"The amount of people needing decontamination was enormous on 9/11"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0pxVbXyB9OLeWJCOElMMWgxbHc/view?usp=sharing
The timing issue is key as to when decontamination sites were set up.. If the decontamination sites were active BEFORE 9/11 like FEMA/ OEM Pier 92 was then this is another example of an inside Job..
"
9/11 New York Witness To City Wide Terror Drill Operation Tripod
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3g4SGTBJTw
Decontamination from what? USGS said no harmful asbestos found.. No cancers from asbestos.
However, the team was grateful not to find amphibole asbestos — the kind generally viewed as the more dangerous, more carcinogenic form of asbestos — in any of the samples.
Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0pxVbXyB9OLaW9hRUV0aW5GejA/view?usp=sharing
"The dust contained higher amounts of lead, zinc, antimony, copper, and other elements of building materials than found in natural soils. The level of lead in some samples was high enough to be a potential concern."
http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/2011/09/10/september-11-2001-studying-the-dust-from-the-world-trade-center-collapse/
What Is Red Mercury 2020 mercury antimony oxide
Presumably red in color. Ballotechnics are substances which react very energetically in response to high-pressure shock compression. Google's Sci.Chem group has had a lively ongoing discussion about the possibility of a an explosive form of mercury antimony oxide. According to some reports, red mercury is a cherry red semi-liquid which is produced by irradiating elemental mercury with mercury antimony oxide in a Russian nuclear reactor. Some people think that red mercury is so explosive that it can be used to trigger a fusion reaction in tritium or deuterium-tritium mixture. Pure fusion devices don't require fissionable material, so it's easier to get the materials needed to make one and easier to transport said materials from one place to another. Other reports refer to a documentary in which is was possible to read a report on Hg2Sb207, in which the compound had a density of 20.20 Kg/dm3 (!). Personally, I find it plausible that mercury antimony oxide, as a low density (nonradioactive?) powder, may be of interest as a ballotechnic material. The high-density material seems unlikely. It would also seem unreasonably dangerous (to the maker) to use a ballotechnic material in a fusion device. One intriguing source mentions a liquid explosive, HgSbO, made by Du Pont laboratories and listed in the international chemical register as number 20720-76-7. Anyone care to look it up?9/11 Uranium in the dust? What?
Dear Jeff,
I have briefly examined the paper presenting an argument on the basis of “trace element” concentrations in dust and on girder residues from the WTC that the buildings that they were destroyed by nuclear fission ... the evidence is interesting and I will briefly discuss the issues.
1. The concentration of Uranium is a key. This is slightly too high in the dust and much too high in the girder coatings. The activities for 2.7, 3.2, 4.7 and 7.57 are 33, 40, 58 and 93Bq/kg. The graph shows that there is too much U on the girder coatings. Normal levels of U are about 12, at most 40Bq/kg
2. My belief is that there is a cold fusion weapon or device of some sort. This employs Uranium and Deuterium. The output is neutrons, lots of heat, lots of energy, gamma radiation. The devise is the size of an apple or grapefruit but heavy (20-40kg). No radioactivity after the explosion except from Tritium H-3 which together with He-4 is the product and some short lived gamma radiation from neutron activations products (e.g. Ca-45 from the Ca in the concrete, Fe-55 from the steel). These would be radioactive for a few days only. [emphasis mine]
3. You would thus expect to find too much Uranium and also Tritium. You find both. There is a paper showing high levels of Tritium in the water at WTC. We also see U levels are too high.
4. Maybe the Barium is part of this mixture, and the Strontium. I have certainly found high levels of both in the war samples.
Regards,
Chris Busby
he also mentions equally aspects that are not in error and still indicate fusion, fission or both. The reader should also understand that as far back as the very early 1960s the Soviets detonated AN602, or Project 7000; product code 202 (Izdeliye 202); article designations RDS-220, which used deuterium and uranium in a process that combined fusion with fission which then reduced total radioactivity by 97%. Today, deuterium, lithium deuteride and dozens of other "salting" methods exist to combine fusion and fission in what's called a hydrogen or neutron bomb. Nano-technology is a child of the nuclear industry and we can assume with absolute certainty that explosive nuclear devices have been consistently reduced in size since the 1950s. In 1960 we had developed the "Davy Crocket," a nuclear device measuring approximately 17 inches long and 11 inches around. It's safe to assume that between 1960 and 2000 the size of these devices was dramatically reduced with the advent of nanotechnology.
