Tag Archives: unintended Consequences of War

Obama to Cut Medical Benefits for Active / Retired Military – Not Union Workers

Irs takes your money, congress uses it to arm your enemies then they use it to fight the enemies they armed

It is not unconstitutional to cut benefits for military men and women, however, I do believe that it is unconstitutional to use the military as it has been used over the past several decades, leading us to perpetual debt and increasing taxation. It’s at the very least immoral the way the military has been used recently and how badly they are begin treated currently.

I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy involved in the decision making process. Why do we cut individual benefits for people but still maintain unconstitutional and unnecessary wars that are fought immorally for no good reason except lining rich people’s pockets?

If we had smaller military but payed them well and gave them good benefits to protect OUR borders rather than posting them in every country across the globe where some wealthy American might have something to gain we would be protecting our land and our citizens without killing and provoking others overseas to hate us and want to retaliate.

At this point the United States arms people that hate us and then waits for them to attack us and then uses the attack that we enabled as an excuse to occupy a country that we don’t need to be in for the security of the United States, but only for natural resources and economic gains (for some people but at a loss for taxpayers).

Shouldn’t our government be accountable to give people what they have already promised to give them? Many people have worked many years in the armed forces to provide for their families and have a secure retirement. I think for the people who are already serving, they should get the benefits they were expecting.

Obama to Cut Medical Benefits for Active / Retired Military – Not Union Workers

In an effort to cut defense spending, the Obama Administration plans to cut health benefits for active duty and retired military personnel and their families while not touching the benefits enjoyed by unionized civilian defense workers.

The move, congressional aides suggested, is to force those individuals into Obamacare, Bill Gertz reported at the Washington Beacon.

Gertz added:

The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.

Not everybody is happy with the plan, however.

Military personnel would see their annual Tricare premiums increase anywhere from 30 – 78 percent in the first year, followed by sharply increased premiums “ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent—more than 3 times current levels.”

“According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048,” Gertz wrote.

Active duty military personnel would also see an increased cost for pharmaceuticals, and the incentive to use less expensive generic drugs would be gone.

Health benefits has long been a prime reason many stay in the military – but some in the Pentagon fear the new rules will hamper recruitment and retention.

“Would you stay with a car insurance company that raised your premiums by 345 percent in five years? Probably not,” one aide said.

John Hayward of Human Events adds:

Veterans will also be hit with a new annual fee for a program called Tricare for Life, on top of the monthly premiums they already pay, while some benefits will become “means-tested” in the manner of a social program – treating them like welfare instead of benefits for military service. Naturally, this is all timed to begin next year and “avoid upsetting military voters in a presidential election year,” according to critics.

There will be congressional hearings on the new military health care policies next month. Opposition is building in Congress, and among veterans’ organizations, including the VFW, which has “called on all military personnel and the veterans’ community to block the health care increases.”

Others are concerned about the double standard being set between uniformed military personnel – who are not unionized – and civilian defense workers who belong to public sector unions.

Gertz wrote:

A second congressional aide said the administration’s approach to the cuts shows a double standard that hurts the military.

“We all recognize that we are in a time of austerity,” this aide said. “But defense has made up to this point 50 percent of deficit reduction cuts that we agreed to, but is only 20 percent of the budget.”

The administration is asking troops to get by without the equipment and force levels needed for global missions. “And now they are going to them again and asking them to pay more for their health care when you’ve held the civilian workforce at DoD and across the federal government virtually harmless in all of these cuts. And it just doesn’t seem fair,” the second aide said.

At least one Congressman is standing with the military on this issue.

“We shouldn’t ask our military to pay our bills when we aren’t willing to impose a similar hardship on the rest of the population,” said Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), who chairs the House Armed Services Committee.

Irs takes your money, congress uses it to arm your enemies then they use it to fight the enemies they armed“We can’t keep asking those who have given so much to give that much more,” he added.

McKeon will be joined by some 5 million members of 32 military service and veterans groups, according to retired Navy Capt. Kathryn M. Beasley of the Military Officers Association of America, who called the plan “a breach of faith.”

The Beacon also noted the curious timing of the plan, which is set to begin next year – after the 2012 elections. Critics say this is designed so as not to upset military voters.

It’s one more reason Barack Hussein Obama does not deserve to be re-elected in November.

