| 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 (883 Views) | |
| Ed Ward MD | Sep 30 2009, 12:00 PM Post #26 |
|
What's the difference between PhD and MD degrees? A PhD knows everything about nothing and an MD knows nothing about everything. |
|
|
|
| midwestwally | Sep 30 2009, 12:51 PM Post #27 |
|
Thank you, Ed. I need to gather up the information into a left-hand, right-hand clarity. I am beginning with the first article you reference. The pertinent information is contained within an expert response to the question, "What is the definition of a TU (tritium unit)? I believe that it is "old school." The expert (David J. Allard, CHP) responds and includes the information for us, specifically: "Prior to atmospheric nuclear weapons testing ... surface waters such as lakes and streams are estimated to have had a concentration of 5 to 10 picocurie per liter (pCi/L). [Because of] Post World War II atmospheric testing ... greater than natural level concentrations of man-made tritium can now be found in surface and shallow ground waters. ... One TU is equivalent to 3.231 pCi/L of water." Allard references a book Environmental Radioactivity by Merril Eisenbud. Therefore, normal concentrations were once 5-10 pCi/L or 1.548-3.095 TU. Is TU the appropriate unit of measurement with which to continue? Our next source will be the DOE report, "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center (October 1, 2002)," where on page 6 it states, "Typical current concentrations of HTO in water in the US are 0.1-0.2 nCi/L." Early in the report (page 1) it is stated that "Traces of tritated water (HTO) were detected at the World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.164+-0.074 (2xsigma) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53+-0.17 and 2.83+-0.15 nCi/L, respectively. These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure." Now, this is the statement with which we wish to take issue, correct? Converting numbers nano- is 10-9 and pico- is 10-12 (sorry about the lack of exponent capability), therefore looking at the greater of the Building 6 measurements—3.53 nCi/L is equal to 3530 pCi/L, converting by a factor of 1000. And therefore the statements of the report do not appear consistent with the expert response above. But the report does make the curious statement regarding "typical current concentrations" being in the nano- range, and then proceeds to introduce factors that would account for a slightly elevated HTO level (tritium in the plane exit signs, digital watches, weapon laser sights). I agree that there are curious things here and will continue to examine. Thanks, Ed. Edited by midwestwally, Sep 30 2009, 12:55 PM.
|
|
|
|
| JFK | Sep 30 2009, 01:11 PM Post #28 |
|
Off topic, but is this what you mean by "exponent capability" ? CH4
x2
|
|
|
|
| midwestwally | Sep 30 2009, 01:21 PM Post #29 |
|
Thanks, JFK! Absolutely. So, prefix nano- is 10-9 and pico- is 10-12. Regarding the topic, I want to seek out another source for the normal level concentrations. I'm between classes right now (teaching gig), but maybe have time to go Google-ing later. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Sep 30 2009, 02:25 PM Post #30 |
|
You are welcome... You may also want to have a look here - http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/1501150/1/ - and here - http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/pages/bbcodes/ |
|
|
|
| midwestwally | Sep 30 2009, 04:03 PM Post #31 |
|
Fantastic, JFK. Those links will be way useful in future postings. And hey, I was well aware that the "lack of capability" that I referred to above was my own, my lack of coding knowledge, but I should have stated so in my remark. So really, thanks again! |
|
|
|
| midwestwally | Sep 30 2009, 04:54 PM Post #32 |
|
Okay, so I went searching on tritium levels in the environment and landed at the EPA website. A search on tritium there yields many hits, many of which are links to regulations in state and regional documents. Here are three: Spokane Tribe of Indians – Surface Water Quality Standards March 7, 2003 Resolution 2003-259 1. Introduction: … (3) The purposes of these water quality standards are: to restore, maintain and protect the chemical, physical, biological, and cultural integrity of the surface waters of the Spokane Indian Reservation; to achieve a level of water quality that provides for the protection and propagation of fish and wildlife, for recreation in and on the water, and for all existing and designated uses of the water; … 7. Radioactive Materials: … Tritium concentrations shall not exceed 20,000 picocuries per liter. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/wqslibrary/tribes/spokane.pdf Arizona Title 18: Environmental Quality, Chapter 11: Department of Environmental Quality, Article 1: Water Quality Standards; Effective October 22, 2002 G. The following water quality standards for radiochemicals shall not be exceeded in surface waters with the domestic water source designated use: … 4. The concentration of tritium shall not exceed 20,000 picocuries per liter of water. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/wqslibrary/az/az_9_wqs_oct02.pdf Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin, September 8, 1994 (California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region) Table 3-7 Maximum Containment Levels for Radioactivity specified in Table 4 of Section 64443 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations as amended January 3, 1995. (from table) Constituent: Tritium; Maximum Containment Level, pCi/L: 20,000 http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/wqslibrary/ca/ca_9_san_diego.pdf So, the amount 20,000 picocuries/liter translates to 20 nanocuries. These documents appear to suggest that a concentration up to 20 nCi/L is environmentally acceptable. Therefore, I'm not certain of the proper context of the initial "natural level concentrations" put forth by the expert Allard. Since he referenced the book Environmental Radioactivity by Eisenbud, I may visit that next. |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Sep 30 2009, 05:45 PM Post #33 |
|
Rabid on your screen = Funny shit! I LOL'd. |
|
|
|
| Ed Ward MD | Sep 30 2009, 07:02 PM Post #34 |
|
So we searched for 'other normal concentrations', and come back with 'environmentally acceptable'. The WTC air was 'environmentally acceptable' too. Interesting. Also interesting is the fact that 'environmentally acceptable' is 4 times the maximum amounts of tritium found in the 60's AFTER THOUSANDS OF MEGATONS OF NUKES WERE DETONATED. Basically, for Tritium to be 'environmentally unacceptable' one has to be in the middle of a nuclear reactor or a nuclear explosion. Normal background levels IS NOT THE SAME AS SCAM HIDING NUCLEAR CONTAMINATION OF US IN 'ENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE' EPA. When 20 is the Normal Level, How Does 1,092 = 'Traces'? Pay no attention to proven background levels, use scam 'environmentally acceptable'. Personally, all the scumbags 'scientists' that made 400 times the present elevated by nuke explosion tritium levels 'environmentally acceptable' should be in trial for accessories to murder, just like the scumbags that made 1,092 TUs of Tritium = 'Traces'. However, if they want to avoid trial, I'd gladly substitute having them 8 glasses of 1,091 TU water (7,999 TU water for the EPA murderers) every 5 days until they are dead. After all - it's below the level of concern and 'environmentally acceptable. Re: Update: Evaluation of the DOE WTC Tritium Report - 911 The DOE report, "Study of Traces (Traces = 55 Times the Quantified Background Level of 20 TUs or 0.0638 nCi) of Tritium at the World Trade Center", <http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf> clearly nuggets: 1. "No Tritium Signs at the WTC", On page 7, 5. Sources and Fate of Tritium at the WTC, paragraph 2, "We were informed by PANYNJ authorities that there were NO TRITIUM SIGNS AT THE WTC, only photluminescent ones (Lombardi, F.J. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, personal communication, 12/10/2001). This is entirely consistent with our observations." 2. No Tritium Present in the Firefighter Equipment, On page 9, Last paragraph, "It was concluded that fire and emergency equipment could not have been a source of tritium,...". 3. A One Hour Dry Fire with 3000 Ci of Tritium Leaves 0.0000065% (6.5 Millionths of 1%) Tritium residue with 99.9999935% of the Tritium escaping, page 8, Last paragraph,. Jensen, G.A.; Martin, J.B. Investigation of fire at Council, Alaska: A release of approximately 3000 curies of tritium. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Report PNL-6523, Richland, WA, 1988. This is a very similar scenerio to the plane fires in the WTC burning for 1 hour without water intervention. The DOE report continues, "It was a free-burning fire, which consumed the building in 1 hr. Tritium assessment was done 11 days after the accident. The remaining GTLS tubes were mostly undamaged but disfigured, indicating that all tritium had escaped. No air-borne tritium was detected. All tubes were carefully wiped on surfaces, and the HTO activity from the wipes amounted to 6.5×10−8 of that originally present. No HTO was found in bioassay or environmental samples. The release scenario at the WTC from the airplanes is consistent with this accident. However, the Twin Towers collapsed before their complete burning, so the fraction of tritium deposited at the WTC might be larger." "This oxide immediately vaporized due to the intense heat. Most of the HTO would be transported in the vapor phase with the wind, since the weather was dry on 9/11/01." Page 8, 3rd paragraph, DOE report. This intense heat lasted for hours before water was brought to the WTC. It is doubtful that anything other than residual Tritium was subjected to collection by water with 99.9999% of the Tritium escaping into the air. (Note the disinformation provided after "However,... ". Whether or not the building collapses is irrelevant. Just as a quantitative value can not be defined under the scientific method as "well below the levels of concern to human exposure", and reports the actual value of 55 times background levels. The determining factors would be heat, time and exposure. If anything all of those factors would have been at least as large or larger. The burn times were almost exact at 1 hour of burning for both fires. The heat, since it was supposed hot enough to weaken steel according to the official government theory, while the 3,000 Ci fire still had unmolten 'mostly undamaged' glass tubes. Thin Glass tubes will melt long before massive steel girder heat sinks will significantly weaken. The supposed Tritium level only significant source is the 34 Ci in the 'commerical airliners'. I'm not going to quibble about a couple Curies. The DOE is scrounging to find a Curie here a Curie there. I'll spot them their 2 Curies and give them an extra lagniape Curie for a gimmie of 37 Curies. 