9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: Names, Connections, Details Exposed...

[SAYIT]

ding ...ding ...ding... give that man the stating the obvious prize
the operative phrase is " they exist almost EVERYWHERE in trace amounts."
true! they were no higher after 911 then they were previously.
no nuke in history ever did that!

Ummm, did you miss the chart made from the USGS data? Barium and Strontium levels hit over 3,000 ppm downwind of the pile, that's way more than 'trace' levels.

no but your still wrong...
nowhere in the usgs report does it state that those levels you quoted are toxic or linked to cancers at the wtc site.
it maybe odd but that's no evidence of anything but oddness.

Oddness seems to be the rack upon which our CTs hang their foil hats.

 

[daws101]

I don't know who the fuck you think you are, bitch, but I'm getting God damned sick and fucking tired of your constant bullshit!

Why don't you just STFU, asshole, if you don't have anything but insults and garbage to post?

And by the way, you non-comprehending piece of shit, I never DID say those buildings were brought down by nukes. You just ASS-umed it, you ignorant fucking TROLL!

the pain of getting your ass handed to you

Imagine the chutzpah necessary for someone like GuyPinHead to complain about "constant bullshit."

it does take a lot of denial to say that ...

 

[daws101]

Ummm, did you miss the chart made from the USGS data? Barium and Strontium levels hit over 3,000 ppm downwind of the pile, that's way more than 'trace' levels.

no but your still wrong Barium - Ba




Chemical properties of barium - Health effects of barium - Environmental effects of barium



Atomic number

56


Atomic mass

137.33 g.mol -1


Electronegativity according to Pauling

0.9


Density

3.5 g.cm-3 at 20°C


Melting point

725 °C


Boiling point

1640 °C


Vanderwaals radius

0.222 nm


Ionic radius

0.135


Isotopes

16


Electronic shell

[ Xe ] 6s2


Energy of first ionisation

502.7 kJ.mol -1


Energy of second ionisation

965 kJ.mol -1


Standard potential

- 2.90 V


Discovered by

Sir Humphrey Davy in 1808


Barium - Ba



Barium

Barium is a silvery-white metal that can be found in the environment, where it exists naturally. It occurs combined with other chemicals, such as sulfur, carbon or oxygen. Ii is very light and its density is half that of iron. Barium oxidizes in air, reacts vigoroulsy with water to form the hydroxide, liberating hydrogen. Barium reacts with almost all the non-metals, forming often poisouning compounds.

Applications

Barium is often used in barium-nickel alloys for spark-plug electrodes an in vacuum tubes as drying and oxygen-removing agent. It is also used in fluorescent lamps: impure barium sulfide phosphoresces after exposure to the light.
Barium compounds are used by the oil and gas industries to make drilling mud. Drilling mud simplifies drilling through rocks by lubricating the drill.
Barium compounds are also used to make paint, bricks, tiles, glass, and rubber. Barium nitrate and clorate give fireworks a green colour.

Barium in the environment

Barium is surprisingly abundant in the Earth's crust, being the 14th most abundant element. High amounts of barium may only be found in soils and in food, such as nuts, seaweed, fish and certain plants.
Because of the extensive use of barium in the industries human activities add greatly to the release of barium in the environment. As a result barium concentrations in air, water and soil may be higher than naturally occurring concentrations on many locations.

Barium enters the air during mining processes, refining processes, and during the production of barium compounds. It can also enter the air during coal and oil combustion.

The chief mined ores are barite, which is also the most common and witserite. The main mining areas are UK, Italy, Czech Republic, USA and Germany. Each year about 6 million tonnes are produced and reserves are expected to exceed 400 million tonnes.

Health effects of barium


The amount of barium that is detected in food and water usually is not high enough to become a health concern.
People with the greatest risk to barium exposure with additional health effects are those that work in the barium industry. Most of the health risks that they can undergo are caused by breathing in air that contains barium sulphate or barium carbonate.

