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 )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Ground Zero Question...

greenrayriver
post Mar 24 2010, 10:42 AM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 71
Joined: 14-January 10
From: Missouri
Member No.: 4,842



Was there any evidence of radioactivity at ground zero?

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Mar 24 2010, 11:16 AM
Post #2





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



Yes elevated levels of strontium.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/c...istrytable.html

QUOTE
Strontium can also exist as several radioactive isotopes; the most common is 90Sr. 90Sr is formed in nuclear reactors or during the explosion of nuclear weapons. Radioactive strontium generates beta particles as it decays. One of the radioactive properties of strontium is half-life, or the time it takes for half of the isotope to give off its radiation and change into another substance. The half-life of 90Sr is 29 years.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsub...e.asp?toxid=120

The following quotes are from people at the WTC.
QUOTE
“Snow” is everywhere: in my hair, eyes, nose, and ears. Now I understand what was flashing in the dark blue mass of smoke
1. 20th Street. The “cloud” has turned into a dark blue mass of smoke. And so weird: something is glittering all over it, like camera flashes. What is it?

“The sky was glittering with glass,” says Nina L., a Tribeca resident who ...
Then he writes of seeing “glitter” through the black smoke, during tower ...

I saw glittering paper which made no
sense and thought it was part of a promotional event, as

My building shook and a huge black cloud with glitter
The “sky was glittering with glass” that day: ... The cloud billowed southward, over the river, enveloping everything in the dust and debris of blown-apart lives. ...
Then he writes of seeing “glitter” through the black smoke,

. I saw glitter swirling through the air amid the smoke,

pushing black smoke and like a glitter. I guess it was glass that was glitter that was in the ... second collapse, the

Both would be among only 20 alleged survivors of the “collapse” of the two ..... I guess it was glass that was glitter that was in the cloud of smoke.” ...

... Then I noticed the million little white flecks, like glittering confetti, ... It and the smoke were
So I went into Three World Trade Center, andThen into 2 World Trade Center at the Liberty Street entrance ..... up to see what she thought was glitter fluttering from the sky onto I found an engineer. ... I guess it was glass that was glitter that was in the cloud of smoke.


For glass to glitter it would need a light source, if you were in the smoke cloud light would not penetrate in to reflect. I believe this would be gamma rays passing through their retinas. The glittering does not show up on any of the videos.

An EMP would explain exploding cars and vapourized engine blocks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Mar 24 2010, 03:57 PM
Post #3





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



Plus there's a lot of ground zero workers getting diagnosed with thyroid cancer, which is usually from being exposed to radiation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 25 2010, 08:52 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwtGpdSTaAI

QUOTE
Depicts events, in recent human history, that have greatly changed our world.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
greenrayriver
post Mar 25 2010, 11:09 PM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 71
Joined: 14-January 10
From: Missouri
Member No.: 4,842



QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 25 2010, 07:52 AM) *



Cool video...sure looks like a profile of a triple mushroom cloud.

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Mar 26 2010, 02:38 PM
Post #6





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (greenrayriver @ Mar 25 2010, 11:09 PM) *
Cool video...sure looks like a profile of a triple mushroom cloud.

Thanks

I think a combination of explosive devises were used but nukes are only way I can come up with for the level of destruction, in the amount of time that it occurred of the lower and sublevels of the WTC.

When the smoke cleared, the Twin Towers were gone and an entire city block was destroyed. This is WTC 4 from Church Street soon after WTC 1(?) collapsed. The damage was not the result of a normal fire. This happened during the collapse. The fires that engulfed the building and the cars in front happened after this picture was taken.







For key places in the structure, the evidence shows they used cutter charges. Cutter charges combined with fuel/air explosives in the elevator shafts, would negate the need to 'wire' every floor. This would also cut down on the amount you would need to use of the more traceable types of explosives and would avoid the nasty radioactive fall out. But the only way they could destroy the sublevels and the lower floors of the Towers was mostly likely with low yield nukes in the bottoms of the elevator shafts. These could have been delivered by truck on the day of the attack. WTC 1, 2 & 7 all had freight elevators that you could drive into with a mid-size truck and go to any floor. By only using nukes in the lower levels of the cores, a lot of the radioactivity would be covered up by all of the debris that came down. Probably why most of the testing that folks like the EPA did were diluted by using mostly samples from offsite.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Mar 26 2010, 05:53 PM
Post #7





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



QUOTE
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Eyewitness Testimony of Firefighters Believing They Were Nuked on 9/11
... as well as early WTC7 Destruction, EMP, non-impact plane flyby, and people being pushed out of a WTC tower.


