IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Merged - The Us Government's Usage Of Atomic Bombs - Domestic - Wtc, First in a series on WMD's in the WTC's

Ricochet
post Apr 21 2010, 06:56 PM
Post #21





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



GP:
QUOTE
i do find it interesting that there were seismic spikes just prior to the collapses of wtc1 and 2 . haven't seen one for wtc7 though. i saw a chart somewhere sometime about the relationship between nuke yield and seismic effect.



QUOTE
While seismic research is most often associated with earthquakes, seismic technology is also the primary means to detect, locate and identify underground nuclear explosions.

Underground nuclear testing plays a pivotal role in the persistent and well-documented efforts by states to develop and improve explosive nuclear devices.

Nuclear tests are no longer frequent. However, there are 30- 40 earthquakes of magnitude 4 and greater every day about 10,000 per year. A magnitude 4 earthquake releases energy on the order of a one-kiloton nuclear explosion. Identification and location of the rare, and possibly covert nuclear test, within the cacophony of natural and man-made background seismic activity, is a major national security scientific challenge that NNSA and its labs are in a unique position to meet.

Scientists study the seismic traces (waveform records of the surface ground motion as a function of time, acquired by digital equipment) from networks of seismometers all over the world.

The long-term effort to improve seismic event location accuracy significantly increases the accuracy of RSTT predictions. The newly developed RSTT model embodies three-dimensional variations in seismic wave speed in the earth's crust as well as lateral variability in seismic-wave speed in the earth's upper mantle.

The RSTT model increases the location accuracy of small events, previously undetectable at great distance. Tests across Eurasia show that the RSTT model improves median location accuracy by 46 percent (from 17.3 km using a standard one-dimensional model to 9.3 km using the RSTT model).

NNSA efforts have reduced regional location error for small yield events to a level that, until recently, was only achieved for large, globally recorded events.

This NNSA-funded effort has resulted in a significant improvement in regional seismic event location accuracy and further improvement can be expected as complementary research projects mature, thus improving our ability to detect lower yield events.

Provided by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory


http://www.physorg.com/news170957529.html



The FAS report on seismic related information on nuclear events.

http://www.fas.org/ota/reports/8838.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EdWardMD
post Apr 21 2010, 08:05 PM
Post #22





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 26
Joined: 12-April 10
Member No.: 5,010



QUOTE (Ricochet @ Apr 21 2010, 05:56 PM) *
GP:




http://www.physorg.com/news170957529.html



The FAS report on seismic related information on nuclear events.

http://www.fas.org/ota/reports/8838.pdf


Nice info not sure if it was around in 2001, and of course the gov is not required to post it, there is also a link in my first article on micro nukes regarding seismic info - one of more than 100 references - although, since the article is about 4 years old, many no longer work, but all verified the the the specific information as quoted
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Apr 21 2010, 08:17 PM
Post #23





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



QUOTE (JimMac @ Apr 19 2010, 09:35 PM) *
I am only wondering at this point how the visual record (what we see) as the canopy of destruction descends, how that relates to use of nuke devices. Do you have a concept of that? If so, please share it. I'd be grateful!


i'd love to, but i no idea how it all ties together. every underground nuke test picture that i've seen has the same mushroom cloud..which doesn't look that radically different from the wtc plumes in my opinion. how or why it goes straight up, i don't know. in the nuke tests, it just kind of hangs there. if the cured concrete in the floor slabs has a 3% water content and gets cooked off by the nuke, with the core taken out, gravity begins to play on the structure. somebody once told me that concrete begins to deteriorate as soon as it has cured, but it is a really slow process. sort of like the reverse of adding water to a bag or cement. i mean what would happen if you could drive the water out of the concrete instantaneously? does it revert back to powder?

i don't know. too many damn holes in all the theories. it just was not caused by the plane impact and fire. the many month long hot spots and tritium are inadequately explained by 4000 degree F thermate. how much explosives are required to pulverize all the concrete? like i said, i don't know.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EdWardMD
post Apr 21 2010, 08:30 PM
Post #24





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 26
Joined: 12-April 10
Member No.: 5,010



