View Single Post
Old 31 Jul 2010 , 16:04 PM   #1
Join Date: 31 Jul 2010
Posts: 256
Threads: 56
Blog Entries: 2
Thanked 135 Times in 71 Posts
EdWardMD is a splendid one to beholdEdWardMD is a splendid one to beholdEdWardMD is a splendid one to beholdEdWardMD is a splendid one to beholdEdWardMD is a splendid one to beholdEdWardMD is a splendid one to behold
Update: The US Governmentís Usage of Atomic Bombs - Domestic - WTC

Update: The US Government’s Usage of Atomic Bombs - Domestic - WTC

By Ed Ward, MD

March 05, 2007

The Mysterious Craters:
A thorough examination the debris of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings reveals further evidence of massive power and heat - a thermonuclear blast. WTC 6 was 8 stories high. The total height of its central debris of the crater was about 30 to 50 feet below sea level and about 120 feet wide. Eight stories of building collapses and leaves a hole at least 30 feet deep.

Light Detection and Ranging - LIDAR displays from NOAA - Dark Green = 0 to -30 feet.

Another LIDAR map shows the central portion depth of WTC 6 in the range of -35 to -55 feet. Besides the crater in WTC 6, note the two craters that surround WTC 1 (perimeters are 30 feet deep and 250 to 300 feet wide) and WTC 2 (perimeters are 30 feet deep and more than 300 feet wide - some overlapping of the explosions). WTC 1 - 110 stories tall - debris pile 6 stories with a 30 feet crater surrounding it. WTC 2 - 110 stories tall - debris pile 6 stories high with a 30 feet crater surrounding it. WTC 3 (Marriott) - 22 stories tall - debris pile 3 stories. WTC 4 - 9 stories tall - debris pile 3 stories (the only building that is even close to its correct debris height). WTC 6 - 8 stories tall - debris pile MINUS 3 stories. WTC 7 - 47 stories tall - debris pile 7 stories. The New York times has a crude interactive map placing the crater depth at -30 feet. According to the official story, beams from WTC 1 collapsed the building. However, the collapse did not make a debris pile. It made a debris hole. (BTW, no supposed unspecified vague ‘scalar’ weapon can make these massive craters beneath intact debris.)

For those not as familiar with the WTC site as the author, a reference map is included.

The Persistent Hot spots:
Thermal images from September 16, 2001 show hot spots in the WTC 6 crater which persisted until at least September 18, 2001 as referenced by the composite illustration (below).

Somehow, this WTC 6 hotspot did not show up on some sites despite being taken on September 16, 2001
More than one month later, October 18, 2001, there are still hot spots at WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. Is WTC 6 cool or merely being reported as such again?

More than 5 months later, February 12, 2002, WTC 1 is still hot.

Additional photos of WTC 6 and 7, click here.
The Pyroclastic Cloud from WTC 6?

Within two seconds after the dust cloud from the WTC 1 collapse envelopes the area around WTC 6, a dust cloud suddenly and violently shoots up hundreds of feet into the air. (There is a much better video of this event that shows the area clearly and gives a much better view of the dust cloud upheaval. The video is part of 3 videos shown simultaneously on 3 small tv screens (from 3 different broadcasters) that are no bigger than 1/20 of the available screen size. I lost the link (computer crash and have spent close to 30 hours trying to find it) while looking for a decent sized screen shot of the particular video. If anyone has the link for this site, please send it to me so the article may be updated with the best information available.)

The 16 Inches Thick Steel Cores that Melt into Limp Noodles and Partially Vaporize:
After the outer structure of WTC 2 falls, a portion of the central core remains standing for almost 25 seconds then it appears to melt and vaporize. Two videos of the above scene can be found in "The Strange Collapse of the Spire." The second video with a clearer view of the spire’s demise can also be seen. The cores at the base of the WTCs are 16" thick steel rectangles - each side is 4" thick. (BTW, there is no conventional explosive or thermate combination that can produce this effect. Nor can any nanothermate, superthermate, super-duper thermate and explosives combination produce this effect. However, this reporter is anxiously awaiting the "scientific" introduction of invisible, invisibly acting, super-duper, double top secret, stealth-micro-nanothermate as the cause of what clearly is a thermonuclear post Flash effect.)