By The Anonymous Physicist

Reading just a handful out of the 503 9/11 WTC initial responders’ testimonies has proven to be a real eye-opener. These firefighters’ and EMS officers’ depositions provide good corroboration for many of the things I have hypothesized at this blog, including the following: The WTC was demolished via small nuclear bombs, that pre-“collapse” basement nukes were set off in the towers, synchronous with the “plane hit” explosions above, that there likely were EMP’s (Electromagnetic Pulses from nukes), and that WTC7 underwent early explosions, and attempted early demolition.


Firefighter Edward Kennedy here states that he thought a “nuclear bomb” had demolished a tower. “We were on Liberty Street and we came out into there and it just look like something that -- it looked like a bomb, of course, had gone off, almost like a nuclear bomb... “

Here we learn that NYFD Lt. George DeSimone similarly thought the heat--without fire--impinging on him was Hiroshima-like:

“I thought it was some kind of thermal explosion where I'm either going to get burnt -- and I had kind of ideas that it was going to be something like Hiroshima where all this heat was coming at me and we were going to get burnt…”
Several hours after both tower “collapses”, and despite official regime claims of total military and civilian flight termination, he said:
"...We saw jets overhead, commercial airliner, military jets, Air Force jets, and we didn't know what the hell was going on..."
Recall I have detailed how a nuke’s thermal rays go farthest out, well beyond its destructive blast radius. Here NYFD Chief Jerry Gumbo’s testimony is one of several I have cited, to say he felt heat far away from any actual fire. He stated:

"...At the time of the impact, we were able to feel heat that was generated from the explosion at the command post, which was across West Street, and West is fairly large street with that island in there, and debris was showering all over West Street."
I believe this is again indication of the early basement nuke concomitant with the “plane hit” explosion above.

Another firefighter who thought the WTC destruction was nuclear is NYFD Lt Richard Smiouskas, whose statement is here. He was an official NYFD photographer, and has some startling testimony, regarding other matters, as well. It appears that with his telefoto lens, he witnessed people being pushed out of tower one. He said:

"...I was photographing the fire from the roof. I had a long lens on the camera, and I had people in the windows. It looked like they were being -- they weren't actually jumping. One or two people I saw, they seemed like they were being forced out by the people behind them. There was half a dozen faces. In between the smoke you could see people..." (snip) "I guess they were all trying to get air, and this guy was actually standing in the window, standing in the frame with each hand on each frame and he kind of like got nudged out."
In the second sentence, it looks like he just stopped himself from saying “pushed”. The last incident may even indicate the NON-jumper was trying to keep himself from being pushed out!

Lt. Smiouskas believed that a nuclear bomb went off, due to the magnitude of Earth shaking that he felt. As a tower is being destroyed he recalls:
"It looked like an earthquake. The ground was shaking. I fell to the floor. My camera bag opened up. The cameras went skidding across the floor…I'm thinking maybe a bomb blew up. I'm thinking it could have been a nuclear….”
Then he writes of seeing “glitter” through the black smoke, during tower destruction.
“Everybody started running north, and this huge volume like ten stories high billowing, pushing black smoke and like a glitter. I guess it was glass that was glitter that was in the cloud of smoke.”
I do not believe this “glitter” was glass in the black smoke. Perhaps it is more likely that gamma rays from nuclear explosions which could readily traverse the black smoke, impinged on his retina. This is like the atronauts in earth orbit seeing (retinal) flashes from cosmic rays when they tried to go to a higher earth orbit, and like medical x-rays that go through you and onto a photographic plate.

But note how Lt. Smiouskas found the ground shaking was intense enough that he surmised (correctly, IMO) that a nuclear bomb went off. Now, I have been in 5.1 (Richter scale) Earthquakes, and in 2.3’s. The latter I didn’t feel at all, and the 5.1 sounds more like what Lt. Smiouskas (and I) experienced—at least a likely 4.0. I also was at the WTC six weeks after 9/11, and saw many cracked, concrete sidewalks, blocks away from the WTC, (as well as experienced my eyes burning from the hot toxic gases still emitted.) I therefore make the following assertion. It is likely that the “official” 2.1 and 2.3 Richter scale recordings on 9/11 had their spikes cut off! I have even found that NIST asked for a “re-analysis” of seismic data from one observatory before publishing their “findings.” So, just as I hypothesized about the long-delayed second AVIRIS (WTC temperature) data set, the seismic recordings were likely doctored by this regime. And this fire-fighter’s belief that the intense ground shaking was due to a “nuclear bomb” supports this hypothesis.

The interview of Dr. Michael Guttenberg, of NYFD’s Office of Medical Affairs, who may have witnessed EMP is here.

