767 as Thermite in WTC?

[ULTIMA1]

Of these, the Delta is the absolute worst since it can involve aircraft materials which contain magnesium/aluminum etc.

Actaully the worst crashes are the one invilving older planes, specailly the 747becasue it carries over a ton of depleted Uranium.

In fact the EPA blamed radiation at the WTC and Pentagon on the DU carred by the planes. Only problem is the 757 and 767 do not carry DU.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Well then you believers will have to stop using quotes from NIST wont you.

I mean since the original NIST model was made before the full extent of evidence was evaluated.

That is a very poor response. It does not rebut the previous post, given that Clifton not only made an early analysis, but also drew a conclusion diametrically opposite to the one you push. As said before, your own source contradicts the stance you attempt to prove, even if all you consider is just the information he had at time.

Quotemines like yours were taken from someone who did not have the benefit of the observations and evidence that NIST eventually used in their reports. They were simply not available to him at the time. Whereas in your case, your use of his statement was made after nearly 7 years of additional evidence gathering and analysis. If NIST did indeed leave something out, they at least considered as much of the information as they could that was available to them at the time, and so did Clifton. You did not. The difference between what we do in citing NIST and what you do in citing Clifton is the difference between honestly working with what is truly available and current, and attempting to mislead with out-of-date and incomplete information.

So no, it is entirely valid to continue to quote NIST extensively, since the work they did is as complete as can be determined and still stands as a dominant piece central to the narrative. But you still need to stop representing old, incomplete and superceded information as current. Conspiracy peddlers continually commit the mistake of citing old work as if it is new and falsifying, and that's simply fallacious. Like I said, what you do is akin to citing Ptolemy's model of the universe to rebut current astronomical findings. Epicycles cannot be used to falsify, say, modern descriptions of planetary orbits. You cannot use Clifton's piece, as honest as it is, to rebut NIST's later work. NIST's builds on knowledge made since Clifton wrote his articles, and that's the flaw you commit when you make posts like you did.

 

[ULTIMA1]

observations and evidence that NIST eventually used in their reports.

Oh, you mean like them failing to recover any steel for testing from building 7?

Also do not forget all the other agencies that disagree with the NIST reports.

 

[Gavron]

In fact the EPA blamed radiation at the WTC and Pentagon on the DU carred by the planes. Only problem is the 757 and 767 do not carry DU.

Can you link the EPA report that states that, please? From the EPA site, not a truther site.

Thank you!

 

[ULTIMA1]

Can you link the EPA report that states that, please? From the EPA site, not a truther site.
!

Does it matter what source i post it from, you will still ignore it? As shown in the past.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh, you mean like them failing to recover any steel for testing from building 7?

That does not render their analysis invalid. And it certainly doesn't apply to the first NCSTARs. You ignore the rest of the basis of NCSTAR1A, and you ignore the entirety of what went into the reports on the Twin Towers.

Also do not forget all the other agencies that disagree with the NIST reports.

Agencies? Like Arup? Or the University of Edinburgh? Yes, I'm well aware of the basis of their disagreements. Both organizations actually place more emphasis on the fire's effects than NIST does, not less. If I remember correctly, one of the researchers of one of those organizations has gone so far to say that the fires alone would have caused the same result, even in the absence of impact damage.

Once again, you oversimplify. You really need to understand the basis of those disagreements before you claim they falsify NIST, let alone before you try to use them to buttress the flawed, disproven conspiratorial hypotheses.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Can you link the EPA report that states that, please? From the EPA site, not a truther site.

Thank you!

I'm not sure which EPA report Ultima's referring to. I do know that OSHA is relatively unconcerned:

Similarly no ionizing radiation has been detected at the site. OSHA has monitored for latent radiation with attention to "-radiation [8].

http://www.si.edu/mci/downloads/articles/wtc_dust.pdf

And the September 2007 EPA report to the Government Accountability Office makes practically no mention of radioactivity at Ground Zero.

Now, I do know that much was made of UC's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's findings of tritium at Ground Zero. But I doubt that's what Ultima was referring to; for one, he's citing depleted uranium, not tritium. For another, the Lawrence Berkeley findings are attributable to rather mundane sources, like exit signs in both the buildings and some of the fixtures on the jets themselves, as well as small arms gunsights (WTC 6 contained several law enforcement agencys armories; I noted that here). Possibly his only sources are truther ones, because there's no report within the EPA's site itself that I see mentioning uranium at Ground Zero being due to the jets.

I think that the uranium "confirmation" conspiracy peddlers are referring to is taken from this statement that used to get tossed around conspiracy sites:

WORLD TRADE CENTER AIR STUDIES:
Dr. Thomas Cahill, Emeritus Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of California at Davis, conducted an independent study of the air around Ground Zero at the World Trade Center after the 9/11 disaster13. Using very sophisticated monitoring instruments14 which detect very fine and ultra fine particles, Cahill and his group monitored the smoldering pile at the WTC for 5 months following the disaster from one mile north of the center. They measured concentrations of particles in six size ranges from 2.5 microns to 0.09 microns13. They reported the highest concentrations of very fine particles of metals ever reported in the US13, and unprecedented numbers of very fine and super fine particles13. This air monitoring study of the WTC provided new information about very fine and superfine particles which have rarely been studied. Burning metals and other materials at high temperatures generate very large amounts of very small particles. For this reason depleted uranium which has burned is particularly hazardous.

