| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Micro Nuke WTC Tritium Levels - When 20 is 'normal': How Does 1,092 = 'Traces'?; Actually, 20 is HIGH 'normal' on a very lenient grading scale | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 29 2009, 03:40 PM (868 Views) | |
| Ed Ward MD | Sep 29 2009, 03:40 PM Post #1 |
|
The 911 WTC “Traces of Tritium” Lie Is Obstruction of Justice by Accessories to Murder This is not ‘rocket science’, just basic math, law and lies. http://www.rense.com/general85/911.htm ASK STEVEN JONES HOW 1,092TU's/L = "TRACES OF TRITIUM"? The US Government’s Usage of Atomic Bombs – Domestic – WTC http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/09/25/ward.htm Update: The US Government’s Usage of Atomic Bombs – Domestic – WTC http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/03/05/ward.htm Understanding The Scam of Thermite on 911' by Dick Eastman, Dr. Steven Jones http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/481 A simple rebuttal to the lunacy of http://www.rense.com/general86/therm.htm This BS 'Bogus Science' has been addressed previously by me with a tremendous amount of factual evidence so I will not spend much time on this scam BS other than to post the previous referenced facts. I will address one statement that is so rediculous as to be laughable in its ignorance and stupidity if it weren't for the fact it being used to hide/scam the real facts of the destruction which by definition are those obstructing justice and accessories to murder: http://www.rense.com/general85/911.htm "This was scientific proof that beneath the rubble of the twin towers were extreme hot spots in which iron boiled for more than 15 weeks. ...it became clear that an aluminothermic reaction like Thermite was creating these hot spots." 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 A proven quote from my article dealing with the "The BS 'Bogus Science' of 'Explosive SuperThermite' Versus the Facts of a 'Deflagration Material'. http://www.rense.com/general77/geddno.htm There are approximately 2,628,000 seconds in a month. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080904102842AAuCDvw 2,628,000 seconds X 3.75 months = 9,855,000 seconds. 350 meters X 9,855,000 seconds = 3,449,250,000 meters (approximately 3.45 Billion meters or 2,14 Million miles) of thermite length would be needed to burn for 15 weeks. Wow, that's kinda long but maybe the super duper double top secret thermate was also super thin and they were able to hide 2.14 million miles of super thin thermate, so how much would it have to weigh? It takes about 1 gm of enhanced thermate to bring 1 gm of steel to melting point - a one to one ratio. So how much would it take to bring 5 acres of land 15 feet deep to the 1600 degrees? "at the US NIST, the average density of dirt is 120 lbs per cubic foot." http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/230/235/weightcart/historyof105-8.pdf There are 27 cubic feet in a yard. http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.04/carol3.html So 120 lbs/cubic ft X 27 cubic ft = 3240 lbs/cubic yard One acre is equal to 4840 square yards and your pond is 15 feet or 5 yards deep therefore the number of cubic yards is 4840x15 or 72600 cubic yards.<http://www.blurtit.com/q6688887.html>http://www.blurtit.com/q6688887.html We have no official numbers on the depth of the 1600 degree temperature of the 5 to 7 acres of land, but unofficial estimates seem to indicate about 15 feet, so lets use that. 3240 lbs/cubic yd X 72600/per acre = 235,224,000 lbs/acre. At a minimum 5 acres of land was brought to seering temperatures so 235,224,000 X 5 = 1,176,120,000 lbs. So based on these basic approximate calculations the 'super thin invisible super top secret super thermate' would have to have been 2.14 Million miles long and would to have weighed approximately 1.176 Billion pounds. The 911 Traces of Tritium Lie is Obstruction of Justice by Accessories to Murder. http://www.rense.com/general85/911.htm Other Referenced Factual Articles of Evidence TCN&911WIJ - Thermate, C4-like explosive, a Nuclear device & 911 Was an Inside/Outside Job! 1. Three Massive WTC Craters - See us gov LIDAR proof: http://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: http://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 5. 