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Apr 21 2010, 07:17 PM) *
i'd love to, but i no idea how it all ties together. every underground nuke test picture that i've seen has the same mushroom cloud..which doesn't look that radically different from the wtc plumes in my opinion. how or why it goes straight up, i don't know. in the nuke tests, it just kind of hangs there. if the cured concrete in the floor slabs has a 3% water content and gets cooked off by the nuke, with the core taken out, gravity begins to play on the structure. somebody once told me that concrete begins to deteriorate as soon as it has cured, but it is a really slow process. sort of like the reverse of adding water to a bag or cement. i mean what would happen if you could drive the water out of the concrete instantaneously? does it revert back to powder?

i don't know. too many damn holes in all the theories. it just was not caused by the plane impact and fire. the many month long hot spots and tritium are inadequately explained by 4000 degree F thermate. how much explosives are required to pulverize all the concrete? like i said, i don't know.


there are several studies regard the amount of energy needed on physics org. All contain variables which change the amount of energy required - 1 variable makes the outcome useless, when there are 2 or 3, forget about. bottom line - 3 billion pounds of building turned into 2 billion pounds of micronized dust in a matter of seconds - referenced in the first article on nukes. This in itself is a massive amount of energy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Apr 21 2010, 08:34 PM
Post #25





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



QUOTE (EdWardMD @ Apr 19 2010, 11:05 PM) *
Nice info not sure if it was around in 2001, and of course the gov is not required to post it, there is also a link in my first article on micro nukes regarding seismic info - one of more than 100 references - although, since the article is about 4 years old, many no longer work, but all verified the the the specific information as quoted


that may have been where i saw it. wasn't the whole idea behind the neutron bomb to limit blast (seismic event) and concentrate on radiation?

i have since seen conflicting info about the tantalum and hafnium isomer triggers. one source claimed that collins' work back in '99 had been finally been verified. others say no.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EdWardMD
post Apr 21 2010, 08:40 PM
Post #26





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 26
Joined: 12-April 10
Member No.: 5,010



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Apr 21 2010, 07:34 PM) *
that may have been where i saw it. wasn't the whole idea behind the neutron bomb to limit blast (seismic event) and concentrate on radiation?

i have since seen conflicting info about the tantalum and hafnium isomer triggers. one source claimed that collins' work back in '99 had been finally been verified. others say no.


neutrons - 30 to 40 years old. yes, neutons cut blast/heat etc, and release massive amounts of neutrons, but now, they can pretty much select any particle they want alpha, beta, neutron, gamma, etc as the primary production.

cohen and red mercury - more than likely lithium 6 is very old. hafnium is just one of the areas of improvement, lasers, and several other triggers have been developed since then.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Apr 21 2010, 08:45 PM
Post #27





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Apr 21 2010, 08:17 PM) *
i'd love to, but i no idea how it all ties together. every underground nuke test picture that i've seen has the same mushroom cloud..which doesn't look that radically different from the wtc plumes in my opinion. how or why it goes straight up, i don't know. in the nuke tests, it just kind of hangs there. if the cured concrete in the floor slabs has a 3% water content and gets cooked off by the nuke, with the core taken out, gravity begins to play on the structure. somebody once told me that concrete begins to deteriorate as soon as it has cured, but it is a really slow process. sort of like the reverse of adding water to a bag or cement. i mean what would happen if you could drive the water out of the concrete instantaneously? does it revert back to powder?

i don't know. too many damn holes in all the theories. it just was not caused by the plane impact and fire. the many month long hot spots and tritium are inadequately explained by 4000 degree F thermate. how much explosives are required to pulverize all the concrete? like i said, i don't know.


Ok GP, thanks for taking a shot at it. Yes, concrete cures with age, it hardens. Also, the floors poured there in 60's were using (i'm assuming) asbestos for the light weight effect. In any case, for me the quandary of how to reconcile the top-down destruction with this type of device still exists.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EdWardMD
post Apr 21 2010, 09:03 PM
Post #28





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 26
Joined: 12-April 10
Member No.: 5,010



QUOTE (JimMac @ Apr 21 2010, 07:45 PM) *
Ok GP, thanks for taking a shot at it. Yes, concrete cures with age, it hardens. Also, the floors poured there in 60's were using (i'm assuming) asbestos for the light weight effect. In any case, for me the quandary of how to reconcile the top-down destruction with this type of device still exists.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19914
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Apr 21 2010, 09:23 PM
Post #29





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (Ricochet @ Apr 21 2010, 12:53 PM) *
Jones and Judy Wood were inserted to the truth movement to lead people down the wrong paths, away from looking at the probable use of nuclear weapons. I never fell for the thermite angle no the spooky beams. The architects of 9/11 used good old tried and true nuclear weapons.