Ground Zero Element Analysis.pdf
https://app.box.com/s/k6nfpmdseu6fnpayrjin
- But for those too lazy to follow the link, I'll use this Facebook posting to summarize it. The first order of business is to describe the nuclear devices properly. I call them "neutron nuclear DEW", whereby some of the arguments and much of the evidence of Dr. Judy Wood apply. A paradigm shift is required to understand it.
- From decades of PR and hype of nuclear weapons, the common paradigm suggests that such always aim for high yields, lots of destruction, and lots of casualties. When "DEW" (directed energy weapon) is appended to the description, the assumption is that energy is being aimed at a target to achieve destruction and casualties. (Laser beams and active denial systems do precisely this.) Contradicting DEW, the assumption for neutron devices is that the neutrons radiate in all directions from the detonation point to achieve maximum casualties.
The necessary paradigm shift for neutron nuclear DEW is that energy is ~not~ being used efficiently nor to its maximum destructive potential. In fact, the DEW portion of the design has the purpose to throw away the highly energetic neutrons by aiming them (upwards) where they can do the least collateral damage, both to life forms and to tandem nuclear devices. Nuclear side-effects of heat wave, blast wave, EMP, and radiation are still present, but are reduced to tactical levels. Radiation is present, but mostly non-lingering (dissipating in 48-72 hours). And for what did linger, tight security and nuclear hazmat efforts were in effect to handle.
In the case of 9/11, the devices' detonation sequence in the towers was top-down, but they were DEW devices that directed their neutron energy upwards. This had the added benefit of helping prevent fractricide of nukes lower in the tower.
Opponents have countered at times with: "Directing 'the neutrons upwards' by what mechanism?"
The difference between a fusion device (thermonuclear weapon) and a neutron bomb is the casing. The casing of the former contains the highly energetic neutrons, causing them to bounce around more inside and generating more and more chain-reactions in the core to generate a massive blast & heat wave. The casing of the latter allows the highly energetic neutrons to escape. Because of this, the blast & heat wave are significantly reduce (but still dangerous) and the highly energetic neutrons can penetrate structures and cause cell damage to life forms (and embrittlement in metals).
What results by combining the spherical casing from these two devices such that, say, most of the spherical casing was from a standard fusion device except for only a small cap (or even pin-hole) on top from a neutron casing, which then permits those highly energetic neutrons to escape? ANSWER: a neutron directed energy weapon that targets its energy through the circle of the cap on top. Consider it a shaped-nuclear charge. The neutrons would be directed in a cone shape. As the circle of the neutron cap is made smaller and smaller, the effective angle of the cone gets narrower and narrower.
Evidence of 9/11 being a nuclear event include the items below marked with [*].
[*] Radiation
Even from a flawed small set of samples, the measurement of tritium at levels 55 times greater than background levels (that gets re-defined in the report) alone is proof enough that radiation was there. As for alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, this was there too, but due to the nature of the device being primarily a neutron one, that particular radiation would have been short-lived (48-72 hours).
For all detractors who are tempted to say "you have no proof of there being radiation," I respond that they also have "no proof of there being ~no~ radiation, or all measurements of such be at or below background levels." The report that performed systematic measurements of such with samples from all over the WTC including the hot-spots has been very much missing in action.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x15
[*] Radiation Mitigation Techniques: The Dirt on That
One of the known radiation mitigation techniques is to spread fresh dirt over the contaminated area; allow it time to absorb alpha, beta, and gamma emissions; collect and dispose of the dirt; repeat.
