul Lioy et al. presents data regarding radioactive isotopes (radionuclides), such as would be produced in abundance if atomic bombs were in fact deployed. [http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioyfull. html] Radionuclides. We analyzed the gamma spectrum of the samples using an EG&G/Ortec high-purity Ge detector (50% relative efficiency) gamma counter (EG&G/Ortec Instruments, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN). We analyzed approximately 50 peaks based on statistical significance (counting/lack of interferences). These included thorium, uranium, actinium series, and primordial radionuclides. Liquid scintillation analyses were conducted for emissions on the total dust and smoke samples using a Packard Tri-Carb Model 2770 TR/SL (Packard Instrument, Meriden, CT). The MDA for alpha radioactivity was 0.30 DPM (0.14 pCi) based on a NIST-traceable 226Ra standard (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD). Results. We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40. These very low levels of radioactive isotopes (radionuclides) in the WTC dust are by themselves sufficient to rule out the use of atomic bombs (even as triggers) at the WTC, which could be construed as an absurd notion as it confronts the empirical facts. But we carry on with still more data. Neutron activation not observed. All nuclear weapons (especially FUSION/Hydrogen bombs) release copious high-energy neutrons which will activate steel and other materials, as the neutrons penetrate building materials. This is called neutron activation and cannot be avoided. Much of the 7 induced radioactivity remains for decades. Moreover, the fall-out from even small nuclear weapons is highly radioactive. So we measure the level of radioactivity as proof (or disproof) of the use of nuclear bombs. Several months ago, I tested WTC dust samples (from an apartment at 113 Liberty Street, NYC [1]) and a solidified metal sample (from the Clarkson University WTC monument [1]) for radioactivity using a Geiger counter. (Daedalon Corp., model EN-15.) I found ZERO RADIOACTIVITY (meaning nothing above background). This experimental evidence goes strongly against the mini-nukes hypothesis since measured radioactivity was simply at background levels. I used the same counter to measure the radioactivity of sand gathered from a nuclear-bomb test site decades ago for comparison and the Geiger counter showed (2.94 +- 0.15) counts/sec. (The fused-sand was in fact from a New Mexico test site where an atomic bomb was detonated in 1945.) This demonstrates unequivocally the presence and long life of radioactive residues due to nuclear bombs, and the ability of the sensitive Geiger counter to measure that radioactivity. The sand still yields high Geiger-counter readings decades after the nuclear bomb blast, yet the WTC dust and slag and steel yield nothing. In addition, a steel member from the WTC (again from the Clarkson University WTC monument [1]) was recently tested for neutron activation by the author. The WTC steel showed 100 counts in 4m 26s, or (0.38 +- 0.04) counts/second. The background counting rate showed 100 counts in 4m 18s, or (0.39+- 0.04) counts/second. These data overlap within the statistical error, meaning that zero counts over background were seen from the WTC steel. A note on pulverization. Along with others, I examined the sample obtained by Janette MacKinlay at 113 Liberty Street, just across from the South Tower. The windows of her apartment were blown in during the collapse of this tower on 9/11/2001, and her apartment was filled 8 with dust and debris. She collected a sample of this material in her own apartment in a plastic bag which is good procedure and the chain of custody went directly from her to me. (In the presence of other researchers, I collected more samples from her large plastic bag, while visiting in her home.) As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a star-wars beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form. A previously published study of the WTC dust noted: The environmental science community has been slow to understand that the acute health effects were attributable to a complex mixture of gases and particles and that the particles in greatest abundance (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-¼mdiam) particles, not the fine (<2.5-¼m-diam) or coarse (2.510-¼mdiam) particles that are typically measured. http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag/40/i22/html/111506feat ure_lioy.html ] Their supportive data are shown in the table below: It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise has been slow to understand that the WTC dust particles in greatest abundance are the supercoarse variety rather than fine particles, and that significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC rubble. 9 Mini-nukes are not needed for the observed concrete pulverization nor for top-down demolition as observed for the WTC Towers. Chemical explosives such as RDX, HMX can cause controlled demolition along with concrete pulverization; most of us have observed such demolitions using chemical explosives and the large dust clouds produced. (In addition, cutter-charges such as super-thermites and thermate-class reactions could have been used on 9/11/2001, along with conventional explosives. See http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedD idtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf .) Just because most demolitions proceed with explosions at the bottom first (e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkiwNxfB4GM&mode=relate d&search= ), this does not mean that destruction cannot be started near the top (as was the case with the Towers). Indeed, the demolition of the Seattle Kingdome proceeded from near the top for much of the building; see