Wow Ricochet, that's a leap, on Jones. (Judy Wood i just dismissed after listening to her, and looking at her theories on that eye-sore of a web-site.) This your own opinion on Jones I assume, and it applies to Niels Harrit too? I had just assumed by now most people who have looked at their work take it seriously. I know i do.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EdWardMD
post Apr 21 2010, 09:48 PM
Post #30





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 26
Joined: 12-April 10
Member No.: 5,010



QUOTE (JimMac @ Apr 21 2010, 08:23 PM) *
Wow Ricochet, that's a leap, on Jones. (Judy Wood i just dismissed after listening to her, and looking at her theories on that eye-sore of a web-site.) This your own opinion on Jones I assume, and it applies to Niels Harrit too? I had just assumed by now most people who have looked at their work take it seriously. I know i do.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19910
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Apr 21 2010, 10:01 PM
Post #31





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (EdWardMD @ Apr 21 2010, 01:12 PM) *
Unfortunately, virtually ever reform group I've found has been nothing but covert op, it's not just 911... Yes, micro nukes along with cutting charges and conventional explosives to provide cover for the nukes which made sure the job was not botched like the first time, eliminated all the convential explosive evidence, and left a virtual barren field of dust and steel. LOL, jones got me at first until I found the facts and knew what happened. Once you know the truth, it's easy to find the covert ops.


I'm just a regular poster here, but i am submitting that all your threads of today should be in the debate forum. You seem very overtly belittling Steven Jones and thereby Architects and Engineers for Truth and also insinuating they are part of a deception (correct me if i'm wrong on that). These are very stong opinions, and i am more than sure only a small number of people agree with it.

As for nukes, its highly debateable, and its bound to get incendiary with that tone of yours.

JimM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EdWardMD
post Apr 21 2010, 10:21 PM
Post #32





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 26
Joined: 12-April 10
Member No.: 5,010



QUOTE (EdWardMD @ Apr 21 2010, 08:34 AM) *
Take a look at this... http://home.att.net/~south.tower/911Demolition1.htm And the fact flexible contact linear thermite didn't exist then or now. However, flexible contact linear cutting charges have been around since at least 1995. Plus, thermite is hard to light, a timing nightmare.


Damn, another link eaten. This was a very good article on cutting charges vs scam thermite.

I have to see if I can refind that?

Well here's a different one...

http://tribes.tribe.net/infobunker/thread/...75-5acf7d4b6348

Blocked Content? Interesting.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EdWardMD
post Apr 21 2010, 10:25 PM
Post #33





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 26
Joined: 12-April 10
Member No.: 5,010



"The BS 'Bogus Science' of 'Explosive SuperThermite' Versus the Facts of a 'Deflagration Material'.
http://www.rense.com/general77/geddno.htm

A response to the continued promotion of 'SuperThermite' as an 'explosive' or high pressure wave generator via the Tonti testimony.


The Facts of 'Explosives'
"Explosives are classified as low or high according to the detonating velocity or speed at which this change takes place and other pertinent characteristics such as their shattering effect. An arbitrary figure of 3300 fps is used to distinguish between burning/ deflagration (low explosive) and detonation (high explosive).

The velocity of instantaneous combustion has been measured for most explosives and is referred to as the detonation velocity of the explosive. Detonation velocities of high explosives range from approximately 3,300 feet per second (fps) to over 29,900 fps. To bring this speed down to our terms - If we took a five-mile length of garden hose and filled it in with a high explosive and then detonated one end of the hose, it would only take one second for the chemical reaction to reach the other end.

In a detonation, the chemical reaction moves through the explosive material at a velocity greater than that of sound through the same material. The characteristic of this chemical reaction is that it is initiated by and, in turn, supports a supersonic shock wave proceeding through the explosive."