3 Billion pounds of building instantly turned into 2 Billion pounds of micronized dust. http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/09/25/ward.htm 6. 16 inch steel Spires that withstood 1/2 a Billion pounds of building falling on them and suddenly turn into limp noodles and partially vaporize. http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/03/05/ward.htm 7. Hiroshima effect cancers in responders and locals. http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/03/05/ward.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 ttp://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 National Geoscamics has caused me to re-evaluate my position on 'thermite'. I no longer believe it was used to cut steel. 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. 1 wiring with cutting charges with explosive back up, or 2 wirings one for explosives and one for thermite? and it's added problems? I don't think so. But, thermite makes a great cover for a nuke. The amount of thermite residue was fairly large. And we all saw thermite burning after the crash/fire - according to NG jet fuel is hard to light - but thermite grenades would ignite residual jet fuel after the initial missile blast and would fit the thermite I saw on video. Thermite is cover for the massive amount of nuclear heat from the micro IMO. The only thermite I saw was one of the dinky thermite grenade quality. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/484 Ed Ward MD |
|
|
|
| Ed Ward MD | Sep 29 2009, 03:50 PM Post #2 |
|
Re: Ask Steven Jones How Does 1,092TUs/L = "Traces of Tritium"? Hell, ask all the covert op supposed '911 Truth groups" that have dismised micro nukes under this PROVEN LIE - HOW DOES 1,092TUs/L = "Traces of Tritium". Testing The First US Micro Nuke - The Davy Crocket – 0.01 kiloton Ed Ward, MD 9-21-9 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv_q8q6Z9_I This .01 kiloton micro nuke video shows that a .01 kiloton micro nuke could easily have been basically contained with the WTCs. The data presented is an above ground detonation. Its crude design would have been unfocused and would have been no where near as clean as a 3rd (neutron) or fourth generation nuke. Based on this referenced proven data, the size of an underground, focused, Minimum Residual Radiation – http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/09/25/ward.htm – micro nuke explosion could have been 2 or 3 times as powerful and still been basically contained by the WTC buildings, possibly as large a 1 kiloton, but believe that would be about the maximum that could be used and still be effectively hidden. The US Government’s Usage of Atomic Bombs – Domestic – WTC http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/09/25/ward.htm Update: The US Government’s Usage of Atomic Bombs – Domestic – WTC http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/03/05/ward.htm The 911 WTC “Traces of Tritium” Lie Is Obstruction of Justice by Accessories to Murder This is not ‘rocket science’, just basic math, law and lies. http://www.rense.com/general85/911.htm ASK JONES HOW 1,092TU's/L = "TRACES OF TRITIUM" As for Jones "Hard Evidence Repudiates...". The only thing Jones addresses in MY massive amount of evidence is 'tritium' AND JONES IS A PROVEN LIAR ABOUT IT. Also, please show where jones -covert ops imo based on facts - has addressed 3 billion pounds of building turned into 2 billion pounds of instant dust, wilting 16 inch thick spires, 8 inch thick I beam horseshoes, 'hiroshima effect' spectrum of cancers, 3 massive craters, 5 acres of land at 1800 degrees, no DNA found for more than 1k people, impossible fires, anaerobic combustion, etc, et al. There is alot more, but this will basically get you up to speed. Ed Ed Ward, MD Edited by Ed Ward MD, Sep 29 2009, 04:07 PM.