http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Seattle+Kingdom e+demolition&search=Search). Cutter-charges can obviously be exploded starting near the top. (For the case of the WTC Towers, see further explanation in Jones, http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidt heWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf). Thus, a mini-nuke is certainly not necessary to explain this top-down destruction. Indeed, it is difficult to see how a mini-nuke in each Tower (especially if located in the basements) could generate the observed top-down destruction of each WTC Tower and without totally destroying the bath-tubs under each of the Towers. People and glass as detectors for nuclear-bomb radiation Finally, people themselves become detectors for the radiations associated with nuclear bombs. Glass also is known to melt in the intense heat of a nuclear bomb blast. All nuclear bombs produce copious x-rays, gamma-rays and fast neutrons, which are fatal at close range with a distinctive burning of the victims. This applies to fusion as well as fission bombs. 10 NO such immediate fatalities due to radiation burning were reported. Note that while power-outages can be generated by electromagnetic pulses associated with nuclear bombs, most power outages in history (and there are many instances) are due to other causes. The windows of the Towers were observed to break but not melt during the collapses. William Rodriguez, after rescuing many people in the Towers, survived the collapse of the North Tower, adjacent to the building during its collapse. He did not show effects of a nuclear blast. The WTC dust contained asbestos and other carcinogens. Thus, the increased incidence of cancers near ground zero can be accounted for without resorting to radioactive agents from a mininuke. In a similar vein, the molten metal observed beneath both Towers and WTC 7 is consistent with a eutectic mixture of sulfur and iron (and other materials) which stays molten well below the melting point of iron (1538 C, 2800 F). The use of aluminothermics such as thermate (involving chemical rather than nuclear reactions) may account for the molten metal as explained in an earlier paper in this field of study [S. E. Jones in www.journalof911studies.com]. Thus, it is not necessary to invoke a mini-nuclear weapon to account for the molten metal observed. Indeed, the molten metal seen flowing out of the South Tower can be accounted for by the thermite reaction which produces molten iron, but could not be ascribed to a mini-nuclear explosion since this flow began several minutes before the destruction of the Tower. Conclusion and a challenge The hard physical evidence presented is strongly against the hypothesis that mini-nukes destroyed the WTC Towers: 1. Observation of tritium (an important component of hydrogen-bomb fuel) at WTC sites at the few nano-curie level only. This is strong evidence against the mini-nuke hypothesis. 11 2. The fact that radioactive iodine concentrations were actually lower in the upper/WTC debris-filled layers. 3. Radioactive hot-spots in NYC were found to be due to radium, which is traceable to industrial uses (not bombs). This in itself does not rule out mini-nukes, but these data certainly do not support the mini-nuke hypothesis. 4. Lioy et al. report that radioactivity from thorium, uranium, actinium series and other radionuclides is at or near the background level for WTC dust. 5. Nuclear activation or residual fall-out radioactivity (above background) was NOT observed, in tests performed by the author on actual WTC samples. This result is consistent with the low Iodine-131 measured by independent researchers (point 2 above) and the low radionuclide counts (point 4 above) and again provides compelling evidence against the mini-nuke-at-Towers hypothesis. 6. No fatalities due to radiation burning were reported near ground zero. William Rodriguez survived the North Tower collapse. 7. No observed melting of glass due to the collapse-process of the Towers. 8. One more: The mini-nuke idea fails completely for WTC 7 where vertically-directed plumes of dust were absent during the collapse, and the building fell quite neatly onto its own footprint. (Molten metal was observed under the WTC7 rubble as well.) While many pieces of evidence may support a hypothesis it logically takes only one soundly established contradictory piece of evidence to require the abandonment of a hypothesis. In the list above, we have not one but several pieces of evidence which contradict the mini-nukes-at-WTC-Towers hypothesis. Proponents of the mini-nuke theory are invited to organize their data and write up a serious evidence-oriented paper, to submit to the Journal of 9/11 Studies as a reply to this Letter. That reply will be published. A thorough response should address all of the points above. The Journal editors (corresponding to known practice in the scientific community) state that they will allow such responses to be published without peerreview constraints, the main requirements for publication being relevance, civility in the presentation, avoiding straw-man arguments, 12 raising specific points and questions, and naming of the author(s) so that they may be contacted for further discussion. The author has invites proponents of the mini-nuke theory [Ref. 1 below] to write a reply (or replies) to this Letter. I invite replies in the spirit of collegiality and rigorous scientific investigation, with the understanding that we are able to test and actually eliminate some hypotheses a necessary weeding out process in science. Endless discussions are not fruitful, whereas measurements and experiments often are. Furthermore, when 911 researchers go before the media or investigative bodies, we had better have the besttested facts and theories available and everything else in categories such as highly speculative or better, dismissed by the data. Reference 1: Some presentations on mini-nuke theory, from 911Scholars.org (as of January 4, 2007) US Government's Usage of Atomic Bombs Domestic WTC 25 September 2006, Ed Ward, MD Finnish Miliary Expert: Why the WTC Collapsed Cancer, Radiation from 911? 