In a deflagration, the chemical reaction moves rapidly through the explosive material and releases heat or flames vigorously. The reaction moves too slowly to produce shock waves."
There are two types of Explosives Low Explosives and High Explosives. Low explosives are said to burn or deflagrate rather than to detonate or explode. The burning gives off a gas which, when properly confined, will cause an explosion. Most low explosives are mechanical mixtures or a mechanical blending of the individual ingredients making up the low explosives.

High Explosives do not require confinement to shatter and destroy. It must generally be initiated by a shock wave of considerable force. This is usually provided by a detonator or blasting cap.

The varying velocities of explosives and configuration have a direct relationship to the type of work they can perform. The difference in velocities determines the type of power exerted by high or low explosives. Low explosives have pushing or heaving power and high explosives have shattering power(Brisance)." http://www.securitydriver.com/aic/stories/article-114.html

"Professor Jones does not stop there, however, his most important piece of evidence comes from samples of the molten steel from the twin towers. He works from a hypothesis that the bright yellow explosions and molten metal seen in video footage of the attacks on the WTC appear to be that of Thermite, which is widely used in controlled demolition. (Note use of the term 'explosions' for what is clearly seen as 'burning' or 'deflagration'.)
Thermate, used to cut rapidly through steel beams in controlled demolition." http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/la_con...eam_thought.htm (similar quote) http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Thermate, Thermite, SuperThermite, etc, are cutting agents Not High Pressure Wave Explosives. An explosive quality is counterproductive to a cutting agent. Cutting agents must be used in conjuction with explosives. The cutting agents cut and the explosives move the cut product away from their support structures. This is standard demolition. If contact cutting agents produced a generalized 'high pressure wave', ie typical explosion', the pressure wave would blow the cuttiing agent away from the steel it is supposed to cut as well as any other cutting agents in the immediate vicinity. That is why the process of demolition requires cutting agents to cut the steel, then explosives to move the cut pieces away from their support.

A low explosive is usually a mixture of a combustible substance and an oxidant that decomposes rapidly (deflagration); unlike most high explosives, which are compounds.
Under normal conditions, low explosives undergo deflagration at rates that vary from a few centimeters per second to approximately 400 metres per second. However, it is possible for them to deflagrate very quickly, producing an effect similar to a detonation, but not an actual detonation; This usually occurs when ignited in a confined space. Low explosives are normally employed as propellants. Included in this group are gun powders and pyrotechnics such as flares and illumination devices.

High explosives are normally employed in mining, demolition, and military warheads. They undergo detonation at rates of 1,000 to 9,000 meters per second. High explosives are conventionally subdivided into two classes differentiated by sensitivity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive

Government Classification of an Explosive:
The explosives listed in 18 V.S.C. 841(d) represent speeds from several millimeters per second to tens of kilometers per second. Neither of these materials are considered explosives, regardless of burn rate, because they do not contain a fuel and an oxidizer http://www.tripoli.org/documents/batfe/20061013atfapcp.pdf

More information on Explosives vs 'SuperThermite':

Other so-called insensitive explosives can also be used safely, including compositions of 80-90% RDX or HMX, the explosive powders or crystals being thoroughly coated with plasticized polymer (20%-10%) and wherein the HMX is usually in a bimodal crystal form (see "Explosives and Propellants (Explosives)"; Vol. 10, 4th Ed. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, especially pp. 55-56). Primasheet (Ensign-Bickford Co.) has a burn rate of 23000 ft. per second, i.e. 7010 meters per second; the aforementioned HMX has a burn rate of 8800 meters per second; and PETN has a burn rate of 8260 meters per second. http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6200615-description.html

For example, it has been proven that because of their large surface area, the nanopowders can increase the burn rate in some types of propellants 1,3,8-10 There were also significant developments made in the "super thermite" area with mixes of nanometric aluminum and metal oxides (11). Those ompounds are said to react at rates approaching (and under particular conditions even equivalent to) those of high explosives (Investigators note: While the report does not relate the particular conditions, other articles indicate that confinement is one of the conditions.)
http://www.intdetsymp.org/detsymp2002/PaperSubmi
t/FinalManuscript/pdf/Brousseau-193.pdf.

