Fluoride Information

Fluoride is a poison. Fluoride was poison yesterday. Fluoride is poison today. Fluoride will be poison tomorrow. When in doubt, get it out.


Friday, August 11, 2017

An Open Letter to Steven Jones: Hard Evidence supports the 9/11 Mini-Nuke Hypothesis by Don Fox and Jeff Prager

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

An Open Letter to Steven Jones: Hard Evidence supports the 9/11 Mini-Nuke Hypothesis

by Don Fox and Jeff Prager

The WTC Mini-Nuke Hypothesis
Our hypothesis is that World Trade Center Buildings 1 and 2 were demolished by a series of very low-yield micro nuclear devices that were planted in the center columns of the buildings and detonated sequentially from top to bottom and configured or directed to explode upward in order to simulate a free fall collapse. A mini-nuke or series of mini-nukes were also detonated in the basement of WTC 6.
The bombs appeared to be fission/fusion devices that had powerful but limited blast effects and had little lingering radioactivity which suggests that they were neutron bombs. There is compelling evidence for both fission and fusion at Ground Zero.
While it is possible that energetic compounds such as nanothermite (NT) or more likely conventional explosives such as RDX or HMX were used there can be no doubt that the main causal mechanism for the destruction of the WTC buildings was mini or micro nuclear bombs.
We have recently published an article that has a complete breakdown of the US Geological Survey’s dust samples and the Department of Energy’s water samples which formed the basis for our conclusions. That article can at "Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11".

Tritiated Water Tests

From Steve Jones’ letter: Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at the World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained (0.164±0.074) nCi/L 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, respectively. These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure...” http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf
Tritium from a thermonuclear (fusion) bomb would be way above these trace levels of a few NANOcuries per liter. (A nanocurie = nCi, 1 billionth of a curie. That is a very tiny amount of radioactivity.)

Jones goes on to state: The graphs below show that hydrogen-bomb testing boosted tritium levels in rain by several orders of magnitude. (Ref: http://www.science.uottawa.ca/~eih/ch7/7tritium.htm)

The data clearly demonstrate the large amount of tritium released due to hydrogen bombs, the first of which was tested in 1951. Thus, tritium is a tracer for hydrogen bombs, the “smoking gun.” Can proponents of the WTC-mini-nuke hypothesis explain how large releases of tritium did NOT happen on 9/11/2001?
Jones is absolutely correct when he states that tritium is the “smoking gun” for a hydrogen bomb detonation. If tritium is detected in large quantities at Ground Zero, there is no way to deny the detonation of thermonuclear devices. It is vitally important to correctly interpret the data in the DOE report. So to help us make sense of the DOE data Ed Ward breaks down what is meant by “traces of tritium” in the basement of WTC 6:
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/trac 
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 (2รณ) 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="" 0.8="" 10="" 15="" 1950s="" 2001="" 20="" 30="" 4="" 5="" a="" agedatinggroundwater.pdf="" all="" and="" as="" background="" bomb="" but="" class="Apple-style-span" credibility="" environmental="" even="" give="" higher="" http:="" i="" in="" increase="" indicates="" instead="" level="" levels="" lie="" make="" mix="" modern="" of="" possible="" prior="" races="" some="" span="" style="color: black; font-family: Times; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;" sub="" the="" to="" tritium="" tu="" tus="" use="" water="" which="" will="" would="" www.grac.org="" years=""> 
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 states in regard to 1,000 TUs: "The graphs below show that hydrogen-bomb testing boosted tritium levels in rain by several orders of magnitude. (Ref.: http://www.science.uottawa.ca/~eih/ch7/7tritium.htm ) - http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the- Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf 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". http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the- Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf Interesting isn't it? Concern for human exposure is IRRELEVANT here and why Dr. Jones uses it is unknown. 
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.