|
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Sep 29 2009, 04:03 PM Post #3 |
|
I remember you spamming this stuff at ATS and you didn't last long there, did you? |
|
|
|
| Ed Ward MD | Sep 29 2009, 04:13 PM Post #4 |
|
ROFL - Seems the truth isn't welcome at COVERT OPS SITES, who knew? BTW, note the covert ops agenda - NEVER ADDRESS PROVEN FACTS, use tangential inuendo and BS. Architectects & Engineers Scam Joke - Another hiding nuke evidence under the TRACES OF TRITIUM 911 TRUTH LIE. DrEd |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Sep 29 2009, 04:26 PM Post #5 |
|
Yep, you're just like the no-plane disinfo artists. Attack professional 9/11 research organizations, attack prominent researchers. And to say the least, you're an (alleged) MD trying to school Dr. Jones who is a PhD. If you have real evidence to present, then you need to do a 180 and stop all this attacking and calling names bullshit and get a little professionalism under your belt. Nobody wants to read, or give respect to someone who comes on forums and posts "evidence", only to attack respected people and organizations. Now, if you want people to read and debate what you have to say, leave the childish attacking of respected organizations and people at the door. When I see your posts and you call respected individuals "liars" and respected organizations "Scam Jokes", then everything else you have to say is meaningless. See how that works? All you do when you attack respected individuals and organizations is make yourself look like an ass, take attention away from your main points, and needlessly waste bandwidth and space on forums. Now, grow up, get some professionalism, or continue to throw your temper tantrums like you did at ATS and then people will continue to NOT listen to you or care what you have to say. Edited by BoneZ, Sep 29 2009, 04:28 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Ed Ward MD | Sep 29 2009, 04:32 PM Post #6 |
|
Same ole' covert op BS. NEVER ADDRESS THE PROVEN FACTS. Who knew? Just show the facts wrong, it's much more effective than covert op scam. Oh, that's right, in over 2 years NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO REFUTE MY REFERENCED FACTS. ROFL - Seems the truth isn't welcome at COVERT OPS SITES, who knew? BTW, note the covert ops agenda - NEVER ADDRESS PROVEN FACTS, use tangential inuendo and BS. Architectects & Engineers Scam Joke - Another hiding nuke evidence under the TRACES OF TRITIUM 911 TRUTH LIE. DrEd |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Sep 29 2009, 04:40 PM Post #7 |
|
As I've already stated, nobody wants to read what you have to say when you have childish attacks and name-calling mixed into every other sentence. You have no respect for any of us when you attack us and call us names, so why the FUCK should we respect you and look at your evidence? Answer that. I'm getting a strong feeling you won't be here very much longer.... Edited by BoneZ, Sep 29 2009, 04:42 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Ed Ward MD | Sep 29 2009, 04:42 PM Post #8 |
|
Again, no facts address, just BS. Who knew? Why look at the facts - ROFL - from a 'supposed' 911 truther. A piss poor excuse is better than none when it comes to covert ops. DrEd Edited by Ed Ward MD, Sep 29 2009, 04:45 PM.
|
|
|
|
| JFK | Sep 29 2009, 05:44 PM Post #9 |
|
At this stage I would reccommend that you both put each other on ignore. Unless of course Bonez, you can debunk http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1678&context=lbnl as that appears to be the primary basis of Mr. Ward's conclusions. Frankly I personally do not believe that micronukes were used, but I will not censor Mr. Wards opinion here based upon his articles. Mr. Ward, just some advice. Your articles would be a lot more convincing and credible if you could directly link back to more official government and/or educational documentation. |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Sep 29 2009, 06:05 PM Post #10 |
|
Nobody is asking for his opinions to be censored. We're talking about his attacking of respected 9/11 organizations and respected individuals in the 9/11 truth movement. There's no need for that in any discussion. His "evidence" is overshadowed by the needless attacks in every other sentence. Here's his banned ATS account so you can see some of his threads: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/mem/EdWardMD He was banned at ATS for the same things he's doing here. I'm just bringing this to everyone's attention so they know what to expect from this disrespectful person. If "Mr. Ward" was attacking CIT instead of AE911T, I wonder how different your post would have been, JFK. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Sep 29 2009, 06:07 PM Post #11 |
|
Fine Bonez. Email Dylan. |
|
|
|
| Ed Ward MD | Sep 29 2009, 06:31 PM Post #12 |
|