When optimized, the burn-rate of these materials (~400 m/s) exceeds that of conventional thermites (based on micron-sized powders), but is less than that of conventional explosives. Similar burn-rates around 350 m/s are measured for these "super-thermites"
http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=
2642&DID=115853&action=detail

An energetic material has been routinely manufactured from nano-metric powders of aluminum (Al) and molybdenum trioxide (MoO3). When optimized, the burn-rate of these materials (~400 m/s) exceeds that of conventional thermites (based on micron-sized powders), but is less than that of conventional explosives. Similar burn-rates around 350 m/s are measured for these "super-thermites"...
http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?C
ID=2642&DID=115853&action=detail

0114] Low Order Explosion--Low explosives change into gases by burning or combustion. These are characterized by deflagration (burning rapidly without generating a high pressure wave) and a lower reaction rate than high explosives. The overall effect ranges from rapid combustion to a low order detonation (generally less than 2,000 meters per second). Since they burn through deflagration rather than a detonation wave, they are usually a mixture, and are initiated by heat and require confinement to create an explosion. Gun powder (black powder) is the only common example.

[0115] Deflagration--The chemical decomposition (burning) of a material in which the reaction front advances into the reacted material at less than sonic velocity. Deflagration can be a very rapid combustion which, under confinement, can result in an explosion, although generally it implies the burning of a substance with self-contained oxygen. The reaction zone advances into the unreacted material at less than the velocity of sound in the material. In this case, heat is transferred from the reacted to the unreacted material by conduction and convection. The burning rate for a deflagration is usually less than 2,000 meters/second. [0117] Detonation--Also called an initiation sequence or a firing train, this is the sequence of events which cascade from relatively low levels of energy to cause a chain reaction to initiate the final explosive material or main charge. They can be either low or high explosive trains. It is a chemical reaction that moves through an explosive material at a velocity greater than the speed of sound in the material. A detonation is a chemical reaction given by an explosive substance in which a shock wave is formed. High temperature and pressure gradients are generated in the wave front, so that the chemical reaction is initiated instantaneously. Detonation velocities lie in the approximate range of 1,400 to 9,000 m/s or 5,000 to 30,000 ft/s.

[0118] High Order Explosion--High explosives are capable of detonating and are used in military ordinance, blasting and mining, etc. These have a very high rate of reaction, high-pressure development, and the presence of a detonation wave that moves faster than the speed of sound (1,400 to 9,000 meters per second). Without confinement, they are compounds that are initiated by shock or heat and have high brisance (the shattering effect of an explosion). Examples include primary explosives such as nitroglycerin that can detonate with little stimulus and secondary explosives such as dynamite (trinitrotoluene, TNT) that require a strong shock (from a detonator such as a blasting cap). http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20050242093.html

A chemical explosive is a compound or a mixture of compounds which, when subjected to heat, impact, friction, or shock, undergoes very rapid, self-propagating, heat- producing decomposition. This decomposition produces gases that exert tremendous pressures as they expand at the high temperature of the reaction. The work done by an explosive depends primarily on the amount of heat given off during the explosion. The term detonation indicates that the reaction is moving through the explosive faster than the speed of sound in the unreacted explosive; whereas, deflagration indicates a slower reaction (rapid burning). A high explosive will detonate; a low explosive will deflagrate. All commercial explosives except black powder are high explosives.

Low-order explosives (LE) create a subsonic explosion [below 3,300 feet per second] and lack HE's over-pressurization wave. Examples of LE include pipe bombs, gunpowder, and most pure petroleum-based bombs such as Molotov cocktails or aircraft improvised as guided missiles.

A High Explosive (HE) is a compound or mixture which, when initiated, is capable of sustaining a detonation shockwave to produce a powerful blast effect. A detonation is the powerful explosive effect caused by the propagation of a high-speed shockwave through a high explosive compound or mixture. During the process of detonation, the high explosive is largely decomposed into hot, rapidly expanding gas.