Many hazardous waste sites contain certain amounts of barium. People that live near them may be exposed to harmful levels. The exposure will than be caused by breathing dust, eating soil or plants, or drinking water that is polluted with barium. Skin contact may also occur.

The health effects of barium depend upon the water-solubility of the compounds. Barium compounds that dissolve in water can be harmful to human health. The uptake of very large amounts of barium that are water-soluble may cause paralyses and in some cases even death.

Small amounts of water-soluble barium may cause a person to experience breathing difficulties, increased blood pressures, heart rhythm changes, stomach irritation, muscle weakness, changes in nerve reflexes, swelling of brains and liver, kidney and heart damage.

Barium has not shown to cause cancer with humans. There is no proof that barium can cause infertility or birth defects.


Environmental effects of barium


Some barium compounds that are released during industrial processes dissolve easily in water and are found in lakes, rivers, and streams. Because of their water-solubility these barium compounds can spread over great distances. When fish and other aquatic organisms absorb the barium compounds, barium will accumulate in their bodies.
Because it forms insoluble salts with other common components of the environment, such as carbonate and sulphate, barium is not mobile and poses little risk. Barium compounds that are persistent usually remain in soil surfaces, or in the sediment of water soils. Barium is found in most land soils at low levels. These levels may be higher at hazardous waste sites.




Read more: Barium (Ba) - Chemical properties - Health and Environmental effects


Strontium - Sr




Chemical properties of strontium - Health effects of strontium - Environmental effects of strontium



Atomic number

38


Atomic mass

87.62 g.mol -1


Electronegativity according to Pauling

1.0


Density

2.6 g.cm-3 at 20°C


Melting point

769 °C


Boiling point

1384 °C


Vanderwaals radius

0.215 nm


Ionic radius

0.113 nm (+2)


Isotopes

14


Electronic shell

[ Kr ] 5s2


Energy of first ionisation

549.2 kJ.mol -1


Energy of second ionisation

1064 kJ.mol -1


Discovered by

A. Crawford in 1790

Strontium - Sr


Strontium

Strontium is a soft, silver-yellow, alkaline-earth metal. It has three allotropic crystalline forms and in its physical and chemical properties it is similar to calcium and barium. Strontium reacts vigorously with water and quickly tarnishes in air, so it must be stored out of contact with air and water. Due to its extreme reactivity to air, this element always naturally occurs combined with other elements and compounds. Finely powdered strontium metal will ignite spontaneously in air to produce both strontium oxide and strontium nitride.

Applications

Strontium has uses similar to those of calcium and barium, but it is rarely employed because of its higher cost. Principal uses of strontium compounds are in pyrotechnics, for the brilliant reds in fireworks and warning flares and in greases. A little is used as a getter in vacuum tubes to remove the last traces of air. Most strontium is used as the carbonate in special glass for television screens and visual display units. Although strontium-90 is a dangerously radioactive isotope, it is a useful by-product of nuclear reactors from whose spent fuel is extracted. Its high-energy radiation can be used to generate an electric current, and for this reason it can be used in space vehicles, remote weather stations and navigation buoys.

Strontium in the environment

Strontium is commonly occurs in nature, formung about 0.034% of all igneous rock and in the form of the sulfate mineral celestite (SrSO4) and the carbonate strontianite (SrCO3). Celestite occurs frequently in sedimentary deposits of sufficient size, thus the development of mining facilities attractive. The main mining areas are UK, Mexico, Turkey and Spain. World production of strontium ores is about 140.000 tonnes per year from an unassessed total of reserves.

Foods containing strontium range from very low e.g. in corn (0.4 ppm and oranged (0.5 ppm) to high, e.g. in cabbage (45 ppm), onions (50 ppm) and lattuce (74 ppm).

Health effects of strontium


Strontium compounds that are water-insoluble can become water-soluble, as a result of chemical reactions. The water-soluble compounds are a greater threat to human health than the water-insoluble ones. Therefore, water-soluble forms of strontium have the opportunity to pollute drinking water. Fortunately the concentrations in drinking water are usually quite low.