Jones overlooks dilution by water

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, 2 DAYS OF RAIN AND WATER LEAKING THROUGH THE DAMAGED SEA WALL undoubtedly the concentration of tritium would have been higher than the measured 55 times normal background levels.
Ed Ward’s Breakdown of the WTC Rain and Fire Hose Water, 4 Million Gallons of Dilution: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/136
WTC 6 = 1 acre (approx)
WTC site = 16 acres. Rain = 4 million liters. 4/16 = 1/4 of a million liters deposits in WTC 6 in its 40 ft (depth) by 120 ft (diameter) crater.
WTC 6 was hot - see thermal images 2nd article on WTC Nukes.
Firemen = 12 million liters. Firemen would mostly be spraying the hot areas.
There are about 5 acres that gradually increase to maybe a total of 6 to 7 acres, but let’s be generous and say they sprayed 8 acres (this will lower the total amount of Tritium Units estimate).
8/16 = 1/2 of 12 million liters = 6 million liters spread over 8 acres = 3/4 of a million liters per acre
Rain plus Firemen = 1 million liters in WTC 6 in the 40 ft (depth) by 120 ft (diameter) crater.
1 liter of the pooled water = 1,106 TUs X 1 million liters of water = 1.1066 BILLION TUs JUST IN WTC-6 (no other places were checked.)
This completely ignores 104 Million Liters (30 Million Gallons) pumped out of the bathtub and the drain water of 51 TUs. 120 million liters X 51 = 6.120 BILLION TUs.
This completely ignores the amount of Tritium in gas form that escapes into the atmosphere and gets massive dispersal.
Jones’ statements on the tritium levels are disingenuous. Jones fails to address WHY so much tritium is in the basement of WTC-6 in the first place. A 170 meter high plume of smoke was seen rising from the building, a giant crater was left in the middle of it and “temperatures were so intense that concrete melted like lava around anything in its path.” There can be little doubt that a thermonuclear explosion(s) occurred in Building 6. http://www.tranquilitylane.com/images/WTC6_lava_nuke_evidence.jpg
If one denies nukes then something else must be responsible for all of the tritium found in the basement. The authors of the DOE report attempted to attribute the tritium to EXIT signs, watches and night sights on weapons that were stored in the building although that explanation is absurd in light of what we know happened to Building 6. Jones also fails to take into account all of the rain and fire hose water that diluted the tritium. If the water samples would have been collected on the evening of 9/11 what would the readings have been then?

Trace amounts of Iodine-131 (produced in fission reactions) found in Hudson River sediment

Sediment cores pulled from the Hudson River near the World Trade Center site just a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks contain a thin layer of metal-rich ash and pulverized debris. The top 3 cm of silt contained layers with unnaturally high concentrations of copper, strontium, and zinc from the towers, says Sarah D. Oktay, a geochemist... “Oktay and her colleagues also found that the sediments contain small but measurable quantities of iodine-131, a human-made radioactive isotope with a half-life of about 8 days.
Jones himself points out that the samples were collected a month after 9/11 and iodine-131 has a half-life of 8 days. This statement can hardly be used to rule out nuclear fission as most of the iodine-131 from the WTC demolition would have already decayed by the time the samples were collected. And the “high concentrations of copper, strontium, and zinc” ARE indicative of fission (and ternary fission) as we point out in our Mystery Solved article.

Radioactive “hot spots” in NY City – but is it evidence of “mini-nukes”?

From a news article: “Radioactive 'hot spots' threat to city”, by JAMES GORDON MEEK, DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON - A helicopter survey revealed 80 radioactive "hot spots" in New York City, including a Staten Island park with dangerously high levels of radium, a congressional report disclosed yesterday...The GAO did not identify the park, but Brian Feeney of the National Park Service said a 1-acre section of Great Kills Park on Staten Island, part of Gateway National Recreation Area, had been shut down in August 2005 after federal officials discovered old industrial equipment contaminated with radiation.
We’re not sure that these hot spots Jones references have anything to do with 9/11. Could very well be industrial waste unrelated to the destruction of the WTC buildings.

Radioactive isotopes

The USGS study of dust samples show elevated levels of uranium and thorium, elements that are always radioactive and the DOE water samples contain elevated levels of tritium. All of these elements were documented in levels that were far above background.