13 September 2006, Virgilius Haufniensis Interview with Dr. William (Bill) Richard Deagle 16 November 2004, The Alex Jones Show, Alex Jones Micronuclear Devices Used in OKC Bombing: Explosives Placed by FBI, ATF 8 September 2004, prisonplanet.com, Bill Deagle, M.D. APPENDIX A: THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, FROM: http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html 13 What is the ``scientific method''? The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this: 1. Observe some aspect of the universe. 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed. 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made. Figure 1.1: Flow diagram describing the scientific method. 14 The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation. Faith, defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded. A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable. In fact, most experiments and observations are repeated many times (certain experiments are not repeated independently but are repeated as parts of other experiments). If the original claims are not verified the origin of such discrepancies is hunted down and exhaustively studied. When studying the cosmos we cannot perform experiments; all information is obtained from observations and measurements. Theories are then devised by extracting some regularity in the observations and coding this into physical laws. There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ``falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable. In contrast, the theory that ``the moon is populated by little green men who can read our minds and will hide whenever anyone on Earth looks for them, and will flee into deep space whenever a spacecraft comes near'' is not falsifiable: these green men are designed so that no one can ever see them. On the other hand, the theory that there are no little green men on the moon is scientific: you can disprove it by catching one. Nb: While one speaks of a hypothesis to be tested, there can be several hypotheses under consideration, of course. Each stands or falls based on empirical data.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 73.
#63. To: RickyJ (#0)
(Edited)
"No observed melting of glass due to the collapse-process of the Towers." Glass can melt anywhere from 900 degrees Farenheit to about the same as the melting point of iron and steel at around 2600-2800 degrees Farenheit or a bit higher for super-grade glass. Since Jones insists on extended molten metal temps for WTC steel, that raises the question of why indeed "No observed melting of glass due to the collapse-process of the Towers." Makes no sense if the WTC builders insisted on using super-grade glass and junk steel that ostensibly couldn't withstand a flash kerosene fire. Jones is no "messianic" leader of 9/11 investigations, as some seem to view him. He is (along with his "study-buddy" or alter-ego, Hoffman) a hijacker and plagiarizer of years of work by 9/11 Truth Movement First Responders that he gives no credit to whlle calling himself a "synthesizer". Rather appropriate, imo, that his Los Alamos stomping grounds are in Diablo/Devil Canyon, yes? Yes. Where's his evidence that molten metal was flowing from a window down the side of a WTC building before it collapsed? He has no evidence of that, really, and no observed slag from any of the whatzit splashing against the building and cooling. All alleged thermite/nanothermite/thermate samples he claims to have are of suspect origins and chains of custody. Yet, he claims that there's no need to consider theories other than his "thermitics" because it could account for some molten metal and cancers may be be explained by something other than nukes -- which proves nothing except that he wants to steer people away from looking where he doesn't want them to and that he wants to control them to do what he has been "entrancing" them to do along: be "spellbound" to believe in "vanishing planes" because of his sci-fi gobbledygook for fast-tracking 9/11 Fund and insurance claims and whatnot, and be sure to turn against our entire military and America's system of government as if Israelis and their Ziobot agents are above and beyond any suspicion, except for maybe that limited-hangout guy, Silverstein.
Yeah, you just entered the paranoid nutty realm. Fetzer rubbing off on you?
Update: The US Governments Usage of Atomic Bombs - Domestic - WTC By Ed Ward, MD The "well below levels of concern to human exposure" and "7 times less than the EPA limit" of Tritium in the environment are in actuality 27 to 35 times higher than should have been found in one sample, and 21 to 28 times higher than should have been found in the other sample. In spite of this fact it was deemed that no other testing was needed. In spite of the fact that no amount of radiation is considered "safe", it is merely "acceptable". This shows proof that even in the same general area there were varying degrees of dilution of the 10 ml samples prior their being collected and tested. Note that there is no notation about the size of the pools the samples were taken from.
The Mysterious Craters: A thorough examination the debris of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings reveals further evidence of massive power and heat - a thermonuclear blast. WTC 6 was 8 stories high. The total height of its central debris of the crater was about 30 to 50 feet below sea level and about 120 feet wide. Eight stories of building collapses and leaves a hole at least 30 feet deep.