People can be exposed to small levels of (radioactive) strontium by breathing air or dust, eating food, drinking water, or by contact with soil that contains strontium. We are most likely to come in contact with strontium by eating or drinking.
Strontium concentrations in food contribute to the strontium concentrations in the human body. Foodstuffs that contain significantly high concentrations of strontium are grains, leafy vegetables and dairy products.

For most people, strontium uptake will be moderate. The only strontium compound that is considered a danger to human health, even in small quantities, is strontium chromate. The toxic chromium that it contains mainly causes this. Strontium chromate is known to cause lung cancer, but the risks of exposure have been greatly reduced by safety procedures in companies, so that it is no longer an important health risk.

The uptake of high strontium concentrations is generally not known to be a great danger to human health. In one case someone experienced an allergic reaction to strontium, but there have been no similar cases since. For children exceeded strontium uptake may be a health risk, because it can cause problems with bone growth.
Strontium salts are not known to cause skin rashes or other skin problems of any kind.
When strontium uptake is extremely high, it can cause disruption of bone development. But this effect can only occur when strontium uptake is in the thousands of ppm range. Strontium levels in food and drinking water are not high enough to be able to cause these effects.

Radioactive strontium is much more of a health risk than stable strontium. When the uptake is very high, it may cause anaemia and oxygen shortages, and at extremely high concentrations it is even known to cause cancer as a result of damage to the genetic materials in cells.


Effects of strontium on the Environment


Strontium in its elemental form occurs naturally in many compartments of the environment, including rocks, soil, water, and air. Strontium compounds can move through the environment fairly easily, because many of the compounds are water-soluble.
Strontium is always present in air as dust, up to a certain level. Strontium concentrations in air are increased by human activities, such as coal and oil combustion. Dust particles that contain strontium will settle to surface water, soils or plant surfaces at some point. When the particles do not settle they will fall back onto earth when rain or snow falls. All strontium will eventually end up in soils or bottoms of surface waters, where they mix with strontium that is already present.
Strontium can end up in water through soils and through weathering of rocks. Only a small part of the strontium in water comes from dust particles from the air. Most of the strontium in water is dissolved, but some of it is suspended, causing muddy water at some locations. Not much strontium ends up in drinking water.
When strontium concentrations in water exceed regular concentrations, this is usually caused by human activities, mainly by dumping waste directly in the water. Exceeded strontium concentrations can also be caused by settling of dust particles from air that have reacted with strontium particles from industrial processes.
Strontium concentrations in soil may also be increased by human activities, such as the disposal of coal ash and incinerator ash, and industrial wastes. Strontium in soil dissolves in water, so that it is likely to move deeper into the ground and enter the groundwater. A part of the strontium that is introduced by humans will not move into groundwater and can stay within the soil for decades.
Because of the nature of strontium, some of it can end up in fish, vegetables, livestock and other animals.
One of the isotopes of strontium is radioactive. This isotope is not likely to occur naturally in the environment. It ends up in the environment, though, as a result of human activities, such as nuclear bomb testing and radioactive storage leaking. The only way to decrease concentrations of this isotope is through radioactive decay to stable zirconium.
The concentrations of radioactive strontium in the environment are relatively low and the particles will always end up in soils or water-bottoms eventually, where they mix with other strontium particles. It is not likely to end up in drinking water.

Certain deep-sea creatures incorporate strontium into their shells as strontium sulphate, and stony corals require it, which is why it needs to be added in the water in aquaria.





Read more: Strontium (Sr) - Chemical properties, Health and Environmental effects


nowhere in the usgs report does it state that those levels you quoted are toxic or linked to cancers at the wtc site.
it maybe odd but that's no evidence of anything but oddness.

The USGS measured levels, EPA decides if the level is toxic.

According to what I read at the epa.gov site, over 3,000 ppm of EITHER is a threat to health.

Levels above that were found in the dust downwind of the WTC.

thanks if you want to make a point about toxicity the why did you not quote the EPA.?
You also left out exposer time ...

 

[daws101]

You're the one disputing the assertion, prove it WRONG.