Just after the second “plane hit” explosion, and before any tower “collapse”, he noted:
“…on the EMS radio, there was absolute silence for probably 10 or 15 seconds, you know, which to me, it seemed like 10 to 15 seconds, but it was absolute radio silence for a few seconds…”
Questioner:
“We were told that the air was so thick with debris that radio waves weren't able to travel.”
M.G.:
“That was after the towers came down.”
Note two things, the radios went dead—likely a sign of EMP, as I have previously described. And see how the questioner attempts to confuse the issue with a double lie. One, that this happened after a tower was destroyed, when instead, this is after the second WTC2 “plane hit” explosion, and before any tower “collapse” as Dr. Guttenberg corrects him. And two, that radio waves would have been blocked by a conventional explosion, when they wouldn’t have been. And note also that this radio blackout occurred after the second “plane hit” explosion. My previous articles contained evidence, and my hypothesis, that the WTC1 “plane hit” explosion was used as cover for a nearly concomitant basement nuclear bomb explosion that vaporized a 50 ton steel press, and a garage level, and also caused phone outage. So we learn now that electronic communications also were affected after the second “plane hit”, which may indicates that they also nuked the basement of WTC2 at that time. I hypothesized that this was done in case the planned, subsequent, intricate, top-down demolition failed.

Guttenberg also provides more eyewitness testimony for early WTC7 explosions, as he went to the loading area of WTC7.
“…We all stuffed ourselves into this hallway [near the loading dock of WTC7], pulled the door shut, and the noise just got very loud and the room filled with dust. The noise stopped, and we opened up the door, and everything was pitch black. The way we got into the loading dock was not the way we were getting out. It was obstructed.”
This appears to be a watered down way of saying WTC underwent internal explosions. This jives with my earlier article citing Deputy Director of the NYC Emergency Services Dept., Barry Jennings, that the WTC7 underwent attempted complete internal destruction at the same time that the first tower (and WTC 3, 4, 5, 6) were demolished. My article, on top here hypothesized that fizzled nukes was the reason WTC7 was not successfully destroyed during this early coordinated attempt, which Jennings stated destroyed much of the lobby, now corroborated by Guttenberg. The last URL also has my earlier articles on nuclear demolition of the WTC.

NYFD Lt. Robert Larocco here also noted that tower destruction seemed “nuclear” to him. He said,
“Of course the cloud was kind of like a nuclear winter thing. You're walking through fallout.”
Near the towers, but BEFORE either tower “collapse”, he noted:
“As I started walking onto the side street – actually as I stepped onto the side street, the strangest thing I noticed was there was like three inches of snow on the ground. The snow was probably pulverized concrete, sheetrock, loose tiles, insulation, asbestos or what-have-you.”
Now this fine ash or 3 inches of snow-like “pulverized concrete” as he called it would not occur from a “plane hit” or conventional explosives. Could this fine, 3 inches of “snow” be from the early basement nukes I have written about? Like the WTC1 basement blast that vaporized a steel press, and a parking garage level that eyewitnesses said was just “gone.”

Now some DEW/OCT disinfo agents claim that the tower destruction was not loud because their hangout was not loud. During the commencement of WTC2 destruction, Lt. Larocco stated:
“The next second I heard that loudest noise in the world that I was describing before getting louder and louder.” (snip) “It was the loudest noise I've ever heard in my life. It was in both ears. Kind of like those rockets that they launch the space shuttles with, it was like I had one going off in each ear. When I thought it was the loudest noise I ever heard, every second it was just increasing getting louder and louder and louder.”
Lt Larocco also describes very personal feelings of fear of death, and fellow firefighters “crying like babies” during and just after collapse. These revelations prove that the redactions in the published responders’ statements were not because of wanting to hide the most personal of feelings.

Lt. Larocco also stated that hours after both towers were destroyed:
“…I still really didn't believe that the second tower was hit by a second plane.”
At this point, the interviewer, Monte Feiler, says, “Stopping the interview at 1306.” Then, “Resuming the tape at 1308 hours. Same people present.”

Now Lt. Larocco says: “
Like I said, the rumors were flying around, and they turned out to be quite factual, about the second tower getting hit. Although at the time I really didn't believe it until I saw it later on television. The thing about the Pentagon, the plane crashing out in Pennsylvania, it was all coming into the picture that this is something major going on.”
So we see how something happened during this “time out.” Something he was told and recalling what was “on TV” apparently made him change his mind and believe in the second “plane hit.” This manipulation speaks for itself. And if there really were plane hits, would the PTB need to perform such blatent manipulations of eyewitness testimony?