Ward, Ward, Ward - Yet somehow the proven facts are never addressed. Interesting isn't it. Tritium truth is basic math. Any high school student should be able to check the numbers. After you check them and see they are correct. Ask yourself, why haven't you seen them on the supposed '911 truth' groups. Hell, go further, ASK THEM ABOUT THE EASILY SEEN PROOF OF LIES YOUR SELF. Don't take my word on it, check yourself to see the proof of covert ops. ASK THEM: HOW DOES 1,092 TUs/Liter = "TRACES". "The best way to control the opposition is to lead the opposition." Lenin. Edited by Ed Ward MD, Sep 29 2009, 06:35 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Ed Ward MD | Sep 29 2009, 06:43 PM Post #13 |
|
The Traces of Tritium '911 Truth' Lie - Reproduced so you don't have to take the link. 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 0.164±0.074 (2ó) 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 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 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/picos-to-nanos-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?method=view&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/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-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/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-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 |
|
|
|
| midwestwally | Sep 29 2009, 07:58 PM Post #14 |
|
Okay Ed, I (for one) have printed out the numbers you've posted and will go and try to learn something about them. What I am not connecting here with your presentation is, somehow because 9/11 groups have not embraced and have not championed the mini-nuke means of demolition, they are therefore in with the cover-up? How will exposing the "tritium truth" as you believe you've found it move us closer to a new investigation, and inspire the authorities to act and bring accountability from the results of that investigation? No disrespect intended here but the bottom line question: what do you want to do, or have us do together, with your information? There must be a more productive course besides discrediting others in the truth movement? |
|
|
|
| Ed Ward MD | Sep 29 2009, 08:09 PM Post #15 |
|
No offense taken and saw none given. Nothing I can do about outcomes. I can however show the referenced proven facts. What you see here today is the culmination of almost 2 years of exposing the truth only to see it scammed and hidden by so called '911 truth orgs' under the guise of truth and integrity. If you don't believe me, see what exposing the easily seen fact of massive tritium levels to those calling them traces. PLEASE EVERYONE/ANYONE FEEL FREE TO ASK THE 'TRACES' QUESTION. Ask it however you want, there never seems to be an appropriate forum for proven facts. Interesting isn't it. Just because I can't do everything, doesn't mean I should do nothing. Why won't they scientifically address the referenced proven facts? They are supposedly 'looking' for them under the guise of 'truth', 'integrity' and 'patriotism'. When one knows what is proven, it is much easier to see the scammers. It's not just tritium, many other significant facts are stated. Tritium just happens to be the easiest to see and the easiest to catch them in their agenda. Sure, could use massive craters, 5 acres of land, hiroshima effect, etc, et al, but the tritium is just simple basic math. Ed Edited by Ed Ward MD, Sep 29 2009, 08:19 PM.
|
|
|
|
| JFK | Sep 29 2009, 09:51 PM Post #16 |
|
That is where I disagree Mr. Ward. Each and every one of us sees different things surrounding the events of 911 which is "easiest to see" for them disproving the official story. One thing which I plainly see is the "pod" on the underbelly of flight 175, Bonez will vehemently disagree with me on that point to the point that he appears rabid on my screen... Nevertheless I do see it and nothing which he can say will change that. On the flip side of that coin he sees a plane in one of the Pentagon frames which I do not, and nothing I say will change that. Nevertheless we are on the same side as in we see that the government had a hand in the events of 9/11. You see tritium, others see the put options anomoly, nanothermate, building 7, and the list goes on and on. My point is that just because an individual does not see what is plain as day to you does not automatically make them the enemy. And yes I do see very elevated levels of tritium in that paper, but I do not know enough of the means in which it is measured to pass judgement either way. |
|
|
|
| Ed Ward MD | Sep 29 2009, 10:03 PM Post #17 |
|
You do not see that when the normal background level is 15 - 20 TUs/L, that a value of 1,092 TU's/L CAN NOT be called traces? Interesting. One need not use TU's, use lbs. If one is supposed to find 15 to 20 lbs of uranium in an acre field, and 1,092 lbs of uranium is found, then you are saying that experts in the field could easily confuse 55 times the amount as 'traces'. BTW, are pods proven by the US gov labs? Very interesting. DrEd Edited by Ed Ward MD, Sep 29 2009, 10:14 PM.