Show me ONE video of the North Tower collapse where the core columns DON'T turn to dust as they fall.

Sorry child it doesn't work that way, you make a claim you prove your claim. otherwise it's BS.

I posted the video showing the core columns disintegrate.

Wassamatter Ollie, can't find ONE video to back you up? There, there, little fella, you can try again...

no you showed a clip where you saw the core come apart you have no proof it disintegrated ..
if that was the case what's all that steel doing at fresh kills, the hangar a Kennedy airport and the missile cruiser?

 

[daws101]

Ummm, did you miss the chart made from the USGS data? Barium and Strontium levels hit over 3,000 ppm downwind of the pile, that's way more than 'trace' levels.

no but your still wrong...
nowhere in the usgs report does it state that those levels you quoted are toxic or linked to cancers at the wtc site.
it maybe odd but that's no evidence of anything but oddness.

Oddness seems to be the rack upon which our CTs hang their foil hats.

 

[SFC Ollie]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXeAPcsD3-o]9/11 North Tower collapse. Shaking 12 seconds before collapse. Pulverization of steel spear. - YouTube[/ame]

I see some dust coming off the core as it falls.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OQ2BBmAq9s]WNBC NIST 9/11: North Tower "Collapse" 9/11: WTC1 "spire" - YouTube[/ame]

Yep just dust......

 

[SFC Ollie]

Damned shame when you have to do their homework for them and they are wrong.....

 

[GuyPinestra]

Sorry child it doesn't work that way, you make a claim you prove your claim. otherwise it's BS.

I posted the video showing the core columns disintegrate.

Wassamatter Ollie, can't find ONE video to back you up? There, there, little fella, you can try again...

no you showed a clip where you saw the core come apart you have no proof it disintegrated ..
if that was the case what's all that steel doing at fresh kills, the hangar a Kennedy airport and the missile cruiser?

I have no proof? The video ITSELF is proof. What the fuck does it take to be considered proof to you guys when your own eyes are disputed?

Now run along and find me JUST ONE video of the North Tower collapse that shows the core columns NOT disintegrating.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I posted the video showing the core columns disintegrate.

Wassamatter Ollie, can't find ONE video to back you up? There, there, little fella, you can try again...

no you showed a clip where you saw the core come apart you have no proof it disintegrated ..
if that was the case what's all that steel doing at fresh kills, the hangar a Kennedy airport and the missile cruiser?

I have no proof? The video ITSELF is proof. What the fuck does it take to be considered proof to you guys when your own eyes are disputed?

Now run along and find me JUST ONE video of the North Tower collapse that shows the core columns NOT disintegrating.

I did, but you will deny it...............

 

[daws101]

I posted the video showing the core columns disintegrate.

Wassamatter Ollie, can't find ONE video to back you up? There, there, little fella, you can try again...

no you showed a clip where you saw the core come apart you have no proof it disintegrated ..
if that was the case what's all that steel doing at fresh kills, the hangar a Kennedy airport and the missile cruiser?

I have no proof? The video ITSELF is proof. What the fuck does it take to be considered proof to you guys when your own eyes are disputed?

Now run along and find me JUST ONE video of the North Tower collapse that shows the core columns NOT disintegrating.

the clip is proof of collapse not disintegration

NOVA: I've read that the collapse was a near free-fall.

Eagar: Yes. That's because the forces, it's been estimated, were anywhere from 10 to 100 times greater than an individual floor could support. First of all, you had 10 or 20 floors above that came crashing down. That's about 10 or 20 times the weight you'd ever expect on one angle clip. There's also the impact force, that is, if something hits very hard, there's a bigger force than if you lower it down very gently.

Here is an article that has been posted at various sites on the internet.

All that one needs to know, to be able to conclusively prove that the Twin Towers were demolished, is that the towers fell in roughly 10 seconds, that is, that they fell at about the same rate that an object falls through air.