Neutron activation not observed

All nuclear weapons (especially FUSION/Hydrogen bombs) release copious high- energy neutrons which will activate steel and other materials, as the neutrons penetrate building materials. This is called neutron activation and cannot be avoided. Much of the induced radioactivity remains for decades. Moreover, the fall-out from even small nuclear weapons is highly radioactive. So we measure the level of radioactivity as proof (or disproof) of the use of nuclear bombs.
Several months ago, I tested WTC dust samples (from an apartment at 113 Liberty Street, NYC [1]) and a solidified metal sample (from the Clarkson University WTC monument [1]) for radioactivity using a Geiger counter. (Daedalon Corp., model EN-15.) I found ZERO RADIOACTIVITY (meaning nothing above background). This experimental evidence goes strongly against the mini- nukes hypothesis since measured radioactivity was simply at background levels. 
I used the same counter to measure the radioactivity of sand gathered from a nuclear-bomb test site decades ago for comparison – and the Geiger counter showed (2.94 +- 0.15) counts/sec. (The fused-sand was in fact from a New Mexico test site where an atomic bomb was detonated in 1945.) This demonstrates unequivocally the presence and long life of radioactive residues due to nuclear bombs, and the ability of the sensitive Geiger counter to measure that radioactivity. The sand still yields high Geiger-counter readings decades after the nuclear bomb blast, yet the WTC dust and slag and steel yield nothing. 
In addition, a steel member from the WTC (again from the Clarkson University WTC monument [1]) was recently tested for neutron activation by the author. The WTC steel showed 100 counts in 4m 26s, or (0.38 +- 0.04) counts/second. The background counting rate showed 100 counts in 4m 18s, or (0.39+- 0.04) counts/second. These data overlap within the statistical error, meaning that zero counts over background were seen from the WTC steel.
Jones is doing an apples/oranges comparison here. The atomic bomb tests in New Mexico in 1945 were fission devices. The old atom bombs produced a lot of radioactivity by fissioning heavy elements. The devices used at the WTC on 9/11 were likely neutron bombs that used very little uranium and reduced radioactivity by up to 95%. The WTC bombs were also much lower yield than the kiloton+ devices tested in New Mexico. Per Sam Cohen there will be no lingering radioactivity from the neutron bomb.
According to world renowned nuclear physicist Dr. Christopher Busby, and based on his assessment of elements found in craters in Fallujah, Iraq, Lebanon and Ground Zero, the devices used are close to pure fusion devices in which little radioactivity after detonation would be seen. Radioactivity would be present from Tritium H3 which together with He-4 is the product and some short lived gamma radiation from neutron activation products (e.g. Ca-45 from the Ca in concrete, Fe-55 from the steel). These would be radioactive for a few days only.

The concentration of Uranium is a key. This is slightly too high in the dust and much too high in the girder coatings. The activities for 2.7, 3.2, 4.7 and 7.57 are 33, 40, 58 and 93Bq/kg. The graph in the USGS data/Chemistry Table 1 shows that there is too much U on the girder coatings. Normal levels of U are about 12, at most 40Bq/kg.

Dr. Jones never addresses the uranium levels as they relate to increases and decreases, predictable increases and decreases, across 12 USGS sampling locations with the other dozen+ elements. The 12 sampling locations all contained strontium as well as many other fission pathway elements, all of which correlate properly using the Product Momentum Correlation Coefficient to indicate fission occurred in NYC on 911. Reference: http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html