34 of these Curies were slammed into a building at 500 mph, consumed in a massive fireball and fire that burned for an hour, certainly they were exposed to tremendously more than the 3,000 Ci fire undamaged glass tubes.) 0.000000065 X 37 Ci original = 0.000002405 Ci = 2,405 nCi residual. Started with 37 Ci, according to the laboratory data proven by DOE lab testing, leaves 2.4 millionths of 1 Currie residue. 0.000000065 X 37 Billion nCi = 2,405 nCi residual. There was 3.53 nCi/Liter of water at the WTC in one sample of the 'flowing' water pool. 2,405 nCi/3.53 nCi/Liter of Water = 681.3 Liters (170 Gallons - Three 55 Gallon Drums) of WTC water accounts for All of the expected Tritium residue. How much water was sprayed on WTC 6? Approximately 1 Million Liters. Since we only have 2 real specimens of all of the WTC and they are from WTC 6, this sample's pool of water should have less total volume (less dilution than the lower value second sample), so it is fairly safe to assign a value of less than 50% and since the ratio of the differences are 3/2, the assigned percentage of the total volume of 1 Million Liters at 1/3 of the total. Bear in mind this is a very crude calculation/approximation and is mainly being used to show the massive amounts of Tritium present in the WTC waters. 3.53 nCi/Liter of water X 333,333 Liters = 1,176,000 nCi for 1/3 of the total volume of the rain and firefighters efforts. This is 6 times the amount of residual Tritium (only found on the tubes themselves - every where else = none found) found in the 3,000 Ci fire. Approximate amount of original Tritium required to leave that amount of residue = 18,000 Ci original. Again, this is only for 1/3 of the total amount of water dispersed fairly evenly over WTC 6. The second sample contains 2.83 nCi/Liter of water from a 'flowing' water pool in WTC 6. Again, since it is the more diluted value it has been assigned a percentage of the total volume that is larger than the first pool of 'flowing' water. 2.83 nCi/Liter of water X 666,666 Liters of water = 1,885,000 nCi present in 2/3 of the total volume of water present in WTC 6. This is right at 10 times the residual Tritium of the 3,000 Ci fire. For more on the water dispersal and simiilar information on TUs at the WTC, see an earlier response to Prof Jones http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/8 and the breakdown of 4 million gallons of WTC dilution. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/136 Approximate amount of original Tritium required to leave this amount of residue (3 Million nCi)? 30,000 Ci. The third sample from the NY sewers which must have a massive total volume contained 0.164 nCi/Liter of Water. 0.164 nCi/Liter X 120,000,000 Liters = 19,680,000 nCi present in a total dilution of the WTC waters. If one subtracts the amounts of Tritium residue found in WTC 6 (3 Million nCi) that leaves us with 16.7 Million nCi for the 250 feet wide by 35 deep craters surrounding WTC 1, WTC 2, the DOE's 37 Ci, and the standard 20 TUs from environment anywhere in the world that there is not man made nuclear contamination. The DOE report gives a breakdown of the 30 Million gallons (120 Million Liters), the total volume of the Tritium diluting water on Page 9. Total original Tritium needed to leave the residues from the only 2 WTC samples with a dilution by the rain and fire fighters efforts = 48,000 Ci. To leave this amount of residual Tritium requires a huge source of Tritium. 4. "Tens of Thousands Ci of Tritium" (original amount) did leave traces of Tritium in the second DOE reported fires with Tritium. Page 9, first paragraph. What is it with Tritium? Tritium is only made in our atmosphere through nuclear interactions with the sun's radiation. It is very evenly dispersed throughout the world at 20 TUs/0.0638 nCi of Tritium (up from 10 pre nuclear testing, reactors, waste, etc). Any value above 20 TUs must come from man made nuclear events. Man made nuclear contamination is the only way to make the Tritium level rise above 20 TUs. It takes alot to keep Tritium from dispersing and even then 1/2 will be gone in 12.5 years. Why is the usage of Micro Nukes so important? Until it is shown the government is using them, the tyrants will continue using them. The corporate media has already laid the groundwork for blaming a nuclear explosion in a city on terrorists. The usage Micro Nukes shows that the tyranny exists in more depth than the original 'usual suspect' government departments, agencies and both political parties. The usage of Micro Nukes points to possible other national neo fascist assistance with a most likely scenerio of Israel. Thermate, explosives and thermonuclear devices are the only thing that explain all of the WTC debris. Why is Micro Nukes in the WTC being censored, hidden and scammed? For the very reasons