|
|
|
|
| JFK | Sep 29 2009, 10:27 PM Post #18 |
|
No Mr. Ward. The "pod" is anything but proven by the government agencies, however pics of that "pod" have appeared on the cover of several magazines in the days and weeks following 9/11 so it is very likely not fake. My question is how were they allowed past the pre flight check ? Anyways I have a feeling that it is your attitude here which will ultimately get you banned here, and frankly I find that sad because I think that you could actually contribute much more than you have. Before that happens and just out of curiousity what is a "TU" ? ( I am assuming that an "L" is a liter ) |
|
|
|
| Ed Ward MD | Sep 29 2009, 10:38 PM Post #19 |
|
A TU is the standard measurement of Tritium in 'Units'. And the main reason I looked at the reported values since they were not reported in the 'standard measurement' but in nCi/L to make the value seem small. They couldn't report it in TU's because the 'Traces' lie would have been a bit to obvious - 1,092 TUs = 'Traces' would have been clearly shown as the murderous lie that it is. Now, the average Joe USA doesn't deal in TU's/pCi/nCi, but it's muon physicists/nuke experts bread and butter and would stick out like a sore thumb to anyone remotely fluent in the language. But, again, it really doesn't matter what TU's are. What matters is that when one is determining values and the normal value is 20, when one finds 1,092 of them - IT CAN NOT TRUTHFULLY BE CALLED TRACES. It can be horses, battleships, 911 truth units, or UFOs. If the expected value is 20 and someone finds 1,092 of them - IT IS A LIE TO CALL THEM 'TRACES'. DrEd Edited by Ed Ward MD, Sep 29 2009, 10:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
| JFK | Sep 29 2009, 10:51 PM Post #20 |
|
Correct, and in that respect I guess that I am just an "average Joe". What is a Ci ? Am I correct in assuming that p=pico n=nano ? |
|
|
|
| Ed Ward MD | Sep 29 2009, 11:02 PM Post #21 |
|
From the above article - "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 0.164±0.074 (2ó) 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 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 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...-to-nanos-conversion.html Nano to Pico converter - http://www.unit-conversion.info/metric.html" Ci = Curies - The measurement unit from the US DOE gov lab. But, again, could be cows, bacteria, 747s, terrorists, whatever. If one is supposed to find 20 of them and 1,092 are found - It is a lie to call it 'traces'. I'm an 'average Joe' too, because the enormity of the lie did not strike me until I did the basic math, but again, to all experts in the field that deal with pico/nano/TU's on a daily basis, it would have been very obvious. Edited by Ed Ward MD, Sep 29 2009, 11:09 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Ed Ward MD | Sep 30 2009, 05:14 AM Post #22 |
|
JFK, thanks for not 'booting' me - it's not libel if it's true -and an excellent scanning of the articles for needed clarifications, although the np did slip past you - hidden amongst links. BTW, I'm a 'pod person', but I don't hang my hat on it because it's not certified by the DOE's certified lab - grin. My Best to You and Yours, Ed 'Don't give no BS, Won't get no BS' - Attitude Edited by Ed Ward MD, Sep 30 2009, 05:23 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Ed Ward MD | Sep 30 2009, 05:38 AM Post #23 |
|
Thank you. That's all I ask is that simple math be noted for oneself. 1 TU = 3.21 pCi/L. 3.5 nCi = 3,500 pCi. 3,500 divided by 3.21 = 1,092 units of anything. It's not rocket science by any means, no advanced physics needed. When 20 is normal, how does 1,092 = 'traces'. An open mind is all one needs - ok, and some basic math - but they seem to be quite a rarity these days. My Best to You and Yours, Ed |
|
|
|
| midwestwally | Sep 30 2009, 09:48 AM Post #24 |
|
Okay and thank you, Ed. Checking it out here. Hey, could you please provide a source (or the source) that discusses normal TU levels, where we are getting the figure of 20 TUs/Liter? If you already posted that and I missed it, my apologies. Thanks. |
|
|
|
| Ed Ward MD | Sep 30 2009, 11:13 AM Post #25 |
|
From the above article - 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/public...nformation/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". |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Investigate 9/11 · Next Topic » |