Another LIDAR map shows the central portion depth of WTC 6 in the range of -35 to -55 feet. Besides the crater in WTC 6, note the two craters that surround WTC 1 (perimeters are 30 feet deep and 250 to 300 feet wide) and WTC 2 (perimeters are 30 feet deep and more than 300 feet wide - some overlapping of the explosions). WTC 1 - 110 stories tall - debris pile 6 stories with a 30 feet crater surrounding it. WTC 2 - 110 stories tall - debris pile 6 stories high with a 30 feet crater surrounding it. WTC 3 (Marriott) - 22 stories tall - debris pile 3 stories. WTC 4 - 9 stories tall - debris pile 3 stories (the only building that is even close to its correct debris height). WTC 6 - 8 stories tall - debris pile MINUS 3 stories. WTC 7 - 47 stories tall - debris pile 7 stories. The New York times has a crude interactive map placing the crater depth at -30 feet. According to the official story, beams from WTC 1 collapsed the building. However, the collapse did not make a debris pile. It made a debris hole. (BTW, no supposed unspecified vague scalar weapon can make these massive craters beneath intact debris.)
The 16 Inches Thick Steel Cores that Melt into Limp Noodles and Partially Vaporize:
#74. To: All (#73)
EdWardMD: 9/11/01 Attacks Were An Inside/Outside Job Proven Referenced Evidence of 4th Generation Micro Nukes in WTC1, WTC2, & WTC6 Thermate, C4, Micro Nukes and 911 Was an Inside/Outside Job Is The Only Proven Theory that Complies with All of the Evidence in One Proven Theory. To date, not one valid referenced fact has been established to refute a single proven fact in about 300 references presented in the article, let alone the primary evidence for micro nukes in the WTC. 1. Three Massive WTC Craters - See us gov LIDAR proof: www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/03/05/ward.htm 2. Five Acres of WTC Land Brought to Seering Temperatures in a Few Hours by an 'Anaerobic, Chlorine Fueled "Fire" - Impossible by Basic Laws of Physics. See us gov Thermal Images proof: www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/03/05/ward.htm 3. Tritium Levels 55 Times (normal) Background Levels assessed a numerical value of 'traces' and 'of no human concern'. See us gov (DOE report on Tritium) proof: groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/141 4. An Impossible "Fire" (Combustion Process). See Laws of Physics for Fire/Combustion Process and Dr. Cahill's data on 'anaerobic incineration'. rense.com/general77/newlaws.htm 5. And More Proprietary Evidence Ed Ward, MD - 911 Related Articles - Chronological: Bombs in the WTC Buildings Proves Nothing to Racist-Fascist Bigots www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/08/21/ward.htm Micro-Nukes in the WTC www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/09/25/ward.htm General evidence for inside job and background of micro nukes Update: Micro-Nukes at the WTC - Main micro nuke evidence presented in this article. www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/03/05/ward.htm Update: Proves Micro Nukes in the WTC www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/04/16/ward.htm Verifying the Source of WTC Tritium Levels that Are 55 Times "Background Levels" www.rense.com/general76/wtc.htm Prof. Jones Denies, Ignores, Misrepresents Proven Tritium Levels 55 Times Normal Background Levels www.rense.com/general77/levels.htm Steven Jones Replies To Dr. Ed Ward www.rense.com/general77/ward.htm Prof Jones Gladly Assists Testing Unaffected WTC Items www.rense.com/general77/profjh.htm Update: Factual Evaluation of the DOE WTC Tritium Report Data - 911 groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/141 Breakdown of the WTC Rain and Firehose Water - 4 Million Gallons of Dilution groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/136 Prof Jones Accepts Validity of Stable Isotopic Testing For Neutron Activation of Fusion Reactions groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/142 Note: According to Dr. Deagle, he has been unable to find anyplace in the world that will perform the needed tests on the WTC sample. Hello!?! 48,000 Curies of Tritium Would Have to Have Burned to Leave the 3.53/2.83 nCi/L of WTC Tritium Residue - This concentration is almost equal to the highest concentrations of environmental contamination of the 1960's after Thousands of Megaton Nukes were 'tested'. 55 TIMES BACKGROUND AND ALMOST EQUAL TO THE HIGHEST RECORDED LEVELS OF THE 60'S IS CALLED TRACES - Dr. Jones ceased response. This is not science, ignoring and denying 55 x what should have been found and that was after 4 million liters of dilution. Steven Jones, the DOE report and the BYU crew CALL THIS TRACES. groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/147 Note: This is based on evidence in which some of glass Tritium containers were not even melted by fire. All of the Tritium found was only in/on the unmelted glass. In any fire that can melt glass, ALL of tritium escapes into the atmosphere, unless water is poured over the source DURING the initial fire.) Ed Ward, MD
deleted
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
||
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|