This page on Dr. Wood's website with pictures of radiation mitigation techniques being implemented.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt3.html
[*] Proper analysis of the Dust
Mr. Jeff Prager reviewed the data from the dozens of dust samples collected by the USGS in his Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB].
http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html
These samples were collected more rigorously and systematically than those of Dr. Jones or the Lioy et al report. The USGS samples had Thorium, Lanthanum, and Yttrium, which Lioy et al do not tabulate. As was mentioned, the Lioy study lists in Table 2 various inorganic elements and metals, but does not provide details into meaning or correlations for Lithium (Li), Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), or Uranium (U). It ignores them and doesn't explain their presence. [Neither USGS data nor the Lioy et al report found the NT flakes that Dr. Jones did.]
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x21
Maxwell Bridges (A) the USGS, (B) the RJ Lee group who was called in by an insurance company to analyze the Deutsches Bank building, or (C) Paul Lioy et al who used only three samples from East of the WTC collected late to try to explain away alpha and beta activity: None of these groups A, B, or C reported nano-thermite or residue of other chemical explosives in the dust. A & C did tabulate things like Uranium in the dust, but made no effort to explain its presence, let alone that this, along with correlation between other elements, was a recipe for nuclear methods. Glaring omissions.
Dr. Steven Jones (and company) allegedly found NT primarily from dust samples given to him by Ms. MacKinlay. In addition to ~not~ looking at the tabulated results of the USGS dust samples (by far the most systematic and thorough) for patterns and correlations that should have been second nature for a nuclear physicist, Dr. Jones also never tested his own samples for the presence of other explosives or incendiaries even late in the game when it was brought to the attention of AE911Truth, despite by that time nano-thermite coming up short in explaining anomalous 9/11 features and Dr. Jones hinting that RDX or something else would had to have been used with NT. The lame excuse given by Dr. Jones and Mr. Gregg Roberts was that maybe the ability to detect such elements had passed the "sell-by" date, therefore the opposition would have a PR field day promoting "gravity driven pile-drivers." (Not to worry, because the science-literate in the 9/11TM would recognize the need for additional energy to balance the Newtonian equations, so would continue looking for the true source thereof.)
Extremely high temperatures were reached during the WTC pulverization, which explains the tiny iron spheres found everywhere including the lobby of the Deutsches Bank building. Whereas NT can reach high temperatures (~2788 C), even the experiments prove that NT can not reach them quick enough to account for the WTC destruction. Moreover if deployed, NT would have been more localized and strategic (at joints, bolts, cutting spot) and would have been incapable of heating neighboring beams end-to-end to achieve these arches in the short time allocated.
Nuclear fusion (of which neutron bombs are a variant) peaks at about ~799,999,726 C, or only about 287,000 times hotter than NT or 261,000 times hotter than RDX, making it a more likely candidate for heating steel beams end-to-end VERY QUICKLY into a bendable state.
The following link takes you to the section "Under-Rubble Hot-Spots and Nano-Thermite." It does the simple-ass math of high school chemistry to explain why NT is a farce in terms of being attributed as the primary destructive mechanisms.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x18
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../nuclear-2001-09-11...
//
Maxwell Bridges Dear Ms. Norma Rae Hostetler, I used to be a died-in-the-wool no-planer, thanks to September Clues, until I discovered the errors in their ways and their deliberate skew.
Real planes hit the towers. However, they were not the alleged commercial aircraft.
Two sets of radar data (albeit consistently offset by like 1,800 feet) agree with one another, and with nearly all video footage taken of the 2nd aircraft, particularly when overlaid onto 3D models of NYC that demonstrates a consistent flight path. This was the key to get me off my no-planer bent.
However, a nugget of truth that I preserve from September Clues is that the velocity of the 2nd aircraft at 3/4 mile above sea level exceeded the maximum ratings of the commercial aircraft at high altitude without structural failure and other badness happening. At near sea level, though? The engines of the alleged aircraft could not even have pushed the aircraft through the heavy air, let alone the structure of the aircraft withstand the heavy resistive air without wings falling of AT THE VELOCITY confirmed by radar and videos (>500 mph).
