Did you not read your own sources? From the first Google link at Elevated tritium levels at the World Trade Center, the levels we're not above background level. From the second Google link at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.osti.gov/biblio/15002340&ved=2ahUKEwidh5b6q-XzAh
… (more)
WTC Clean Nuke Attack Theory
“No HTO above the background was found in those samples. “ deals with this [list B] “ 1.Manhattan, 2. Brooklyn, 3. Queens, and the 4. Kensico and 5. Croton Reservoirs” However this [list A] 1. “A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.164 {+-} 0.074 (2 {sigma}) nCi/L of HTO. 2. 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.” deals with the topic “well below the levels of concern to human exposure” but avoids the issue of ABOVE background levels i.e a clean nuke attack. You maybe reading it wrong or reading too fast. Please review the lists and your issue again. If I am right, can you rewrite your statement above? Thanks
The numbers of Tritium are still too small to prove any type of publicly known nuclear explosion, and skeptics and government officials write it off as exit signs and gunsights. Another example of such a thing are elevated levels of Strontium in the dust, which, even above background levels, are also too small to have come from a nuclear explosion, and have been explained as coming from the hundreds of computer terminals in the building. If those substances are an effect of the Tesla Project exploding, even the nuclear physicist participants did not apparently expect them. Charles said they detected some alpha radiation, and his main concern was the release of Xenon and Krypton gasses into the building, increasing the intensity of the fires. So, my attitude is that I can't significantly use it to prove anything to a skeptic, and don't want to spend any more time on it. The names of people involved are more useful.
“still too small “ because it was a temporary pool of water like puddled on B5 that formed after 9/11 and some said they also tested running water. WTC sewer system for example is running water and they reported zero tritium after a few days . The issue they were looking at was human health risk and as long as tritium left the area everyone was happy, so they tested a few puddles of water due to go missing after a few days anyway. They looked at temporary things which would never be problem but they DID find a problem. After 40 million gallons of water they found a problem on 9/21.
PDF Tritium in the World Trade Center September 11 th, 2001 Terrorist Attack: It's Possible Sources and Fate
1. “that there were no tritium signs at WTC, “
2. “The source of tritium from the airplane(s) was released at the point of impact with the Towers” i.e not the plane.
3. “It was concluded that fire and emergency equipment could not have been a source of tritium, since such equipment does not typically use tritium RL devices”
4. “The weapon/watch source could have had two components:. and that component ii) could not have been a major contributor i.e so they could NOT find a contributor as far as I could tell and left it at that.
 |
| Tritium WTC debunking the debunkers |
 |
| Elevated Tritium Levels at World Trade Center |
Dear X-Ray,
I read the attachments carefully and this is what I found:
1. No tritium signs at [the] WTC,
2. fire and emergency equipment not been the source,
3. 767–200 source: T2 was efficiently oxidized to HTO and then immediately vaporized do to heat.
I then wrote emails to Bruce Campbell at Boeing and posted a blog
|
12:22 PM (37 minutes ago)
|  | ||
| ||||
Has elevated tritium been detected at the location of 757, 767 aircraft crashes?
Thanks
