Reply To: 9/11 Building 7 UAF engineering report continued.


Home Forums Discussion Forum 9/11 Building 7 UAF engineering report continued. Reply To: 9/11 Building 7 UAF engineering report continued.

#52656
Clark

Tony M, the point I made stands; it is unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately released as a weapon because it can’t be targeted. The DU used in, say, Fallujah has not caused anything like as many birth defects in the rest of the world.

“You seem to have an unwillingness to do research which does not serve to confirm your pre-existing ideas and indoctrination, yet pose as an expert in all things, usually in support of , excusing, downplaying elite criminal and moral wrong-doing.”

Please don’t be rude, and please don’t say things about me that are false; I have worked with Craig and this site for over a decade, opposing and campaigning against war and torture. I’m doing research, by asking you. I understand that you’re angry; I am angry too, but making false accusations against you would not help, and I’d like you to understand that your false accusations against me definitely hinder; they damage my emotional state, sap my enthusiasm and waste my time in refuting them. Such searing moral superiority drives people from the cause.

Truth, Justice, Peace.

We can’t achieve peace without justice, and justice can only be based upon truth. When false allegations are made they are easily disproven, which discredits the campaign.

98% U238 looks a bit odd because even natural uranium is over 99.27% U238, making the DU you refer to possibly look enriched rather than depleted. The other substances you list would be found also in natural uranium, apart from technetium-99.

Did we have a similar conversation years ago? Because I remember being told of impurities and suggesting that uranium from reprocessing might have been used in munitions. I see that the Wikipedia article now includes a UN report that uranium from reprocessing was found in Kosovo in November 2000 (the cited article has gone so I modified the citation to include archive.org). Such uranium should really be called ‘reprocessed’ rather than ‘depleted’, but it would pass the US military’s definition which is based merely upon percentages, not source. Selling waste from the reprocessing industry for munitions manufacture might have been abused as a way of disposing of it; I can’t think of any other advantage.