Jones also neglects to mention all the vehicles that were “toasted” in the vicinity of the WTC. Ted Twietmeyer has an article on Rense’s website about the melted vehicles. Twietmeyer attributes the vehicular damage to EMP which would be generated by neutron bombs. Ed Ward states that “I believe some of what he attributes to EMP was done by neutrons – in particular his linear evaluations (angle computations) would seem more neutron than EMP. EMP should tend to flow around – seems to be a correlation of dust cloud carrying EMP. So the linear blockage of cars protecting other cars would seem to be more appropriate for neutrons.”
So it appears that neutron bombs exploding in the Towers are responsible for the vehicular damage which serves to further reinforce our mini-nuke theory.
The USGS dust samples also show signs of neutron activation per Jeff Prager:
The natural balance of elements at the WTC samples has changed into heavier isotopes. Some nuclear force has been able to inject neutrons into the nucleus of various elements present at the WTC area. See the table below.
Elements in USGS analysis that should show readily detectable Neutron Activation:
Element Isotopes
Isotope Percentages in Nature
Mean Percentage in USGS analysis
28 Si 92.23%, 29 Si 4.67%
2 C 98.9%, 13 C 1.1% stable
32 S 95.02%, 33 S 0.075%
56 Fe 91.72%, 57 Fe 2.2%, 58 Fe 0.28%
58 Ni 68.08%, 59 Ni 1/2 life 7600 years, 60 Ni 26.22%, 61 Ni 1.14%
37 ppm
93 Nb 100%, 94 Nb 1/2 life 20,000 years
8.3 ppm
9 Be 100%, 10 Be 1/2 life 1.5 mil years
3 ppm
39 K 93.256%, 40 K only plant animal
48 Ti 73.8%, 49 Ti 5.5%
52 Cr 83.79%, 53 Cr 9.5%
116 ppm
59 Co 100%, 60 Co 1/2 life 5 years
6 ppm
For an example, Iron is expected to have the Fe (58) isotope, which contains two additional neutrons, 0.28% naturally, but somehow there were 1.63% of these heavier, but still stable iron isotopes in the WTC sample.

A note on pulverization

Jones collected dust samples from Janette MacKinlay’s apartment which was near the South Tower. Jones states that the dust contained larger chunks so that disproves the mini-nuke hypothesis. A couple of points here: first, the smallest particles would have been carried a mile or more away from Ground Zero. No known samples were collected that far away so one cannot conclude that fine particles were not produced by the Ground Zero detonations. Secondly, we are not claiming that the buildings were completely pulverized into nano-sized particles. Indeed a 300 ton chunk of the North Tower was ejected 600+ feet into the Winter Garden as documented in the movie 911 Eyewitness. Could conventional explosives account for this? Perhaps but the quantities of conventional explosives required to perform that feat would not be practical to have been placed in the buildings undetected.

People and glass as detectors for nuclear-bomb radiation

Finally, people themselves become “detectors” for the radiations associated with nuclear bombs. Glass also is known to melt in the intense heat of a nuclear bomb blast. All nuclear bombs produce copious x-rays, gamma-rays and fast neutrons, which are fatal at close range with a distinctive ‘burning’ of the victims. This applies to fusion as well as fission bombs. This person had severe burns indicative of nukes:
Jones attributes molten material at Ground Zero to thermate. Jones also portraits the temperatures at Ground Zero as occasionally spiking and not a constantly high temperature. Jones’ view contradicts people that worked the site for months.

Not only was this laborious for the firefighters, but the working conditions were hellish, said Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. of Norwalk, Conn.
For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher:
"In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel," Fuchek said. 
It should be noted that the sole reason for constructing a nano-style thermitic material is to increase burn rate creating a rapid burning material that uses all of its source material in milliseconds. A nano-thermite is specifically designed to burn rapidly and exhaust its supply of fuel immediately. It CAN NOT burn for more than a few seconds at best, let alone minutes, hours, days, weeks and months. 
Could thermite heat a several acre area to a 600 – 1,500 °F temperature for six months? Absolutely not. The only thing that could explain this is fission/fusion. No other fire can burn underground that long. 
 There were massive underground explosions before the North Tower was demolished. It appears that mini-nukes were used to demolish the foundations of the WTC Towers and the residual heat from the explosions caused the elevated temperatures. 
As an example of retained heat from a nuclear explosion, Ed Ward references The Project GNOME detonation on December 10, 1961 near Carlsbad, New Mexico:

Measurements of an earlier underground detonation had indicated that roughly 1/3 of the energy was deposited in the melted rock at temperatures above 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. This information encouraged hopes that a nuclear detonation in a dry medium might cause heat to be stored long enough to permit efficient recovery. GNOME was developed with the idea that a nuclear detonation in a salt deposit would create a large volume of hot melted salt from which heat might be extracted. The possibilities to be investigated for the production of power were the tapping of the steam created by detonation itself and the generation of high-density, high-pressure steam by the circulation of some heat-absorbing fluid, like water, over the heated salt. This generated steam would be used to drive a steam or hot gas turbine coupled with an electric generator.
When workers reentered that cavity on May 17, 1962, they found temperatures around 140 degrees Fahrenheit but only small amounts of residual radiation. The earlier intense radiation had colored the salt of the cavity wall various shades of blue, green, and violet.
A nuclear bomb will only explode 1-6% of its fissionable material. The unexploded fissionable material at the WTC appears to have been going through a low-level fission process and as it fissioned it burrowed deep underground. This is known as the China Syndrome and may have been responsible for some of the hot spots. Only nuclear bombs can explain this phenomenon. Hundreds of dump trucks of dirt were hauled in and out of Ground Zero to clean up the mess similar to the Chernobyl meltdown.