Anyone with a little common sense will realize that the top of a building does not pass through the concrete and steel that comprises the lower portion of the building at the same rate that it falls through air. This just doesn't happen, unless, of course, the lower part of the building has lost its structural integrity (and this is usually due to the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as seen in controlled demolitions).

The fact that the towers collapsed in about 10 seconds is a statement that the upper portion of each of the towers passed through the lower portion at about the same rate that it would have fallen through air. The fact that the towers fell this quickly (essentially at the rate of free-fall) is conclusive evidence that they were deliberately demolished.

Believing that there is nothing wrong with the towers collapsing so quickly, is roughly analogous to believing that people pass through closed doors as quickly as they pass through open doors.

The fact that they fell at such a rate means that they encountered essentially no resistance from the supposedly undamaged parts of the structure. That is, no resistance was encountered from any of the immensely strong parts of the structure that had held the building up for the last 30 years. From this, one can conclude that the lower undamaged parts were actually very damaged (probably by the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as is usual in a controlled demolition).

NOVA: Miraculously, a number of firefighters survived inside Tower One. They were on the third or fourth floor in a stairwell, and immediately after the collapse they looked up and saw blue sky above their heads -- their part of the stairwell survived. How is that possible, with all the force of that 500,000-ton building coming down?
The Collapse: An Engineer's Perspective.

read the whole article....

 

[GuyPinestra]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=eJb-GPtb2I0&feature=endscreen]Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daws101]

Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News - YouTube

seen it it's no proof that explosives, thermite, space beams or any other exotic substance was used...

 

[SFC Ollie]

Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News - YouTube

I'm sorry but are you one of those on that other thread who keep telling us that you can't trust the news because they are government puppets?

Steel did not turn into dust you stupid fuck..........

 

[SAYIT]

Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News - YouTube

Man, it's a good thing ABC News sort off discovered that the Towers had turned to dust or that 200,000 tons of steel would have had to be carted off and disposed of. Thanks.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News - YouTube

I'm sorry but are you one of those on that other thread who keep telling us that you can't trust the news because they are government puppets?

Steel did not turn into dust you stupid fuck..........

Once again I'll refer you to the USGS study which showed 10% of the DUST was iron.

What is left when you disintegrate steel?

The iron it is made from.

 

[candycorn]

Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News - YouTube

I'm sorry but are you one of those on that other thread who keep telling us that you can't trust the news because they are government puppets?

Steel did not turn into dust you stupid fuck..........

Once again I'll refer you to the USGS study which showed 10% of the DUST was iron.

What is left when you disintegrate steel?

The iron it is made from.

What took down the light poles if it wasn't AA77?

 

[GuyPinestra]

I'm sorry but are you one of those on that other thread who keep telling us that you can't trust the news because they are government puppets?

Steel did not turn into dust you stupid fuck..........

Once again I'll refer you to the USGS study which showed 10% of the DUST was iron.

What is left when you disintegrate steel?

The iron it is made from.

What took down the light poles if it wasn't AA77?

Don't know, don't care...

 

[candycorn]

Once again I'll refer you to the USGS study which showed 10% of the DUST was iron.

What is left when you disintegrate steel?

The iron it is made from.

What took down the light poles if it wasn't AA77?

Don't know, don't care...

Go to the doctor and get a prescription for two testicles....have it filled immediately bitch.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News - YouTube

I'm sorry but are you one of those on that other thread who keep telling us that you can't trust the news because they are government puppets?

Steel did not turn into dust you stupid fuck..........

Once again I'll refer you to the USGS study which showed 10% of the DUST was iron.

What is left when you disintegrate steel?

The iron it is made from.

You're fucking nuts. Just thought you should know that.

 

[SAYIT]

I'm sorry but are you one of those on that other thread who keep telling us that you can't trust the news because they are government puppets?

Steel did not turn into dust you stupid fuck..........

Once again I'll refer you to the USGS study which showed 10% of the DUST was iron.

What is left when you disintegrate steel?

The iron it is made from.

You're fucking nuts. Just thought you should know that.

I'm sure he knows he's not normal but he seems happy with it and there's little point dwelling on the obvious.