The thing to note from the Sandia Test Aircraft (jet into wall) and the Mythbuster's video (rocket sled into car) is that a velocity-squared term plays into the energy equation. When the velocity is very large, so is energy, which is why the planes seemingly "disappear" as if a Road Runner Cartoon.
It would be a huge mistake -- and one that falls right into the disinformationt trap -- to reject Dr. Judy Wood's work out of hand as you are attempting.
At least I have read it cover to cover (as well as her website), and can more easily speak to the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Here's a review:
++++++++++
Dr. Wood's doesn't promote theories, just lots of dangling innuendo that she doesn't connect together into a cohesive whole. In more than one case, her comments and leading statements are wrong. Here's three examples. (1) She points out how the engine of a particular fire engine was melted. No. The engine in that particular model was set back closer to the axel, so what she points out as melted wasn't. (2) She points out how a police car was torched at the bridge. No. The police car was torched elsewhere [with pictures documenting this fact] and was towed to the bridge to get it out of the way. All of her speculation about energy zapping things at the bridge are wrong. (3) She points out how a ladder truck had its ladder and front end wilted. No. That truck had a large piece of building land on it, and the picture was taken after it was removed. (4) She talks about the spire disintegrating based on one perspective. Yet when other videos from other perspectives are studied, that spire telescopes and falls over. It is only in that one perspective that it looks to be disintegrating.
Dr. Wood's book re-hashed things from her website yet corrected very little of her mistakes, many of which -- like the above -- should have been known or pointed out to her. She doesn't address any of the criticism of things from her website. Dr. Jenkins had some valid criticism (and some skewed invalid stuff, too.)
Dr. Wood promotes Hutchison way too much. I'm on the fence as to its validity, leaving the door open for it to be proved. Yet there is a difference between validity and applicability, and she hasn't proven the latter for 9/11.
Furthermore, although September Clues has its own issues in being a disinformation vehicle, it does have some nuggets of truth. For example, some imagery manipulation did happen (just not the extreme extent that they promote), and the media was and has been complicit in the ruse from the beginning. I can think of two or three images off the top of my head that Dr. Wood used that may have been manipulated: (1) fireman walking over "beam on fire"; (2) window of broken glass framing the images of patriotic firemen standing in a puddle raising a flag; (3) one of her satillite images supposedly showing dust cloud from space; (4) the images of hot-spots [she used a government report unchallenged].
I take issue with Dr. Wood because she gave nuclear considerations the bums rush. She makes a big deal out of dirt being carted in, spread out, then a few days later, piled together and carted away: blatant radiation mitigation techniques. But does she talk nukes? No. It doesn't take much research to discover unique nuclear mechanisms, or unique configurations of known devices (e.g., neutron bomb) that would have achieved the observed effects. Hell, she doesn't mention tritium, doesn't mention the 1st responder ailments, doesn't put into perspective the energy required for the pulverization, doesn't power her DEW devices with anything real-world operational...
The true value of Dr. Wood's book is soley in the collection of images. It is worth the price of her book just for the correlation of images to map positions.
What is also noteworthy is that nobody from the 9/11TM -- not Dr. Steven Jones, not Dr. Jenkins, not Dr. Herrit, not Jonathon Cole, not David Chandler -- has even cracked the cover of her book to debunk it page-by-page, image-by-image. They won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Why? Because mixed in with the stilt-and-skew, it has copious amounts of truth that remain valid. If they wade even part-way into it, their own theories will be found wanting in not being able to be address the truth that remains. It is better for the disinformation compaign (to avoid nukes) for them to sweep the whole work off the table as if it is "loony, crazy, nutty." It's not, despite being a disinformation vehicle, and it many areas it isn't far from the truth and certainly
points out things that astute thinkers must consider.
- A Military Code Name for a New Nuclear Material As I understand it, this definition originates from the extraordinarily high prices commanded and paid for a substance called 'red mercury', which was manufactured in Russia. The price ($200-300K per kilogram) and trade restrictions were consistent with a nuclear material as opposed to cinnabar.