it is so important. In order to be good disinformation, the disinformation must contain some truths. One must not concern themself with the "interpreted" disinformation (the non Tritium information on the terrorist attacks has no bearing in the scientific method) - , but dig for the true information/data that is hidden and included to give the accuracy/acceptance of the disinformation. Some disinformation can be an excellent weapon for truthers - multifacet - that shows what was hidden, the source is unimpeachable since it comes from the disinformers, and completely refutes the "interpretations". Disinformation can sometimes contain 'nuggets of gold' as my friend Captain May, (GhostTroop) would say. The DOE report, "Study of Traces (Traces = 55 Times the Quantified Background Level of 20 TUs or 0.0638 nCi) of Tritium at the World Trade Center", <http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf> had a trail of gold nuggets. How Does a Truth Finding Scientist Quantify At Least 55 Times Environment Data Constants ( 20 TUs or 0.0638 nCi Tritium) Quantity as: "well below the levels of concern for human exposure" while ignoring massive dilution of the sample. A scientist looking for the truth would never and can not use 'well below the levels of concern for human exposure' because it is not a value. "...well below the values of human concern" is just a false reassuring feel good statement and is completely useless. The statement does not even lead to a value since the levels of concern are not given a value. It appears that the scientists are using the EPA value of 8,000 TUs for the 'level of human concern' - 400 times the environmental amount. 399 times the environmental level does not get reported as a level of concern. It only takes one particle of radiation to kill a person. No amount of radiactivity exposure is safe. Some radiation exposure is merely acceptable by this government and some scientists based on a loss of life vs monetary expendatures to prevent excess radiation. It's a simple cost/benefit scenerio, not a safety scenerio. If the reader is new to the information being evaluated, the author suggests starting with the first article and reading them chronologically. There should be around 200 references that many times contain significantly more information than the individual referance indicates. Ed Ward, MD 911 Related Articles - 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 in the WTC http://www.911blogger.com/node/9590 9/11 Sicknesses consistent with environmental radiation contamination http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/06/22/01625.html Articles referencing my micro nukes articles. Ted Twietmeyer's excellent article on EMP effects: What May Have Melted the WTC Vehicles. Jerry Mazza's insights on 911 and current political scams: Ground Zero Illnesses Come Back to Haunt Giuliani. Edited by Ed Ward MD, Sep 30 2009, 07:49 PM.
|
|
|
|
| midwestwally | Sep 30 2009, 10:30 PM Post #35 |
|
Thank you once again, Ed. It is apparent that you are eager to educate and gather support from our ranks for your views. Please believe me, all of us here realize that we and the rest of the world have been scammed by the events of 9/11 and those that carried out that scam are, to say the very least, scumbags. And I promise to work through the considerable amount of information you provide, but I must repeat a question I posed a couple of posts ago: Are we certain that TUs are the appropriate units of measurement to use in the discussion, as most all of the other information available is in either pCi/L or nCi/L? It just seems a bit convoluted to have to convert back and forth. Also, where is a source that I can confirm that "20 [TUs] is the Normal Level"? Is this standard posted somewhere, or is this a calculation that you have derived from a source or combination of sources? Thank you for your patience. |
|
|
|
| midwestwally | Sep 30 2009, 11:03 PM Post #36 |
|
Ed, I hope you will not mind, but I am quoting this passage from your last posting and intend to respond to the several points here. The last statement you make here may indeed prove to be accurate. Many of us, in fact, do believe (or are coming to believe) that a combination of explosives were in effect during the twin towers' destruction. So if micro-nukes were discovered to be added to the mix, then so be it. I don't see why that would be such a problem with truth movement people since it would only add to public awareness and outcry. Do we not think that elements within the Pentagon were up to speed on micro-nuke technology and had access? Assuredly the DOD was operating on a large scale to stand down fighters and/or have them tied up in war game exercises. I certainly believe that until the true participants in the planning, execution and cover-up of 9/11 are exposed, that the American people and others anywhere in the world are in danger of further false-flag operations carried out by the same or related sources. If they got away with it once, and benefited, then they are very likely to do it again. However, I do not get the connect between micro-nukes and the "possible other national neo fascist assistance with a most likely scenario of Israel." Why does the presence of micro-nukes in the WTC demolitions cause the conclusions to be drawn any more serious than before? Conspirators are no more treasonous or murderous than if they used any other type of explosive materials, right? |