The hard physical evidence presented here strongly supports the hypothesis that mini-nukes destroyed the Twin Towers:
1. Tritium levels in the basement of WTC-6 are 55 times greater than background 11 days after 9/11 and after substantial water had been sprayed into the area. Only a thermonuclear (fusion) explosion can account for tritium levels this high. Temperatures in Building 6 were so high that “cement flowed like lava.” 
2. The damage done toWTC-6-- a 170 meter plume of smoke seen rising from the building, a massive crater left in the center and cement that was so hot it “flowed like lava”--is consistent with the use of mini-nukes. 
3. Uranium, always radioactive, under scanning electron microscopy was found at 7.57 parts per million (93 Bequerels per kilogram) in the dust taken from the girder coatings by USGS personnel. Normal uranium content on earth is between 12 Bq/kg as a low and 40 Bequerels per kilogram as the maximum high making this girder coating uranium level between 2 and 7.75 times the expected level. What is the source of the increased levels of uranium found in this girder coating dust that was then surrounded by tons of building construction? 
4. There are significant uranium anomalies elsewhere. Readings of 2.7, 3.2, 4.7 and 7.57 or 33, 40, 58 and 93Bq/kg are found in the USGS dust samples. 
5. Lithium: 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. http://www.datafilehost.com/download- b128ac41.html 
6. Only nuclear fission explains the correlations and predictability of levels of numerous elements found by the USGS 
7. A 300 ton chunk of the North Tower was ejected upwards at a 45° angle and out 600 feet into the Winter Garden. Only extremely powerful explosives can account for this. It would be nearly impossible to plant enough conventional explosives to perform this feat. 
8. 1,500°F and sometimes higher ground temperatures six months after 9/11 cannot be explained by nanothermite or conventional explosives. Below ground nuclear detonations and nuclear criticalities reacting underground explain the high temperatures that persisted for months. 
9. Engineers estimate that 1/3 of the Twin Towers were completely vaporized. Only the mini-nuke hypothesis can explain this. 
10. Cancer rates among the First Responders are consistent with exposure to nuclear radiation. 
11. First Responder Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia reported in 2005 that his teeth were falling out – a common symptom of nuclear radiation exposure. 
12. WTC employee Felipe David reported “hanging skin” another common symptom of nuclear radiation exposure after the North Tower was demolished.

Donald Fox has done extensive research on the role of mini-nukes by Dr. Ed Ward and on work by The Anonymous Physicist on the towers and has formulated an account of how it was done and why there is more to this story relative to very low-yield thermonuclear devices. See his blog at http://donaldfox.wordpress.com.

Jeff Prager, founder of an award winning magazine for Senior Citizens, in 2002 he tried to prove 19 Muslims hijacked four planes and attacked us. By 2005, he realized this was false, sold his business, left the US and began to investigate 9/11 full-time. See 9/11 AMERICA NUKED, Part 1, Part 2.


Jones, S. (2007, January 16). Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers. Retrieved from Journal of 9/11 Studies website: http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard
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
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). World Trade Center USGS Environmental Assessment (Open-File Report 01-0429). Retrieved from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/
Siegel, R. (Videographer) (2007). 911 Eyewitness from Hoboken Festival Cut [DVD]. Available from http://911eyewitness.com/videos01.html.
Walsh, T. (2002, September 9). Handheld App Eased Recovery Tasks. Retrieved from the Government Computer News website: http://gcn.com/articles/2002/09/09/handheld-app-eased-recovery-tasks.aspx

No comments:

Post a Comment