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-to-cut-medical-benefits-for-active-retired-military-not-union-workers?utm_content=buffer8b591&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=Buffer

Facebooktwitterrss

Pentagon Seeks Another $79 Billion for Afghan War | Already Funded With $526 Billion Including War Fund

Propaganda is now legal in the United states

Well, it’s like I always say, “There’s no real reason to NOT ask for an EXTRA $79 billion for a fake BS war that kills far more civilians than supposed “terrorists”, when you could just ask for another $79 billion for a fake BS war that kills far more civilians that terrorists.”

Actually, I don’t always say that. I just made that up.

Clever. I know…

But, really… if you are already getting $526 billion dollars in taxpayer funds to continue and unnecessary war for the benefit of the rich to the detriment of the citizens, then HOW MUCH MORE do you actually NEED?

I wonder which departments funds the propaganda machine and the government owned media?

Pentagon Seeks Another $79 Billion for Afghan War | Already Funded With $526 Billion

by Jason Ditz

Pentagon officials have submitted a new request for another $79.4 billion for “overseas contingency operations,” essentially to pay for the 2014 fighting of the Afghan War. The request is above and beyond the $526 billion the Pentagon is already seeking for 2014, which was supposed to include the war’s costs.

Propaganda is now legal in the United statesRequests for supplemental war funds are nothing new for the Pentagon, but the latest request comes in the context of a growing budget crisis in Afghanistan, with the 2013 “contingency funds” already burned through as costs continue to soar.

The Pentagon’s estimates for their costs have been much too low, as the “success” that is always supposed to be just around the corner in Afghanistan never pans out, and officials conceded in recent comments that the costs of the war may continue to rise “substantially” going forward.

Officials are bragging that the 2014 request is somewhat less than the 2013 version, but the reality is that with surge troops being withdrawn, the savings were supposed to be significant. Instead, the war continues as an all-consuming sinkhole for tax money, with no end in sight and the Pentagon’s best estimates inevitably falling far short.

 

Facebooktwitterrss

Claims Made that The World Trade Center Was Nuked Part 1

world trade center nuked

Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11

By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager

 

A debate has raged for more than a decade about what caused the Twin Towers to “collapse” in approximately 10 seconds each — 9 seconds for the South Tower, 11 for the North. A large and growing percentage of the public has become skeptical of the conclusion of the government’s official  NCSTAR 1 report, according to which, “NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to 9/11.”

Skepticism of NIST’s conclusions is well founded. There is eyewitness testimony as well as abundant video and audio evidence of explosions at the WTC on 9/11. There is also seismic data that demonstrates that high powered explosives were used to demolish the Twin Towers. The gross observable video evidence — if you are willing to believe your own eyes — shows that the Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down and the inside out.

We believe that only mini-nukes — which were probably neutron bombs — planted in the center columns of the buildings, detonated from top to bottom and configured to explode upward, can explain what is observed.  If they were used to blow apart one ten-floor cube per second, for example, then, since the North Tower stood at 110 floors, that would have taken 11 seconds, while, since the top three cubes of the South Tower tilted over and were blown as one, in that case, it would have taken only 9, which coincides with NIST’s own times.

This is a controversial contention. Judy Wood, Ph.D., has proclaimed that a Tesla-inspired directed energy weapon (DEW) was responsible for the destruction of the WTC buildings and has vehemently denied nuclear bombs were used. Steve Jones, Ph.D., and his followers promote the theory that an incendiary (nanothermite) was the cause of the destruction of the WTC buildings, while they also deny that nukes were used.  So these seemingly opposed camps agree on one thing: nukes were not used on 9/11!

The nanothermite hypothesis has been discredited on multiple occasions in articles by T. Mark Hightower and Jim Fetzer, including “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 community?”“Is ’9/11 truth’ based upon a false theory?”, and “Nanothermite: If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit”. Since it is a principle (law) of materials science that an explosive can destroy a material only if it has a detonation velocity equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material, where the speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s and in steel 6,100 m/s, while the highest detonation velocity that has been attributed to nanothermite is 895 m/s, it should be obvious: You can’t get there from there!

The DEW hypothesis turns out to be difficult to test, since Judy Wood defines DEWs as sources of energy that are greater than conventional and can be directed, which even encompasses micro and mini nukes within its scope. As earlier articles have explained, including “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II”and “Mini Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle”, there are multiple grounds for preferring the mini or micro nuke hypothesis over the DEW alternative, which emerge with particular clarity from a study of the dust samples collected by the US Geological Survey. It is ironic that, while the “thermite sniffers” also focus on dust samples, they seem to have missed what we have to learn from them.

Indeed, the nuclear component of the decimation of World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 6–where WTC-7 appears to be a separate case–is the darkest and most closely guarded secret of 9/11. With so many folks claiming different theories it is difficult for average people to know what to believe. Fortunately, we have scientific proof of what happened at Ground Zero. The dust and water samples reveal the true story of what happened on 9/11. This article thus provides more of the scientific evidence–especially from the USGS dust samples–that settles the debate in favor of the demolition of the WTC buildings as having been a nuclear event.

Debris Ejected over 600 feet

The explosives that demolished the Twin Towers were so powerful that North Tower debris was ejected up at a 45° angle and out over 600 feet into the Winter Garden. This feat alone puts an end to the notion that the buildings were “dustified” where they stood or that an incendiary such as nanothermite was the responsible for the destruction of two 500,000 ton 110 story skyscrapers or that the buildings collapsed due to fire. Consider these photos and graphs:

Debris was ejected at a 45* angle for over 600 feet and impacted with the Winter Garden

Engineers estimate that 1/3 of the buildings were completely vaporized. And as Judy Wood likes to point out, no toilets were found in the rubble. 90% of the debris from the Twin Towers destruction landed outside the building’s footprints. What type of explosives could cause this sort of damage? The only thing known to man that can explain this is nuclear bombs.

 

Proof of Fusion

The Department of Energy (DOE) collected water samples from the basement of Building 6 eleven days after 9/11 that showed tritium levels 55 times greater than background. How does this prove fusion?

Let’s start by defining “tritium”: Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen containing one proton and two neutrons. Tritium is radioactive with a half-life of 12.32 years. Also Known As: hydrogen-3, 3H (Helmenstine)  The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission provides us some excellent background information on hydrogen:

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, comprising approximately 90% of the luminous universe by weight. Ordinary hydrogen (1H) accounts for greater than 99.985% of all naturally-occurring hydrogen, whereas deuterium (2H) comprises approximately 0.015%. By comparison, tritium (3H) represents only approximately 10 to the -16 exponent percent of hydrogen naturally occurring. Tritium is a rare but natural isotope of hydrogen (H), and is the only natural hydrogen isotope that is radioactive. The tritium atom is sometimes designated T to distinguish it from the common lighter isotope. Notwithstanding the difference in mass, tritium can be found in the same chemical forms as hydrogen. The most important forms, from the perspective of atmospheric behavior of tritium, are tritiated hydrogen gas (HT) and tritiated water (HTO). These tritiated forms behave chemically like hydrogen gas (H2) and water (H2O).

Natural Sources

Tritium is generated by both natural and artificial processes. Tritium is naturally produced primarily through the interaction of cosmic radiation protons and neutrons with gases (including nitrogen, oxygen and argon) in the upper atmosphere.

Anthropogenic Sources

In addition to its natural sources, tritium also has a number of anthropogenic sources which account for the dominant proportion of the global tritium inventory. Anthropogenic tritium sources include fallout from nuclear weapons testing, nuclear reactors, future fusion reactors, fuel reprocessing plants, heavy water production facilities and commercial production for medical diagnostics, radiopharmaceuticals, luminous paints, sign illumination, self-luminous aircraft, airport runway lights, luminous dials, gauges and wrist watches, and others. Commercial uses of tritium account for only a small fraction of the tritium used worldwide. Instead, the primary use of tritium has been to boost the yield of both fission and thermonuclear (or fusion) weapons, increasing the efficiency with which the nuclear explosive materials are used.

Thermonuclear Detonation during Nuclear Weapons Testing

Nuclear tests have been conducted in the atmosphere since 1945, producing tritium in amounts that greatly exceed the global natural activity, particularly during 1954 to 1958 and 1961 to 1962 when a number of large-yield test series were undertaken. The tritium activity arising from atmospheric nuclear tests can be estimated from the fission and fusion yields of the weapons tests or from environmental measurements. For example, the tritium activity produced per unit yield is dependent upon the attributes of the device, as well as on the characteristics of the detonation site, and tritium generation from fusion reactions is much higher than from fission. The tritium that is produced by a nuclear explosion is almost completely converted to tritiated water (HTO), which then mixes with environmental water. (“Investigation of the,” 2009)

 

What about WTC-6?

 

Damage to WTC-6 and smoke rising from it BEFORE the North Tower’s “collapse”

We have established that tritium is a rare hydrogen isotope, the vast majority of tritium that is produced is used in nuclear weapons and that the tritium produced by a thermonuclear explosion is converted into tritiated water (HTO). Tritiated water WAS found in the basement of Building 6 at concentrations 55 times background levels. Here is Ed Ward’s breakdown of the DOE’s water sample data:

1. Trace definition as it applies to quantity: Occurring in extremely small amounts or in quantities less than a standard limit (In the case of tritium, this standard level would be 20 TUs – the high of quoted standard background levels.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trace

2. The stated values of tritium from the DOE report “Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center”. “A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.164±0.074 (2ó) nCi/L (164 pCi/L +/- 74 pCi/L – takes 1,000 trillionths to = 1 billionth) 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 ( 3,530.0 pCi/L +/- 170 pCi/L and 2,830 pCi/L +/- 150 pCi/L), respectively. https://e-reportsext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf Pico to Nano converter – http://www.unitconversion.org/prefixes/picos-to-nanos-conversion.html Nano to Pico converter – http://www.unit-conversion.info/metric.html

3. 1 TU = 3.231 pCi/L (trillionths per liter) or 0.003231 nCi/L (billionths per liter) – http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2282.html – (My original TU calculations came out to 3.19 pCi/L, but I will gladly accept these referenced minimally higher values.http://www.clayandiron.com/news.jhtml?method=view&news.id=1022)

4. In 2001 normal background levels of Tritium are supposedly around 20 TUs (prior to nuclear testing in the 60′s, normal background tritium water levels were 5 to 10 TUs – http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2282.html ). However, groundwater studies show a significantly less water concentration: Groundwater age estimation using tritium only provides semi-quantitative, “ball park” values: · <0.8 TU indicates sub modern water (prior to 1950s) · 0.8 to 4 TU indicates a mix of sub modern and modern water · 5 to 15 TU indicates modern water (< 5 to 10 years) · 15 to 30 TU indicates some bomb tritium http://www.grac.org/agedatinggroundwater.pdf But, instead of “5 to 15 TU” (which would make the increase in background levels even higher), I will use 20 TUs as the 2001 environmental level to give all possible credibility to the lie of “Traces”.

5. Let’s calculate the proven referenced facts. Tritium level confirmed in the DOE report of traces of tritium = 3,530 pCi/L (+/- 170 pCi/L, but we will use the mean of 3,530 pCi/L). 3,530 pCi/L (the referenced lab value) divided by the background level of 20TUs (20 X 3.231 p (1 TU = 3.21 pCi/L) = 64.62 pCi/L as the high normal background/standard level. 3,530 divided by 64.62 pCi/L = 54.63 TIMES THE NORMAL BACKGROUND LEVEL. 3,530 pCi/L divided by 3.231 pCi/L (1 TU) = 1,092.54 TUs

6. This is my ‘fave’ because lies tend to eat their young. Muon physicist Steven Jones calls 1,000 TUs “The graphs below show that hydrogen-bomb testing boosted tritium levels in rain by several orders of magnitude. (“Tritium in precipitation,”) (Jones, 2006) Yet, calls the EXACT SAME LEVELS quoted in nCi/L as “Traces” and “These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure” (Jones, 2006). Interesting isn’t it.

7. Thomas M. Semkowa, Ronald S. Hafnerc, Pravin P. Parekha, Gordon J. Wozniakd, Douglas K. Hainesa, Liaquat Husaina, Robert L. Rabune. Philip G. Williams and Steven Jones have all called over 1,000 TUs of Tritium, “Traces”. Even at the height of nuclear bomb testing 98% – after thousands of Megatons of nuclear testing – of the rainwater tests were 2,000 TUs or less. https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf

8. It is also important to note that the tritium present was diluted by at least some portion of 1 million liters of water accounting for BILLIONS of TUs.

An important point that Jones glosses over is the dilution of water in the basement of WTC 6. If not for copious amounts of water sprayed on the WTC site undoubtedly the concentration of tritium would have been higher than the measured 55 times normal background levels.

 

After WTC-6 has been hit and during the South Tower “collapse”

Chuck Boldwyn’s suggestion of where they may have been placed and the effects

To sum this up: we see a plume of smoke rising from Building 6, photos that show the building was blackened and bombed out before ANY debris from the Twin Towers hit it, a massive crater in the middle of the building and the DOE found massive quantities of tritium in the basement eleven days after 9/11. Only a thermonuclear explosion explains all of this, which strongly suggests that WTC-6 was nuked.  And there is more proof.

An infrared image showing the huge crater in WTC-6 (to the left-foreground)r

 

Proof of Fission

The US Geological Survey collected samples of dusts and airfall debris from more than 35 localities within a 1-km radius of the World Trade Center site on the evenings of September 17 and 18, 2001. The USGS was primarily looking for asbestos in the dust but they found a host of elements in the dust that when analyzed properly proves that nuclear fission took place at Ground Zero.

A quick glance at the chemistry table and immediately the presence of the elements such as cesium, uranium, thorium, barium, strontium, yttrium, rubidium, molybdenum, lanthanum, cerium, chromium and zinc raise suspicions. But deeper analysis shows that these elements correlate with each other according to relationships expected in a nuclear fission event. Jeff Prager has done extensive work with the USGS dust samples and we’ll use some of the slides from his Vancouver Power Point presentation to help us analyze the USGS data:

 

Barium and Strontium

People might argue that strontium and barium could be found in building debris and they would be correct however strontium and barium could never, under any circumstances, be found as building debris constituents in a demolition in these quantities.

The levels never fall below 400 ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700 ppm for Strontium and they reach over 3000 ppm for both of them at WTC01-16, Broadway and John Streets. Why?

Barium and Strontium are rare Trace elements with limited industrial uses. The enormous peak in Barium and Strontium concentration at WTC01-16 is readily apparent in the chart below. The concentration of the two elements reaches 3130 ppm for Strontium and 3670 ppm for Barium or over 0.3% by weight of the dust. This means that 0.37% of the sample was Barium and 0.31% of the sample was Strontium by weight at that location, WTC01-16, Broadway and John Streets. The Mean concentration for Barium including the very low girder coating samples is 533 ppm and for Strontium it’s 727 ppm. These are not Trace amounts. They are highly dangerous and extremely toxic amounts. They are also critical components of nuclear fission and the decay process.

Here we’re plotting the concentration of Barium at each location against the Strontium concentration. The correlation between the concentrations of the two elements, Barium and Strontium is extremely high.  The Coefficient of Correlation between the concentration of Barium and Strontium at the outdoor and indoor sampling locations is 0.99 to 2 decimal places (0.9897 to 4 decimal places).
So we have a Correlation Coefficient between the concentration of Barium and the concentration of Strontium of 0.9897, or near perfect. The maximum Correlation Coefficient that is mathematically possible is 1.0 and this would mean we have a perfect match between the two factors we’re examining and the data points would lie on a straight line with no variation between them. To obtain a Correlation Coefficient of 0.9897 with this number of measurements (14) around Lower Manhattan is very, very significant indeed.

What this means is that we can say that there’s a 99% correlation in the variation in the concentration between these two elements. They vary in lockstep; they vary together. When one element varies so does the other. We can state with absolute mathematical certainty that any change in the concentration of one of these elements, either the Barium or Strontium, is matched by the same change in the concentration of the other. Whatever process gave rise to the presence of either the Barium or the Strontium must have also produced the other as well. Fission is the only process that explains this.

Thorium and Uranium

Next we come to the detection of measurable quantities of Thorium and Uranium in the dust from the World Trade Center, elements which only exist in radioactive form. The graph below plots the concentration of Thorium and Uranium detected at each sampling location. Again, the last two locations, WTC01-08 and WTC01-09, are for the two girder coating samples. The Uranium concentration follows the same pattern as Thorium, although the graph scale does not show this markedly. Uranium follows the dip at WTC01-03 and WTC01-16 but the highest concentration of Uranium also matches Thorium in the second girder coating, WTC01-09, at 7.57ppm. 7.57 greatly exceeds normal Trace element levels. This equals 93 Becquerels per kilogram.

 

Normal background radiation is approximately 12Bq/kg to 40Bq/kg with 40Bq/kg the highest level we would expect to see. This girder contains more than twice the expected level of uranium. The second girder contained 30.7 ppm of Thorium, 6 times as high as the lowest level of that element detected. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It’s very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place. As we said earlier, Thorium is formed from Uranium be alpha decay. An alpha particle is the same as a Helium nucleus, so this means we have one of the favored fission pathways: Uranium fissioning into a Noble Gas and the balancing elements, in this case Helium and Thorium.

 

The graph of Thorium versus Lithium including the Girder Coatings has exactly the same form as the graph showing Thorium versus Uranium, also including the Girder Coatings. Without the two Girder Coatings the correlation of Thorium to Lithium in the dust is completely linear. We therefore have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium, has indeed taken place. It is out of the question that all of these correlations which are the signature of a nuclear explosion could have occurred by chance. This is impossible. The presence of rare Trace elements such as Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum is enough to raise eyebrows in themselves, let alone in quantities of 50 ppm to well over 100 ppm. When the quantities then vary widely from place to place but still correlate with each other according to the relationships expected from nuclear fission, it is beyond ALL doubt that the variations in concentration are due to that same common process of nuclear fission.

When we also find Barium and Strontium present, in absolutely astronomical concentrations of over 400 ppm to over 3000 ppm, varying from place to place but varying in lockstep and according to known nuclear relationships, the implications are of the utmost seriousness. Fission occurred in NYC on 911. This graph (below) shows that (apart from the very high peak in Sodium levels for one of the indoor dust samples) the Sodium and Potassium concentrations both display this now characteristic peak at location WTC01-16, the corner of Broadway and John Street. Sodium has the same peak as Zinc at WTC01-22, the corner of Warren and West, and like Zinc, falls to a minimum in the girder coatings – far below the concentrations found in the dust. Potassium is very similar except its concentration was not a peak at WTC01-02, Water and New York Streets, but somewhat lower than the next location, WTC01-03, State and Pearl Streets.

Zinc, Sodium and Potassium

There are clear correlations and relationships here which show that the Potassium and Sodium concentrations did not arise at random. They are products of radioactive decay. Remember that Strontium is produced by a fission pathway that proceeds through the Noble Gas Krypton and then the Alkali Metal Rubidium. Similarly, Barium is produced through Xenon and the Alkali Metal Cesium. We know that Uranium fission favors these pathways through the Noble Gases. Just as radioactive isotopes of Krypton and Xenon decay by beta particle emission to produce Rubidium and Cesium, radioactive isotopes of Neon and Argon also decay by beta emission to produce Sodium and Potassium. We would indeed expect to find anomalous levels of these elements present – what was found is again consistent with the occurrence of nuclear fission.

We know beyond doubt that the only process that can cause Barium and Strontium to be present in related or correlated quantities and any process that can also cause Barium and Strontium to have such strong relational concentrations across different samples, is nuclear fission. We know that if nuclear fission had occurred that Barium and Strontium would be present and a strong statistical correlation between the quantities of each would be found, and we have that, in spades.

What else do we have? Quite a lot. About 400 ppm of Barium and Strontium were measured in two samples of insulation girder coatings (WTC01-08 and 01-09). The concentration of Strontium actually falls somewhat below that of Barium in the second girder sample, WTC01-09, as at WTC01-16, whereas in every othesample the level of Strontium discovered was higher than Barium. Given the elevated levels of Barium daughter products found in the second girder and even the highest level of Uranium found (7.57ppm just West of and behind Tower One) this shows that active fission was still ongoing in the second girder coating, in the very same way as at WTC01-16 and therefore more Barium was found then Strontium. In other samples where the rate of fission had slowed down to give way to decay, the concentrations of Barium and Strontium reverse, due to the different half-lives. Barium isotopes have a shorter half-life then Strontium isotopes so they decay more quickly and after a period of time when no new Barium or Strontium has been deposited, Strontium will exceed Barium.