|
|
|
| Ed Ward MD | Oct 1 2009, 12:48 AM Post #37 |
|
5 to 15 TUs in 2001 from a combination of sources. Hard to be able to get an 'standard environmental' with the isolated nuke energy plants contaminations. I used TU's since it was the standard in the old days and was the basic reporting levels for 2001 references I found. 20 TUs was used to give all possible credibility to the traces lie. The link for groundwater levels has been quoted twice. But, want to give 50 TU's as the standard - it doesn't matter. Hell, use 100 TUs - but above 100 I want to see some references (grin) - as the standard AND EVEN WITH THAT 1,092 TUs CAN STILL NOT BE CALLED TRACES - IT'S A MURDEROUS LIE. I have no problem with legit questions from people that want to see facts and understand them. I'm not really concerned with 'followings', I'm just trying to get facts known when they are being suppressed and scammed by 'supposed 911 truth groups'. The best way to control the opposition is to lead it - Lenin Ed Edited by Ed Ward MD, Oct 1 2009, 03:09 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Ed Ward MD | Oct 1 2009, 01:12 AM Post #38 |
|
It shows that it is not a US problem. It's a worldwide problem and it's based on zionism -. Only governments can get their hands on nukes easily. All nukes leave a signature specific for design. Once the tests are performed it can point directly to the nation involved in the development of the nuke. Before one can solve a problem. The problem must be identified. Actually, if you read the information again, you will see that the ONLY reference that has been scientifically refuted in more than 200 references is 'thermite' and I did that one myself. Thermite in the form necessary to allow demolition - flexible, linear, contact - simply does not exist. However, flexible, linear, contact cutting charges are documented since 1995. Feel free to quote anything I post - even if it's old. I'll either stand by it, or if circumstances have changed will notify of changes. Ed You had me worried with that 20k pics BS. For some reason, you just give a vibe. You are very polite, a nice guy and seem to be putting some thought into what is basically a slam dunk imo. Good thought processes overall - except for the 20k EPA BS - and I enjoy the xfer of discussion. !k may stike at the leaves in vain, when only 1 need strike at the 'tap root'. Thanks... so far... grin. Edited by Ed Ward MD, Oct 1 2009, 01:33 AM.
|
|
|
|
| ULTIMA1 | Oct 6 2009, 03:31 AM Post #39 |
|
What i think is so funny is the fact that the EPA blamed radiation levels at the crash sites on Depleted Uranium (DU) from the planes when the 757 and 767 do not carry DU. Boeing stopped using DU in the later 747s, due the fact of a radiaton problem involving a 747 crash. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Oct 6 2009, 02:17 PM Post #40 |
|
Ed, have you ever considered the possibility that the tritium originated from what they call "dirty bombs" ? |
|
|
|
| T3QuillAMocKINGbird | Oct 6 2009, 03:53 PM Post #41 |
|
If I understand correctly TU could stand for Tequila Units and 1000 TU's compared to 20 TU's would not be considered a trace. When I read this info back in 2006 I didn't realize the over abundance of TU. Was this tested after the pumping of 26 million gallons of water onto the pile? So it was also considered a Watered down sampling? Back in 2006 I saw an article about elevated levels of Tritium but again I am just an Average Joe, and a person refuted by saying the Exit signs were the culprit. The same person equated the following pictures to the Rubber Pencil effect. lol... Notice how white the plumes are, and as the lower plumes rise and envelop the spire it starts to disintegrate. |
|
|
|
| Ed Ward MD | Oct 6 2009, 05:34 PM Post #42 |
|
LOL, tequila units - I like it. Yes, 1000 tequila shots vs 20 tequila shots is a good analogy - no ossifer, I only had 'traces' of tequila. I believe it was 30 mil - but would have to recheck my articles to be sure since I don't use water leaking into the 'bathtub' because we don't know where that water went, just that it was pumped out - gallons total, but the numbers have been broken down for only the amount of water that would have been distributed on wtc 6 only. That breaks down to 1 milliion liters of dilution on the 'samples'. The same report 'traces of tritium' also states no exit signs in the WTC - albeit after they name it as a 'possible' source first. Thanks for the post. Ed Edited by Ed Ward MD, Oct 6 2009, 05:59 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Ed Ward MD | Oct 6 2009, 05:45 PM Post #43 |
|
No, because a dirty bomb is nothing but a bomb with radioactivity and it's not exhorbitant priced tritium, usually would be radioactive waste. Also, convential bomb does not have the characteristics needed to produce the evidence seen in the residue. Only a nuke can leave all the evidence found at the WTC - and it's all classic, textbook residue. Ed |
|
|
|
| JFK | Oct 6 2009, 06:08 PM Post #44 |
|
So you are saying that there is no way that tritium could have been a by product had this guy succeeded ?