The EPA has verified that depleted uranium was in the plane that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11 18,19 and that the crash site was contaminated. Residents of New York City detected radiation on hand held geiger counters at the WTC site. The EPA not only failed to protect emergency response personnel at both sites, but did not report or measure13 concentrations of very fine particles at any of the 9/11 plane crash locations. These are the most hazardous to health, and many personnel who worked at the crash sites are now very ill.

Dr. Cahill also studied the Kuwaiti oil field fires following the Gulf War.

I found that statement in two places: A Mother Jones article, and an Austrialian peace site. Note that the paragraph jumps from detecting "ultrafine metal particles" to "depleted uranium". Note, too, that the statement above doesn't actually cite where and when the EPA "confirmed" the uranium presence.

A simple search on the EPA's site unveils what they found at Ground Zero:

There were many metals used in the World Trade Center. EPA closely monitored the air at the site itself and in the surrounding area to determine the impact of the WTC collapse, and later cleanup efforts.

The following summarizes the results of monitoring for metals in air. Monitoring ended in May 2002.
EPA detected twenty-two metals: antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel, selenium, aluminum, barium, calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, potassium, silver, sodium, thallium, vanadium, and zinc.

The first ten of these metals are hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), also called toxic air pollutants, under the Clean Air Act. Although we detected these metals, they were detected infrequently. When detected they were mostly at low concentrations. The infrequent detections above the screening levels for metals in ambient air mean they did not pose significant risk of long-term health problems to the general public.

... and note that uranium is not among the metals listed.

So where could Ultima be getting his information? Well, that's for Ultima to reveal. But given his track record, as well as the record of conspiracy peddlers before him, it's probably something we've seen before, and it likely means little as far as actual contanimation or pollution.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Why the crap would DU be used in the construction of an aircraft? DU's only good for one thing - putting a lot of kinetic energy into a target as used in artillery shells and 20mm rounds like you'd see in the Mk15 CIWS. And even then, DU is being phased out in favor of tungsten in that case.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Why the crap would DU be used in the construction of an aircraft? DU's only good for one thing - putting a lot of kinetic energy into a target as used in artillery shells and 20mm rounds like you'd see in the Mk15 CIWS. And even then, DU is being phased out in favor of tungsten in that case.

Apparently, it was used for ballast:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/618204.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/593649.stm
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/154252/

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Apparently, it was used for ballast:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/618204.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/593649.stm
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/154252/

Hmmm...counterweighting, eh? I suppose that makes sense. Not really knowing a huge amount about aircraft construction I assume they needed a material that was really dense and had a very high weight for its size. Still, it's not going to seriously hurt you unless you eat the stuff.

We used to catch people on my ship after a CIWS shoot that would have the pieces of the plastic sabot casings from the rounds in their mouths...munching on it like it was a piece of straw or something. We gave these guys, mostly deck seamen, a quick lecture on why you shouldn't ingest stuff that's been in contact with heavy metals, but I think it was lost on them.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Actaully the worst crashes are the one invilving older planes, specailly the 747becasue it carries over a ton of depleted Uranium.

In fact the EPA blamed radiation at the WTC and Pentagon on the DU carred by the planes. Only problem is the 757 and 767 do not carry DU.

Whoa, whoa. Slow your roll there Cochise. I didn't say anything about a crash. In terms of the OP - the Delta I was referring to is one of the four classes of fire - this one being a metal/ordnance fire that is difficult to extinguish by normal means.

Ah! Never mind then. You've been suspended. I anxiously await your return unless I can find someone else to completely mangle the context of my posts.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Hmmm...counterweighting, eh? I suppose that makes sense. Not really knowing a huge amount about aircraft construction I assume they needed a material that was really dense and had a very high weight for its size. Still, it's not going to seriously hurt you unless you eat the stuff.

We used to catch people on my ship after a CIWS shoot that would have the pieces of the plastic sabot casings from the rounds in their mouths...munching on it like it was a piece of straw or something. We gave these guys, mostly deck seamen, a quick lecture on why you shouldn't ingest stuff that's been in contact with heavy metals, but I think it was lost on them.

Yeah. As you can see from the links, DU has been replaced by tungsten now. And right, DU's level of radioactivity is marginal; the BBC stories note that it would have to be powderized/rendered to fine particles and aerosolied to be a danger, although an 800 degree C fire can do exactly that.

As a side note: I had no idea that the "R2-D2" gun had tungsten rounds now; all the stuff I saw on the 'net discussed it using DU slugs.

We gave these guys, mostly deck seamen, a quick lecture on why you shouldn't ingest stuff that's been in contact with heavy metals, but I think it was lost on them.

Heh... I got some Marine friends who'd probably say "Oh, that explains things..."

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Yeah, the orange sabot casings for the CIWS were DU - White are tungsten. Although now that I remember, every PACFIRE we did on the Barry used DU. All the FC types kept telling everyone that they had Tungsten, but I don't remember actually seeing any. More than likely they were getting an NCEA (Non-Combat Expenditure Authorizaition) to just use up all the old DU.

I used to shoot and produce a newscast for the ship's CC television system, and once they let me get kinda close to our aft mount during a shoot. 100 rounds goes by like nothing outa that baby. 4500 rds/min for the pneumatic version, although if you sustain it for more than a few seconds you'll ruin all the barrels on poor R2-D2.

 

[Zipster]

Just wait until the day when the railgun gets perfected and we have a CIWS version... R2-D2 will really become sci-fi then!

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Railgun technology gets me all excited. If they can get around some of the technical limitations they're having, it's gonna be cool. They may have to install an extra gas turbine generator onboard the warship just to power the gosh-darn thing.