The fact that more Barium then Strontium was still found at WTC01-16 and WTC01-09 shows that the overall nuclear processes taking place were somewhat favoring Barium over Strontium and hence Zinc as well. The tighter cluster of Barium (400-500 ppm) and Strontium (700-800 ppm) concentrations across widely separated sampling locations in Lower Manhattan is cast iron proof that Nuclear Fission occurred. We know that Barium and Strontium are the characteristic signature of fission; they are formed by two of the most common Uranium fission pathways. The fact that their concentrations are so tightly coupled means that their source was at the very epicenter of the event which created the dust cloud that enveloped Manhattan. This was not a localized preexisting chemical source which would only have contaminated a few closely spaced samples and left the remaining samples untouched. The very high concentrations of Barium and Strontium at location WTC01-16 shows that active nuclear fission was still ongoing at that spot; the dust was still “hot” and new Barium and new Strontium were being actively generated, actively created by transmutation from their parent nuclei.

The presence of Thorium and Uranium correlated to each other by a clear mathematical power relationship – and to the other radionuclide daughter products such as sodium, potassium, zinc, lithium, strontium and barium – leaves nothing more to be said. This type of data has probably never been available to the public before and it’s an unprecedented insight into the action of a nuclear device. September 11th, 2001, was the first nuclear event within a major United States city that we have incontrovertible proof for and this is without question the most closely held secret surrounding the events of September 11th, 2001.

Anyone seriously interested in 911 truth will naturally be compelled to fully and thoroughly investigate the serious implications raised by this report personally, and I strongly encourage this. The material is complex yet if I can understand it anyone can. No one promised us that the answers to 911 would come easily.

Continue to Second Half:

Claims Made that The World Trade Center Was Nuked Part 2

References

A Nuclear Power Primer: Part 3: How Does Radiation Hurt Us and How Much Does it Take? (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/a_nuclear_power_primer_art_3_how_does_radiation_hurt_us_and_how_much_does_/

Clark, R., Green, R., Swayze, G., Meeker, G., Sutley, S., Hoefen, T., Livo, K., Plumlee, G., Pavri, B., Sarture, C., Wilson, S., Hageman, P., Lamothe, P., Vance, J., Boardman, J., Brownfield, I., Gent, C., Morath, L., Taggart, J., Theodorakos, P., & Adams, M. USGS Spectroscopy Lab, (2001). Environmental Studies of the World Trade Center Area After the September 11, 2001 Attack (Open-File Report 01-0429). Retrieved from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/

Cohen, S. (2006). F*** you! Mr. President: Confessions of the Father of the Neutron Bomb. (3rd ed., pp. 123-124). Retrieved from http://www.AthenaLab.com/Confessions_Sam_Cohen_2006_Third_Edition.pdf (Cohen, 2006)

Helmenstine, A. M. What is a Neutron Bomb? Retrieved from http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaqs/f/neutronbomb.htm (Helmenstine)

Jones, S. (2006, September 28). Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis That Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers. Retrieved from http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the- Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, (2009). Investigation of the Environmental Fate of Tritium in the Atmosphere (INFO-0792). Ottawa: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/pubs_catalogue/uploads/Investigation_of_Environmental_Fate_of_Tritium_in_the_Atmosphere_INFO-0792_e.pdf (“Investigation of the,” 2009)

Semkow, T., Hafner, R., Parekh, P., Wozniak, G., Haines, D., Husain, L., Rabun, R., & Williams, P. U.S. Department of Energy, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (2002). Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center (UCRL-JC-150445). Retrieved from llnl.gov website: https://e reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf

Stout, G., Vitchers, C., & Gray, R. (2006). Nine Months at Ground Zero: The Story of the Brotherhood of Workers Who Took on a Job Like No Other. (Google eBook ed., pp. 64-65). Simon and Schuster. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=4VD–5- T5IcC&lpg=PA62&ots=I8PEz77ZPT&dq=ground zero grappler&pg=PA64 (Stout, Vitchers & Gray, 2006)

Ternary fission. (2013, March 22). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved April 19, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ternary_fission&oldid=546177060

Tritium in Precipitation. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.science.uottawa.ca/eih/ch7/7tritium.htm

Twietmeyer, T. (2007, March 24). What May Have Melted the WTC Vehicles. Retrieved from http://rense.com/general75/melt2.htm (Twietmeyer, 2007)

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/

Facebooktwitterrss
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!