Finally I note that when he was making his way out after “collapse,” Lt. Larocco recalls:
“I thought to myself this is a locked exit. That's illegal.”
We see, as some survivors have noted, many fire escape exits were locked. Someone--who may have had a master key--apparently locked numerous exits. If such a man is ascertained, and his actions proven to be deliberate, he should be charged with mass murder.

My interpretation of EMT Frank Puma’s deposition here indicates that he may have witnessed a FLYBY, and not a “plane impact” regarding the alleged “second hit.” He said:
“…I ran down to the corner of Church and Park Place, looked up and I saw the plane shooting out of the top of the towers. That's when I grabbed for my radio and yelled over the air, "1 Adam. A bomb just went off in the Trade Center."...
Note that after he witnessed an apparent flyby, HE CALLED IN A BOMB, and NOT a plane impact! In fact, when you couple his statement to the interviewer, with his action of exactly what he called in, it seems clear that he believed the plane he saw bombed the WTC! And this must be considered a possibility. However, all the evidence and the ludicrous “plane-shaped” hole itself indicate shape charges, at that facade, were set off in sync with a flyby (and basement nukes).

Finally, for those who grasp the deeper conspiracies I have elucidated here, I note that Firefighter Michael Wernick here stated the number of the Fire Engine that apparently responded first to the WTC, on 9/11. Wernick said, “Engine 33 went first.” As I have written here before, “All things nuclear…”
posted by spooked at 10:59 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 27 2010, 12:11 AM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



I'm pretty sure about the nukes,
but not about "no planes".

Funny how these 2 things are tied together in the same article.

I remember an interview with a helicopter pilot who dumped cement
on Chernobyl, he said the radiation felt like a warm breeze blowing through him.

There were also some people that described the billowing dust clouds from the demolitions as being "hot".

This is the first time i have heard that the smoke was "sparkling".
Though i do know glass dust sparkles a little in sunlight
(and smells a bit like the smoke from the flint of a lighter).

I once crushed beer bottles for a living.
(thousands of palates of returnables)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alanj
post Mar 27 2010, 03:28 AM
Post #9





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 36
Joined: 20-November 08
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Member No.: 3,996



QUOTE (Ricochet @ Mar 25 2010, 04:16 AM) *
Yes elevated levels of strontium.


In the interests of fairness the article found at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsub...e.asp?toxid=120 begins by saying,
"Strontium is a naturally occurring element found in rocks, soil, dust, coal, and oil. Naturally occurring strontium is not radioactive and is either referred to as stable strontium or strontium. Strontium in the environment exists in four stable isotopes, 84Sr (read as strontium eighty-four), 86Sr, 87Sr, 88Sr."

The other link that is referenced http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/c...istrytable.html does not indicate what type of Strontium was found, and it does not specify whether the level was "elevated". Where did you get the data from that specifically suggests elevated levels of 90Sr?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Mar 28 2010, 11:52 AM
Post #10





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 449
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



Question: Why are earthquake researchers working at Ground Zero?

Here is a study by the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research that talks about AVIRIS and other satellite scans and thermal imaging.

MCEER Report

Note this interesting statement on Page 12:

"...the GPS devices were not working due to interference."

I have queried one of the report's authors about the nature of the "interference". No reply.

Could it have been residual radiation????

Also on pagea 14-15 we see this:

"At 11:55 am of September 11th 2002, only three hours after the terrorist attacks, SPOT 4 acquired a multispectral scene of Ground Zero... The satellite has two sensors:
a multispectral device with a spatial resolution of 20 meters (m) and a finer resolution panchromatic device that can record objects of 10m.
"


They published only the 20m resolution image.

This post has been edited by kawika: Mar 28 2010, 12:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 28 2010, 04:00 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE
For fission of uranium-235, the predominant radioactive fission products include isotopes of iodine, caesium, strontium, xenon and barium.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fissi...Characteristics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/c...istrytable.html

It is thought that fourth generation nuclear devices (specifically built for demolition)
were used at the WTC on 9/11.
These would have been, possibly, scaleable, fusion devices that leave less radioactivity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alanj
post Mar 28 2010, 05:22 PM
Post #12





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 36
Joined: 20-November 08
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Member No.: 3,996



"For fission of uranium-235, the predominant radioactive fission products include isotopes of iodine, caesium, strontium, xenon and barium."

[quote name='lunk' date='Mar 29 2010, 09:00 AM' post='10783889']
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fissi...Characteristics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/c...istrytable.html


From the reference provided above at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fissi...Characteristics

------------
Fission product production
"Small amounts of fission products are naturally formed as the result of either spontaneous fission of natural uranium, which occurs at a low rate, or as a result of neutrons from radioactive decay or reactions with cosmic ray particles. The microscopic tracks left by these fission products in some natural minerals (mainly apatite and zircon) are used in fission track dating to provide the cooling ages of natural rocks. The technique has an effective dating range of 0.1 Ma to >1.0 Ga depending on the mineral used and the concentration on uranium in that mineral."
------------

What levels indicate above "normal" levels? What is a "low rate" as suggested? Were these levels recorded in the data presented at
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/c...istrytable.html?

The data presented at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/c...istrytable.html did not include records of iodine, caesium or xenon, I presume for the fingerprint of a "fission of uranium-235, the predominant radioactive fission products include isotopes of iodine, caesium, strontium, xenon and barium." to be detected all these elements should be present?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Mar 28 2010, 07:55 PM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 838
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Mar 27 2010, 07:38 AM) *
I think a combination of explosive devises were used but nukes are only way I can come up with for the level of destruction, in the amount of time that it occurred of the lower and sublevels of the WTC.

When the smoke cleared, the Twin Towers were gone and an entire city block was destroyed. This is WTC 4 from Church Street soon after WTC 1(?) collapsed. The damage was not the result of a normal fire. This happened during the collapse. The fires that engulfed the building and the cars in front happened after this picture was taken.

Kawika did some work over at Let's Roll on the WTC6 crater - here's the thread (easier than posting the photos to here).

http://letsrollforums.com/foia-released-ni...tos-t20520.html

What is interesting is how the damage to WTC6 changes from the time well after the collapses (but before WTC7 comes down) to photographs taken on 9/12. This suggests further explosions, possibly to coincide with WTC7 coming down, that leaves the massive crater of emptiness in the building. The gun encased in concrete give a clue to the extreme temperatures and maybe the type of explosion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Mar 28 2010, 10:21 PM
Post #14





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 449
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (KP50 @ Mar 26 2010, 09:55 PM) *
Kawika did some work over at Let's Roll on the WTC6 crater - here's the thread (easier than posting the photos to here).

http://letsrollforums.com/foia-released-ni...tos-t20520.html

What is interesting is how the damage to WTC6 changes from the time well after the collapses (but before WTC7 comes down) to photographs taken on 9/12. This suggests further explosions, possibly to coincide with WTC7 coming down, that leaves the massive crater of emptiness in the building. The gun encased in concrete give a clue to the extreme temperatures and maybe the type of explosion.


WTC6's raised roof section is the most prominent change The photos appear to have been taken around noon on 9/11. After WTC7, there is an expansion of the crater that involves the raised area.
Add to this the thermal signatures of WTC1, 2 and 7. However, the signature is absent in WTC6. You gotta wonder what could vacuum the hole in WTC6 without heat.

We have a window between 5:20pm on 9/11 and early on 9/12 when the crater expands noticeably. We need to find some photos of WTC6 on 9/11 after 5:30pm.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Mar 28 2010, 11:09 PM
Post #15





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (kawika @ Mar 28 2010, 10:21 PM) *
WTC6's raised roof section is the most prominent change The photos appear to have been taken around noon on 9/11. After WTC7, there is an expansion of the crater that involves the raised area.
Add to this the thermal signatures of WTC1, 2 and 7. However, the signature is absent in WTC6. You gotta wonder what could vacuum the hole in WTC6 without heat.

We have a window between 5:20pm on 9/11 and early on 9/12 when the crater expands noticeably. We need to find some photos of WTC6 on 9/11 after 5:30pm.

I just put up a slide show of WTC 4 Slide Show

I'm still putting together slide shows for WTC 3, 5 & 6 but here's a link to the photos I've collected so far -
WTC 3 - WTC 4 - WTC 5 - WTC 6

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Mar 28 2010, 11:11 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Mar 29 2010, 11:31 AM
Post #16





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



QUOTE
"We also found, unexpectedly, short-lived radioactive iodine, produced for medical treatments and diagnostic procedures, in New York Harbor sediments," says Sarah Oktay of UMB, lead author of the EOS paper. "This is most likely related to urban waste-water discharges and appears to be unrelated to the collapse of the trade center buildings."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/...30121081022.htm
Most likely urban run off? They never tried to isolate the source.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EdWardMD
post Apr 21 2010, 07:50 PM
Post #17





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



QUOTE (greenrayriver @ Mar 24 2010, 09:42 AM) *
Was there any evidence of radioactivity at ground zero?

Thanks


Yes, massive amounts of tritium. Also many above normal range nuclides found in a machine with only 50% efficacy. All in the 'traces of tritium' report referenced in my articles.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: 26th July 2014 - 09:10 AM