Further evidence of tremendous heat can be seen in this 8 ton 6" thick I beam that is bent like a horseshoe without warping, kinking or splitting. A more comprehensive view of the I beam with an informative audio track can be seen here. (Again, there is no way for thermate to create this horseshoe, unless it is "miraculous" thermate. Nor, is there any unspecified vague "scalar" weapon that can do this even if the beam was isolated and not covered by some degree of 110 floors of concrete and steel.) Clearly, this is residual steel that has been exposed to massive and intense heat that is entirely consistent with a thermonuclear explosion and virtually nothing else can produce this single effect, let alone this and ALL the other irregularities.

The Elevated Tritium Levels:

The "well below levels of concern to human exposure" and "7 times less than the EPA limit" of Tritium in the environment are in actuality 27 to 35 times higher than should have been found in one sample, and 21 to 28 times higher than should have been found in the other sample. In spite of this fact it was deemed that no other testing was needed. In spite of the fact that no amount of radiation is considered "safe", it is merely "acceptable". This shows proof that even in the same general area there were varying degrees of dilution of the 10 ml samples prior their being collected and tested. Note that there is no notation about the size of the pools the samples were taken from.

The first few sentences of this analysis report start out actually dealing with testing samples. The report gives a value of 0.164 nCi/Liter with a standard deviation of +/- 0.074 nCi/Liter for sewer water (at least about 25% higher than should have been found). WTC building 6 samples were determined to have 3.53 +/- 0.17 nCi/Liter and 2.83 +/- 0.15 nCi/Liter. Then the report goes into pages of information have nothing to do with the study - the WTC, terrorist attacks, a "box model" that seemed to have absolutely nothing to do with determining the degree of dilution present in various areas, or any area, for 30 million gallons - or more appropriately since the study uses liters as measurement - 120 million liters of water. Sixteen million liters of water were dispersed throughout the site by rain and firemen had to dilute the amount of tritium present by varying degrees of 16 million liters of water. To find out the original concentration multiply the amount found per liter by any number from one to 16 million. Of course this completely ignores the other 104 million liters that may or may not have been dispersed as thoroughly as the 16 million liters previously noted.

The standard range for environmental Tritium is 0.1 to 0.2 nCi/Liter. Testing in areas other than the WTC revealed levels (less than) < 0.13 nCi/Liter. Ignoring the levels found in WTC 6 which were 30 times what should have been found, the sewer water contained 0.164 minus the standard environment range of 0.13 there is at least 0.034 more activity than should have been found after having been diluted 120 million times. This does not count the other areas of contamination levels inside the WTC that were 20 times that amount of Tritium activity and were diluted by varying amounts of 16 million liters of water.

The value of Tritium activity of sewerage water was reported three times - each time with a different standard deviation - 0.074, 0.74 and 74. The values for Tritium activity of samples in WTC 6 were reported twice with a different standard deviation - 0.17, 0.15 and later as - 17, 15. Without further investigation as to the correct standard deviation value, the data is useless. Perhaps, if the "scientists" had spent a little more time on reporting/evaluating what they were supposed to be doing rather than hedging, leading and biasing the information, they might have been able to report relevant and correct information. Insignificant things like the volume of the pools from which the samples were taken, actually taking more samples from the site than away from the site, or using the "box model" for evaluating the amount of dilution of samples from different areas. All of the facts presented regarding Tritium were taken from this government report.

The Discarded Ambulances and Fire Trucks: Too Dusty? Or Too Radioactive?

Click here for more photos of fire and emergency vehicles discarded.

More Cancers:

By the end of 2006, there had been 400 diagnosed cancers in the WTC responders. Of these 400 cancer cases there are 75 blood cell cancers. At least one Stuyvesant high school (located very close to the WTC) student has also developed a blood cancer. A short list of the varied cancers includes thyroid (30), tongue and throat (25), testicular (16), brain (10), breast, prostate, and other soft tissue tumors in other areas of the body.

Original Article: The US Government’s Usage of Atomic Bombs - Domestic - WTC * Take the link what I discerned in 2006 and has been 'out there' since then - more than 1 million visits in the first month of my writing it. One will see the 'discoveries' of others since then were all things explained in 2006.

Legal Disclaimer: This article is entirely, completely and only my opinion based on the interpretation of the referenced information. While the views above may be shared by many millions exhausted by this government, they are only my views and I do not imply that they are actually shared by anyone else.

This article is not copyrighted and may be published, copied, dispersed, posted, and transported as long as the original URL, and authors" credit accompany it.

Dei Jurum Conventus
Ed Ward, MD

Last edited by EdWardMD; 12 Sep 2010 at 18:16 PM.
EdWardMD is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to EdWardMD For This Useful Post: