Depleted Uranium: A Scientific Perspective

by **seemslikeadream** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:12 am

An Interview With LEUREN MORET, Geoscientist Interview Conducted By W. Leon Smith and Nathan Diebenow Leuren Moret is a geoscientist who works almost around the clock educating citizens, the media, members of parliaments and Congress and other officials on radiation issues. She became a whistleblower in 1991 at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab after witnessing fraud on the Yucca Mountain Project. She is currently working as an independent citizen scientist and radiation specialist in communities around the world, and contributed to the U.N. subcommission investigating depleted uranium. According to Wikipedia online encyclopedia, Moret testified at the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan in Japan in 2003, presented at the World Depleted Uranium Weapons Conference in Hamburg, Germany, and spoke at the World Court of Women at the World Social Forum in Bombay, India, in January 2004. ...... MORET: I’ll tell you what I did when 9/11 happened. I called all the doctors with Radiation And Public Health Project, and I said, "Get out of town, and don’t come back until it has rained three times." One lived 12 miles downwind from the Pentagon. She went out on her balcony with her geiger counter. I said, "Get that geiger counter out of your purse." We had just done a press conference in San Francisco, and I knew she had it in her purse. Well, the radiation levels were 8-10 times higher than background. We called the EPA, HAZMAT, FBI, and said, "Get all those emergency response workers suited up. They need to be protected." Two days after 9/11, the EPA radiation expert for that region called back and said, "Yup, the Pentagon crash rubble was radioactive, and we believe it’s depleted uranium, but we’re not worried about that. It’s only harmful if it’s inhaled." He said, "We’re worried about the lead solder in the plane." Well, you know what’s in Tomahawk missiles? They have depleted uranium warheads. The radioactive crash rubble contaminated with DU is evidence of a DU warhead. more <a href="http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6232" target="top">bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6232</a>

by **chiggerbit** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:03 am

<a href="http://www.stcweb.ca/newsletter/volume18_no1.pdf">www.stcweb.ca/newsletter/...18_no1.pdf</a> Need to scroll down to find the article.

by **chiggerbit** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:09 am

Page 22.

by **robertdreed** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:56 pm

DU is used as ballast in the noses of Boeing jet airliners. DU is not used as explosive material, for a "warhead." If it's used in Tomahawk missiles, it's used either as an armor piercing shell, or the same way it's used in jets, as ballast.

by **feast of ineptitude** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:37 pm

“Boeing has never used DU on either the 757 or the 767, and we no longer use it on the 747,” Leslie M. Nichols, product spokesperson for Boeing’s 767, told AFP. “Sometime ago, we switched to tungsten, because it is heavier, more readily available and more cost effective.” <a href="http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/depleted_uranium.html">www.americanfreepress.net...anium.html</a>

by **robertdreed** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:47 pm

I did not know that. Even so, I'd still be looking beyond the idea that a Tomahawk missile was responsible for the high radiation readings.

by **chiggerbit** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:48 pm

Correct me if I am wrong, but depleted uranium is used because of its ability to penetrate. Doesn't change the fact that it becomes dangerous when it burns, does it?

by **robertdreed** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:40 am

You're right, when DU is used as an armor-penetrating round, approximately 30 per cent burns and is converted into pyrophoric ash. Therefore, using it as ammunition seems incredibly reckless to me. It amounts to "weaponizing" a weakly radioactive metal into a form that maximizes its toxicity, becuase it's so easily inhaled. If you've ever seen the ash fallout from fireworks displays, that's pyrophoric ash. Magnesium is pyrophoric, for instance. DU is estimated to have 40 per cent of the radioactivity of natural uranium- hence the term "depleted" uranium. It's a beta emitter, which means that the wavelengths are easily shielded- except of course inside of a living organism, where there's no shielding against radioactive particles. When used as ballast in jet airliners, DU is shielded in cadmium, effectively insulating it unless the case is broken open. To return to the specifics of what hit the Pentagon- I think a Tomahawk missile can safely be ruled out as the cause of the heightened radioactivity readings. For better or worse, radioactive materials are more common than is generally supposed. <a href="http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/cat10.html">www.hps.org/publicinforma...cat10.html</a> <a href="http://www.state.nj.us/llrwsb/radwrld.htm">www.state.nj.us/llrwsb/radwrld.htm</a> <a href="http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=3&catid=188">www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=3&catid=188</a>

by **Starman** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 1:30 am

Feast; Good article -- truly an awful mess, the large numbers of 911 rescue workers that weren't provided with protective equipment -- but the sub-micron particles of heavy metals and toxic chemicals would have defeated all but the most sophisticated filters. Consider how many area residents had NO protection at all, as the White House rewrote EPA air-quality warnings so as to facilitate the reopening of Wall Street -- they were all acceptable 'collateral damage' the Bush White House decided were expendable, made more egregious by the admin's evident complicity with 911. Also -- the Boeing spokesperson's claims about tungsten as being more dense, more readily-available and cost-effective -- that's SO suspiciously wrong I have to wonder WHY anyone would say that -- like it was a policy, 'deny, deny, deny'; Tungsten is expensive, difficult to work with, a strategic resource with toolmaking and aerospace applications. They are both of equivalent density, specific gravity 18+. Tungsten now sells for $120 MTU (1 mtu= 10kg), or almost 6 bucks a pound. But it seems the amount of radiation recorded is too great to be accounted for by DU used as ballast in the planes that struck the WTC towers, or if/as a missile/fighter struck the Pentagon as claimed (not enough debris, esp. second engine parts, landing gear, wing spars and vertical stabilizer components, plus the hole's too small!) Starman Good Pentagon debris-analysis link: <a href="http://www.911-strike.com/engines.htm">www.911-strike.com/engines.htm</a>

by **Connut** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 3:00 pm

<a href="http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/category.asp?id=49">www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/....asp?id=49</a> Everything you wished you never knew about DU from the Truth Seeker.

by **robertdreed** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 10:26 pm

...any reports of anomalous radiation meter readings notwithstanding. Compilation of witness accounts <a href="http://criticalthrash.com/terror/identification.html">criticalthrash.com/terror...ation.html</a> From Nov. 30, 2001: <a href="http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Nov2001/a20011128afipnew2.html">www.dtic.mil/armylink/new...pnew2.html</a> Forensic feat IDs all but 5 of Pentagon victims (Updated) by Christopher C. Kelly WASHINGTON (Army News Service, Nov. 30, 2001) -- What some experts have called "the most comprehensive forensic investigation in U.S. history" ended Nov. 16 with the identification of 184 of the 189 who died in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon... ...DoD released the positive identification of Pentagon victims. All but four of those who worked in the Pentagon were identified. AFIP identified all but one of the passengers on Flight 77.

by **Starman** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 5:25 pm

Claimed near-complete DNA identification of all Pentagon and Boeing passenger/crew victims is inconsistent with the official explanation that most of the Boeing's debris burned -- such intense heat sufficient to destroy most of the plane's aluminum skin and far-heavier, denser components as landing gear assemblies, wing-spars, fuselage frame, and vertical stabilizer as well as most of a second engine (with hardened steel, alloy and titanium components) should undoubtedly have also fully carbonized or completely burned the plane's passengers/crew and those Pentagon inhabitants closest to the initial impact zone where the fire would (or should)have been most intense. This apparant anomalie further confounds understanding just what DID strike the Pentagon. The sheer implausability of most of an entire twin-engined commercial plane disappearing into an original 16-foot diameter hole, is one of the biggest mysteries that the official explanation of 911 doesn't help answer. Failure by US officials to release photographs and security videos seized immediately following the incident (except for approx. five frames captured by Pentagon parking-lot security camera) has further provoked questions about what officials may be hiding. The eyewitness testimony is all-over-the-place, indicating how subjective and flawed such first-person evidence can be: "He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said" <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.html">www.washingtonpost.com/wp...ttack.html</a> "We live in Arlington, VA just outside of Washington, DC ... Then, at about 9:40 am Eastern Daylight Time, my husband and I heard an aircraft directly overhead. At first, we thought it was the jets that sometimes fly overhead. However, it appeared to be a small commercial aircraft. The engine was at full throttle." <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1540586.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talki...540586.stm</a> ""It was 50 ft. off the deck when he came in. It sounded like the pilot had the throttle completely floored. The plane rolled left and then rolled right. Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground." There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, then the plane cartwheeled into the building." <a href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,174655-4,00.html">www.time.com/time/world/a...-4,00.html</a> "The eeriest thing about it, was that it was like you were watching a movie. There was no huge explosion, no huge rumbling on ground, it just went ?pfff.? It wasn?t what I would have expected for a plane that was not much more than a football field away from me." <a href="http://www.nylawyer.com/news/01/09/091201l.html">www.nylawyer.com/news/01/09/091201l.html</a> ""Instantly I knew what was happening, and I involuntarily ducked as the plane passed perhaps 50 to 75 feet above the roof of my car at great speed," Owens said. "The plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon. The impact was deafening. The fuselage hit the ground and blew up."" <a href="http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2001/09/12terrorspreadsto.html">www.delawareonline.com/ne...adsto.html</a> ""The plane exploded after it hit, the tail came off and it began burning immediately. Within five minutes, police and emergency vehicles began arriving," said Vin Narayanan" <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/washscene.htm">www.usatoday.com/news/nat...hscene.htm</a> ""It was flying very smoothly and calmly, without any hint that anything was wrong."" <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/attack-usat.htm">www.usatoday.com/news/nat...k-usat.htm</a> "William Middleton Sr., was running his street sweeper through the cemetery when he heard a harsh whistling sound overhead. Middleton looked up and spotted a commercial jet whose pilot seemed to be fighting with his own craft" <a href="http://www.s-t.com/daily/12-01/12-20-01/a02wn018.htm">www.s-t.com/daily/12-01/1...2wn018.htm</a> "I then confirmed that the aircraft had been flown directly into the Pentagon without hitting the ground first or skipping into the building. " <a href="http://www.coping.org/911/survivor/pentagon.htm">www.coping.org/911/survivor/pentagon.htm</a> *** One thing that really puzzles me though is WHY anyone who was obviously prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to plan and facilitate the 911 attacks as a flase-flag ops, would substitute another plane w/or w/o for a Boeing 757, risking disclosure or an unforeseen development? UNLESS the controversy over exactly WHAT, WHO, & WHY might have been intended, to provoke questions and skepticism, increasing a public schism between believers and non-believers in the official story of 911? One thing I AM sure of, is that those Military-political-corporate insiders who strategized and planned the betrayal of 911, either manipulating terror-cells of motivated Fanatics via cut-out organizations or fabricating the whole scenario via innocent dupes who provided a fake cover-story but were entirely co-opted by remote-control technology in which passengers and crew were taken for a one-way 'ride' (the 'Arab terrorists' could have been duped into observer-roles whose actions leading-up to attacks were staged, or they could have been by-passed entirely and their history-identities reconstructed after-the-fact), are if anything careful and sophisticated strategists who likely considered and took-into-account an elaborate daisy-chain of plots, subplots and conspiracy-theory end-run game plans. Is the 911 subterfuge of plots-within-plots suggesting official cover-up and betrayal intentional, serving another agenda, ie., mis-direction or smoke-and-mirrors while another plot unfolds? While public attention is diverted on the Middle East and the US's seemingly contrived Imperialist war for dollar hegemony and control of political/economic and oil/narco resources, meanwhile US security-front mercenaries and covert operatives are involved in South American politics and civil-war conflicts (where some 40,000 Columbians have been killed in the last 10 years, and Plan Columbia's Drug interdiction biowar lobbied by US defense industry, to improve 'security' for Oil Company investments -- the US recieves more oil imports from South America than it does from the Middle East), and genocide and refugee dislocation resulting from resource-conflict in Africa via corporate-contracted Mercs. What's the REAL picture behind the false image created for mass consumption? To what extent is public opinion manipulated and directed? We certainly ought to suspect the NWO-elites to be savvy enough to cover-their-asses and manipulate the 'opposition'. As too, the Bush-neocons might think they are in-control, but perhaps they're being set-up to be the fall-guy patsies. You KNOW those most responsible for the global abuse of power and wealth (Bilderbergers, Illuminati, CFR, Shadow Gov. [Internationalists], Fed Reserve owners, etc.) will go to ANY lengths to erase their fingerprints from anything that would bring compromise their elaborate Octopus-network system of ruling-behind-the-scenes. Shedding light on this whole business is a very complex undertaking --look how hard it is to make folks acknowledge the obvious -- Bush et al. schemed to bring the US to war based on lies. A lot of folks refuse to believe the US Government via Bush is capable of such duplicity and deceit, so they fill-in the missing blanks with their own notion of National Security interests being served. What a charade -- cowards who can't face the truth they've been used and betrayed. Starman