The most important single property in rating an explosive is detonation velocity, which may be expressed for either confined or un-confined conditions. It is the speed at which the detonation wave travels through the explosive. Since explosives in boreholes are confined to some degree, the confined value is the more significant. Most manufacturers, however, measure the detonation velocity in an unconfined column of explosive 1- i/4 in. in diameter. The detonation velocity of an explosive is dependent on the density, ingredients, particle size, charge diameter, and degree of confinement. Decreased particle size, increased charge diameter, and increased confinement all tend to increase the detonation velocity. Unconfined velocities are generally 70 to 80 percent of confined velocities.

The confined detonation velocity of commercial explosives varies from 4,000 to 25,000 fps. With cartridge explosives the confined velocity is seldom attained. Some explosives and blasting agents are sensitive to diameter changes. As diameter is reduced, the velocity is reduced until at some critical diameter, propagation is no longer assured and misfires are likely.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys.../explosives.htm


CLASSIFICATION OF EXPLOSIVES

Low Explosives: Low explosives deflagrate rather than detonate. Their reaction velocities are 2000 to less than 3000 feet per second. Black powder is a good example. pg 27

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_...es/Chapter2.pdf
Low explosives - Their detonation velocity rate is below 3,280 feet per second. (Black powder rate is 1,312 fps) High explosives burn or detonate at a rate of above 3,280 f.p.s. (Dynamite-about 9,000 f.p.s.; RDX - 27,500 f.p.s.)

http://www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/hazmat.pdf
A Normogram for determination of pressure waves as they relate to 'burn rate'.

http://www.usace.army.mil/publications/eng...-2-3800/c-3.pdf
Other so-called insensitive explosives can also be used safely, including compositions of 80-90% RDX or HMX, the explosive powders or crystals being thoroughly coated with plasticized polymer (20%-10%) and wherein the HMX is usually in a bimodal crystal form (see "Explosives and Propellants (Explosives)"; Vol. 10, 4th Ed. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, especially pp. 55-56). Primasheet (Ensign-Bickford Co.) has a burn rate of 23000 ft. per second, i.e. 7010 meters per second; the aforementioned HMX has a burn rate of 8800 meters per second; and PETN has a burn rate of 8260 meters per second. http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6200615-description.html

Dr Ed

TCN&911WIJ - A 1 Year Investigative Anniversary - August 2007
The Only Single All-Inclusive 911 Resolution Theory - Thermate, C4-like explosives, micro Nuclear devices, and 911 Was an Inside Job - TCN&911WIJ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/216

TCN&911WIJ - Rough Outline of the E-Book - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/216

TCN&911WIJ is the culmanation of 1 Year (thousands of hours) of intense and thorough investigation into 911 and the WTC information for relevance and validity. There are more 200 referenced links in the TCN911WIJ article series that relate to the investigation with several proofs originating from this investigator.

TCN&911WIJ - Thermate, C4-like explosive, a Nuclear device & 911 Was an Inside Job!
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) proof: http://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'. http://rense.com/general77/newlaws.htm

All of the above are facts are proven with referenced links of reputable data sources - many are from the government itself and more... Ed Ward, MD - 911 Related Articles - TCN&911WIJ - Chronological:

Bombs in the WTC Buildings Proves Nothing to Racist-Fascist Bigots http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/08/21/ward.htm

Micro-Nukes at the WTC http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/09/25/ward.htm
Update: Micro-Nukes at the WTC http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/03/05/ward.htm
Update: Proves Micro Nukes in the WTC

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/04/16/ward.htm
Verifying the Source of WTC Tritium Levels that Are 55 Times "Background Levels" http://www.rense.com/general76/wtc.htm

Prof. Jones Denies, Ignores, Misrepresents Proven Tritium Levels 55 Times Background Levels http://www.rense.com/general77/levels.htm

Steven Jones Replies To Dr. Ed Ward http://www.rense.com/general77/ward.htm
Prof Jones Gladly Assists Testing Unaffected WTC Items http://www.rense.com/general77/profjh.htm

Vancouver Conference: Drs Deagle and Jones debate Micro Nukes (video) in the WTC http://www.911blogger.com/node/9590

Update: Factual Evaluation of the DOE WTC Tritium Report Data - 911 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/141

Breakdown of the WTC Rain and Firehose Water - 4 Million Gallons of Dilution http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/136

Prof Jones Accepts Validity of Stable Isotopic Testing for Neutron Activation of Fusion Reactions http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/142