Edited by JFK, Oct 6 2009, 06:15 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Ed Ward MD | Oct 6 2009, 06:17 PM Post #45 |
|
Gee, and I thought I said: No, because a dirty bomb is nothing but a bomb with radioactivity and it's not exhorbitant priced tritium, usually would be radioactive waste. Also, convential bomb does not have the characteristics needed to produce the evidence seen in the residue. Only a nuke can leave all the evidence found at the WTC - and it's all classic, textbook residue. Ed BTW, didn't see any tritium mentioned. Nor does it show anything other than a conventional bomb with radioactivity added. None of which can make all of the evidence seen at the WTCs AND WILL DEFINITELY NOT MAKE TRITIUM - takes a nuke to do that as well as make 5 acres 1800 degrees, turn 3 billion pounds of building turn into 2 billion pounds of dust, ect, et al. Oh, one last thing, I'm not saying squat, I'M MERELY SHOWING WHAT THE LITERATURE SAYS AND IT SAYS IT TAKE A NUCLEAR REACTION TO MAKE TRITIUM. Edited by Ed Ward MD, Oct 6 2009, 06:19 PM.
|
|
|
|
| JFK | Oct 6 2009, 06:23 PM Post #46 |
|
This paper disagrees with you.
|
|
|
|
| Ed Ward MD | Oct 6 2009, 06:27 PM Post #47 |
|
lol, based on 'cold FUSION' and first para - "The possible production of nuclear products". Gee, sure seems to me they are saying TRITIUM IS A NUCLEAR PRODUCT. But, then I try and stick to facts. But, maybe I'm missing something and what you have stated is not an outright mistatement of fact, so I'd sure like to see the specific quote that 'tritium is not a nuclear product' although I do suspect it is doubtful you will find a statement in a report that starts off with 'POSSIBLE PRODUCTION OF NUCLEAR PRODUCTS'. Edited by Ed Ward MD, Oct 6 2009, 06:40 PM.
|
|
|
|
| JFK | Oct 6 2009, 06:49 PM Post #48 |
|
I find it interesting that you laugh it off when those experiments have been recreated in many labs around the world and they have in fact created tritium without a nuclear blast... When what you are suggesting is that the only way to produce tritium is with a nuclear blast. |
|
|
|
| Ed Ward MD | Oct 6 2009, 06:53 PM Post #49 |
|
Show me any quote where I have stated it takes a nuclear explosion to make tritium. I have stated 'IT TAKES A NUCLEAR REACTION TO MAKE TRITIUM'. And I know of no evidence there were any nuclear labs making tritium in WTC 6. Indeed in cold fusion THE BASES OF THE ENERGY COMES FROM A NUCLEAR REACTION AS ITS BASIC THEORY. AND I FIND IT INTERESTING THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE FOR YOUR STATEMENT - THAT THE ARTICLE DISAGREES THAT TRITIUM IS A NUCLEAR PRODUCT. |
|
|
|
| Ed Ward MD | Oct 6 2009, 07:04 PM Post #50 |
|
Interesting that this was not quoted in the response that mistates my statements. Also interesting how it's still 'me/you' saying it WHEN I CLEARLY STATE IT IS WHAT ALL LITERATURE ON TRITIUM STATES. LOL, references be damned, make it sound like it's just 'Ed' saying it. Interesting isn't it. Ed Ward, MD Edited by Ed Ward MD, Oct 6 2009, 07:05 PM.
|
|
|
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
120908.png (179.01 KB)| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Investigate 9/11 · Next Topic » |