by **robertdreed** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 7:28 pm

The Pentagon hit was definitely one of those situations that unfolds so rapidly and dramatically that a consensus of eyewitness accuracy isn't to be expected. That said, in my review of witness accounts it appears that those closest to the crash, with the most time to observe it, are in general agreement that the airborne object that crashed into the building was a jetliner. In my review of accounts thus far, recollections of a smaller plane are a definite minority in the total, and the vantage points of the witnesses reporting a "small commuter jet" have all been from inside buildings located some distance away, with the aircraft glimpsed briefly through the frames of windows. (I've read NO eyewitness reports seeing a cruise missile, UAV, or fighter jet- all craft which have been variously alleged to have been substituted for Flight 77.) I've been to the Pentagon- my dad used to work there- and it's a building that's so large as to produce distortions of scale. I think it's still the largest office building in the world. I do puzzle over the lack of visible large parts of wreckage, particularly of the wings. But I don't have a comparative reference to other cases of a jetliner flying at an estimated 20 per cent beyond its top rated safe speed making a direct impact with the heavily reinforced wall of a building. F=MA...I don't know the numbers in this case, but it's certainly conceivable to me that such an impact would be sufficient to blast an aircraft body and wings into confetti. Even a relatively large aircraft...especially considering the location of the fuel tanks that exploded on impact- they made up much of the interior of the wings. The report of the aircraft disappearing into a "16 foot diameter hole" is misleading. The impact hole is actually much wider, and not circular. I too wonder about the recovery of so many of the bodies and their positive identification, given the circumstances. It seems to me that after the first explosion, the fire must have been put out fairly quickly, enabling recovery of the bodies in fairly intact condition. I also find it possible that the story of near-complete recovery and identification of the bodies was concocted to mollify the survivors- although that seems much less probable to me, as it would necessarily entail that the entire staff of forensic anthropologists, pathologists, and lab techs assigned to the case be knowingly part of the cover-up, along with many of the first responders ostensibly involved in the task of recovering the bodies from the wreckage. I think that's a lot of people to be involved in a successful "conspiracy of silence", particularly if it was one where no agreement was made in advance. Possible, but it doesn't seem likely. And even if it is the case that the story of nearly complete recovery and ID of the bodies is bogus, that isn't sufficient demonstration that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. I think the website Oil Empire has put together the best compilation of evidence and logical argument against the "No Boeing hit the Pentagon" hypothesis. <a href="http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html">www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html</a> It isn't necessary to agree with all of their other positions- i.e. endorsing the Peak Oil theory, etc.- to grant that they have the best of the argument on that particular topic. An observation on the wider topic of the controversy over Peak Oil- it's entirely possible that someone adhering to one view or another can simply be wrong. It isn't necessary to ascribe sinister ulterior motives to someone's allegiance to a given position on an issue as complicated as that one. People can reasonably disagree on the validity of claims of the Peak Oil phenomenon. By contrast, I think that there's considerable justification for ascribing sinister motives to the source promulgators of scenarios like "No Boeing Hit The Pentagon." They're carny barkers trying to work people, in my view. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 6/16/05 5:35 pm

Depleted Uranium: A Scientific Perspective

Depleted Uranium: A Scientific Perspective

DU and porphyria

DU and porphyria

come on...

boeing says something else

Re: boeing says something else

CU

Pyrophoric DU

re: Boeing disinfo?

Depleted Uranium

A Boeing Hit The Pentagon...

re: A Boeing ...

Re: witnesses

Who is online