Hello!?! 48,000 Curies of Tritium Would Have to Have Burned to Leave the 3.53/2.83 nCi/L of WTC Tritium Residue http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/147

New Laws of Physics Noted in WTC Fires and Ignored - Dr Cahill's Discovery of Anaerobic Chlorine Fueled Combustion http://rense.com/general77/newlaws.htm
The Only Single All-Inclusive 911 Resolution Theory - TCN911WIJ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/172

9/11 Sicknesses consistent with environmental radiation contamination http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Fron...6/22/01625.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EdWardMD
post Apr 21 2010, 10:41 PM
Post #34





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 26
Joined: 12-April 10
Member No.: 5,010



QUOTE (JimMac @ Apr 21 2010, 09:01 PM) *
I'm just a regular poster here, but i am submitting that all your threads of today should be in the debate forum. You seem very overtly belittling Steven Jones and thereby Architects and Engineers for Truth and also insinuating they are part of a deception (correct me if i'm wrong on that). These are very stong opinions, and i am more than sure only a small number of people agree with it.

As for nukes, its highly debateable, and its bound to get incendiary with that tone of yours.

JimM


The 'Traces Of Tritium' WTC 9-11 Lie Is Obstruction Of Justice By Accessories To Murder - Steven Jones
http://www.rense.com/general85/911.htm

7. This is my 'fave' because lies tend to eat their young. Muon physicist Steven Jones calls 1,000 TUs "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 ) - http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters...he-Hypoth\ esis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf Yet, calls the EXACT SAME LEVELS quoted in nCi/L as "Traces" and "These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure". http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters...he-Hypoth\ esis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf Interesting isn't it.

8. Thomas M. Semkowa, Ronald S. Hafnerc, Pravin P. Parekha, Gordon J. Wozniakd, Douglas K. Hainesa, Liaquat Husaina, Robert L. Rabune. Philip G. Williams and Steven Jones have all called over 1,000 TUs of Tritium, "Traces". Even at the height of nuclear bomb testing 98% - after thousands of Megatons of nuclear testing - of the rainwater tests were 2,000 TUs or less. <https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf>https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EdWardMD
post Apr 21 2010, 11:04 PM
Post #35





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 26
Joined: 12-April 10
Member No.: 5,010



Dimitri Khalezov - micro nukes in the WTC - ALSO a bit on the pentagon. He says a missile hit the pentagon based on trajectories. - old news for people that have seen my efforts. .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZzwyPRgY9os

LOL, another of my links disappears...

Here's a fresh one....

911 WTC nuclear demolition with Dimitri Khalezov - Upper echelon of Russian intelligence, wanted by the FBI as a terrorist, same point different aspect.

http://www.disclose.tv/forum/911-wtc-nucle...wtf-t19433.html

This post has been edited by EdWardMD: Apr 22 2010, 01:13 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Apr 22 2010, 02:35 AM
Post #36





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



Ed Ward, i'm reading all your stuff. Its bloody fascinating. Like taking a course in how to write propaganda. You even have your own world of foot notes.

Ok, i hear that you have been denied a forum by everyone on the net, completely ignored by all, the word ostracized comes to mind; and now you're here to argue your case. Well i think you should have that opportunity. If your stuff can stand the heat in here its worth something, conversely, if it can't, it's not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Apr 22 2010, 05:25 AM
Post #37



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 835
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



Is Edward Ying to Pookzta's Yang? How many threads are you going to start? I'm with Sanders on this one, state your case, be civil and don't spam the forum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EdWardMD
post Apr 22 2010, 05:58 PM
Post #38





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 26
Joined: 12-April 10
Member No.: 5,010



QUOTE (EdWardMD @ Apr 21 2010, 08:07 AM) *
The 'Traces Of Tritium' WTC 9-11 Lie Is Obstruction Of Justice By Accessories To Murder
http://www.rense.com/general85/911.htm

1. "Obstruction of Justice" - http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/obstruction-of-justice/ - "hiding evidence" is part of the classic textbook definition of Obstruction of Justice. To "conceal" or lie about evidence of a crime makes one an accessory after the fact to that crime. http://www.sagepub.com/lippmanstudy/state/oh/Ch06_Ohio.pdf

