9/11 - Fifteen Years Of Lies And BS

Those of you who still care about 9/11 (and I am one of them) should take some time to review some of the following links. Perhaps one or more of them contains a glimmer of what really happened:

http://phibetaiota.net/2016/09/911-phi-beta-iota/

One of the latest theories is that WTC1 and WTC2 were destroyed using nuclear devices of some sort. You can find various discussions related to this theory here:

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/

Although I am tempted to fall for the "we were nuked on 9/11" theory, I find no compelling reason to do so yet. Here's why:

1. It appears that radiation levels measured after the event were extremely low, which seems to be inconsistent with the detonation of two nuclear devices at the site. You can read about this here:

http://sainthoward.blogspot.com/2015/07/no-radiation-at-wtc-no-nuclear-bombs-on.html

2. There are alternative explanations for the presence of alleged "fallout" chemicals at the WTC site. You can read about them here:

http://sainthoward.blogspot.com/2015/01/did-911-produce-radioactive-fallout.html

3. There are alternative explanations for the presence of tritium at the WTC site. You can read about them here:

http://sainthoward.blogspot.com/2016/04/why-was-tritium-found-at-911-ground-zero.html

Anyone trying to prove the use of nuclear devices on 9/11 should do so using measurements of radioactivity, NOT just measurements of chemical concentration. No radiation = no nukes.

By the way, in a former life I spent 25+ years in the military and civilian nuclear industries; I was one of the officers who supervised the radioactive decommissioning of USS Nautilus (SSN 571); and I have a graduate degree in nuclear waste management. So I know a little about radiation and contamination, enough to know there is something important missing from the "we were nuked" theory.