2. Trace definition as it applies to quantity: Occurring in extremely small amounts or in quantities less than a standard limit (In the case of tritium, this standard level would be 20 TUs - the high of quoted standard background levels.). http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trace

3. The stated values of tritium from the DOE report "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center". "A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.1640.074 (2) nCi/L (164 pCi/L +/- 74 pCi/L - takes 1,000 trillionths to = 1 billionth) of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.530.17 and 2.830.15 nCi/L ( 3,530.0 pCi/L +/- 170 pCi/L and 2,830 pCi/L +/- 150 pCi/L), respectively. https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf Pico to Nano converter - http://www.unitconversion.org/prefixes/pic...conversion.html Nano to Pico converter - http://www.unit-conversion.info/metric.html

4. 1 TU = 3.231 pCi/L (trillionths per liter) or 0.003231 nCi/L (billionths per liter) - http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2282.html - (My original TU calculations came out to 3.19 pCi/L, but I will gladly accept these referenced minimally higher values. http://www.clayandiron.com/news.jhtml?meth...mp;news.id=1022 )

5. In 2001 normal background levels of Tritium are supposedly around 20 TUs (prior to nuclear testing in the 60's, normal background tritium water levels were 5 to 10 TUs - http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2282.html ). However, groundwater studies show a significanlty less water concentration: Groundwater age estimation using tritium only provides semi-quantitative, "ball park" values: <0.8 TU indicates submodern water (prior to 1950s) 0.8 to 4 TU indicates a mix of submodern and modern water 5 to 15 TU indicates modern water (< 5 to 10 years) 15 to 30 TU indicates some bomb tritium http://www.grac.org/agedatinggroundwater.pdf But, instead of "5 to 15 TU" (which would make the increase in background levels even higher), I will use 20 TUs as the 2001 environmental level to give all possible credibility to the lie of "Traces".

6. Let's calculate the proven referenced facts. Tritium level confirmed in the DOE report of traces of tritium = 3,530 pCi/L (+/- 170 pCi/L, but we will use the mean of 3,530 pCi/L). 3,530 pCi/L (the referenced lab value) divided by the backgroud level of 20TUs (20 X 3.231 p (1 TU = 3.21 pCi/L) = 64.62 pCi/L as the high normal background/standard level. 3,530 divided by 64.62 pCi/L = 54.63 TIMES THE NORMAL BACKGROUND LEVEL. 3,530 pCi/L divided by 3.231 pCi/L (1 TU) = 1,092.54 TUs

7. This is my 'fave' because lies tend to eat their young. Muon physicist Steven Jones calls 1,000 TUs "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 ) - http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters...he-Hypoth\ esis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf Yet, calls the EXACT SAME LEVELS quoted in nCi/L as "Traces" and "These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure". http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters...he-Hypoth\ esis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf Interesting isn't it.

8. Thomas M. Semkowa, Ronald S. Hafnerc, Pravin P. Parekha, Gordon J. Wozniakd, Douglas K. Hainesa, Liaquat Husaina, Robert L. Rabune. Philip G. Williams and Steven Jones have all called over 1,000 TUs of Tritium, "Traces". Even at the height of nuclear bomb testing 98% - after thousands of Megatons of nuclear testing - of the rainwater tests were 2,000 TUs or less. <https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf>https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf

9. Over one year ago, Steven Jones, Alex Jones, Fetzer, Wood, most of the "BYU crew", most of the so called "911 Truth" groups/sites and indeed the public at large have been notified by me of the falseness of the "Traces" lie, but instead of promoting the truth and addressing it, have simply run from it and seem to be doing all in their power to suppress it. <http://www.rense.com/general80/prov.htm>http://www.rense.com/general80/prov.htm

10. It is also important to note that the tritium present was diluted by at least some portion of 1 million liters of water accounting for BILLIONS of TUs.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/136

Thermate, C4, Micro Nukes Prove 911 Was an Inside/Outside Job.
http://www.rense.com/general80/dprah.htm

The above are my opinion based on the proven referenced facts.

Ed Ward, MD


Presto this article no longer has a header - interesting isn't it. Apparently can't have that as a header. Proven lies by proven accessories to murder.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th April 2014 - 08:07 PM