September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor

[SanderO]

Why do you suppose that as a group, those working at Ground Zero displayed the very same patterns of sickness as the survivors of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl?

Dunno... maybe diseases have multiple causes presenting similar etiology. I am not a DR and can't comment other than the dust was toxic to breathe.

 

[mike2810]

Believe it or not Mike, the air samples and others did not show much asbestos.

And even if it had, the sickness asbestosis is not remotely similar to multiple myeloma or non-hodgins lymphoma.

Just finished Prager's book today.

and it is interesting you ignored all the other toxic cancer causing items in the air samples and only focused on asbestos.
Typical only looking at part of the information:mrgreen:

 

[Thoreau72]

and it is interesting you ignored all the other toxic cancer causing items in the air samples and only focused on asbestos.
Typical only looking at part of the information:mrgreen:

I mentioned asbestos ONLY in response to YOUR POST suggesting that it was asbestos that caused the health problems. Gawd!

The sicknesses observed in those who worked at GZ were radiation sicknesses, and all the other anomalies that you guys have been in denial about for all these years were the result of nuclear events at WTC.

Egads, the cognitive dissonance is strong indeed. :doh

 

[mike2810]

I mentioned asbestos ONLY in response to YOUR POST suggesting that it was asbestos that caused the health problems. Gawd!

The sicknesses observed in those who worked at GZ were radiation sicknesses, and all the other anomalies that you guys have been in denial about for all these years were the result of nuclear events at WTC.

Egads, the cognitive dissonance is strong indeed. :doh

yep.
So help out. what evidence do you have it was radiation and nothing else? please post link so I can see the info

 

[Thoreau72]

yep.
So help out. what evidence do you have it was radiation and nothing else? please post link so I can see the info

For the umpteenth time Mike, I do my own research, consider ALL the information, and then I draw MY OWN conclusions. Sometimes my conclusions end up in agreement with the conclusions of others, but I draw MY conclusions. Get it?

When graphed, the types of cancers, the age of the victims, and the rate of incidence amongst the population sample, about 40,000 people are very very similar to that data on the survivors of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl. I suspect that in a few more years as the diseases advance and the data comes in, similar trends and data will be found amongst the poor suckers at Fukushima.

The other facts supporting a nuclear event are the radioactive elements found at the site by USGS sampling. Those elements are associated with nuclear events. Also the EMP as it effected the radios used by NYC authorities. Also the reports of "dripping skin" on humans, and some being engulfed in some sort of fire ball. And of course the strangely burnt vehicles and the horizontal ejection of massive structural pieces hundreds of feet.

The Big Picture, the preponderance of the evidence.

 

[Thoreau72]

We've been playing this little game for awhile now Mike. I'm not going to spoonfeed you. If you are truly curious, go to Google, put in Jeff Prager, and download the book just like I did.

Read it, and draw your own conclusions. If you're not willing to do that, we don't have much to talk about except the weather. eace

 

[mike2810]

For the umpteenth time Mike, I do my own research, consider ALL the information, and then I draw MY OWN conclusions. Sometimes my conclusions end up in agreement with the conclusions of others, but I draw MY conclusions. Get it?

When graphed, the types of cancers, the age of the victims, and the rate of incidence amongst the population sample, about 40,000 people are very very similar to that data on the survivors of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl. I suspect that in a few more years as the diseases advance and the data comes in, similar trends and data will be found amongst the poor suckers at Fukushima.

The other facts supporting a nuclear event are the radioactive elements found at the site by USGS sampling. Those elements are associated with nuclear events. Also the EMP as it effected the radios used by NYC authorities. Also the reports of "dripping skin" on humans, and some being engulfed in some sort of fire ball. And of course the strangely burnt vehicles and the horizontal ejection of massive structural pieces hundreds of feet.

The Big Picture, the preponderance of the evidence.

and for the many times. I know. Now you must have read something in your research or did you fabricate your own data from personally inspecting the site? Come one HD, you came to your conclusions from reading something, did you not?

You must have saw a photo somewhere of the burned bodies, or where you on site on 911? what was the source of the photo?

See you dodge by claiming you do your own reseach. Do you conduct your own experiments? How did you come to know it was a nuke?
I don't recall you stating it was nukes until recently. If you had the photos and other evidence why now. Oh wait, the other CD explanation is not looking so good. so lets say it was nukes. Got it.

 

[SanderO]

and for the many times. I know. Now you must have read something in your research or did you fabricate your own data from personally inspecting the site? Come one HD, you came to your conclusions from reading something, did you not?

You must have saw a photo somewhere of the burned bodies, or where you on site on 911? what was the source of the photo?

See you dodge by claiming you do your own reseach. Do you conduct your own experiments? How did you come to know it was a nuke?
I don't recall you stating it was nukes until recently. If you had the photos and other evidence why now. Oh wait, the other CD explanation is not looking so good. so lets say it was nukes. Got it.

There is research and there is research... looking stuff up is kind of research but it's hardly fundamental research where you synthesize something like an experiment or a mathematical analysis or some other analysis of data. David Griffin is a quote miner and does not fundamental research. Chandler is sloppy and perhaps incompetent in his fundamental research. "followers" parrot work of others... They think they do research... but it's of a very different quality.

 

[Thoreau72]

and for the many times. I know. Now you must have read something in your research or did you fabricate your own data from personally inspecting the site? Come one HD, you came to your conclusions from reading something, did you not?

You must have saw a photo somewhere of the burned bodies, or where you on site on 911? what was the source of the photo?

See you dodge by claiming you do your own reseach. Do you conduct your own experiments? How did you come to know it was a nuke?
I don't recall you stating it was nukes until recently. If you had the photos and other evidence why now. Oh wait, the other CD explanation is not looking so good. so lets say it was nukes. Got it.

You and I have discussed this before Mike. I'm beginning to question your reading comprehension.

No I was not on site. No, I have not conducted my own experiments.

Yes, I read a lot of material and try to learn something.

Yes, I have always considered the nuclear option as a possibility, but until I recently read Prager's book I never realized how strong that theory is. The many facts support it, and it is the only theory that solves all the anomalies observed since Day One.

The NIST theory of natural collapse simply fails--it is impossible and requires that the laws of physics be suspended.

The nuclear theory reconciles all the strange events we saw, and it honors the principle of Occam's Razor.

 

[rjay]

I did not read this thread nor any links that may be referenced but................

I think Pearl Harbor was a hoax commited by thhe American government perpetrated so that America could get in on the WWII fun.

Wow, this CT stuff is easy. I am going to try to think of some more Conspiracies, this could be great fun. With any luck at all I will become obsessed and defending my new theory can become my life.

 

[mike2810]

You and I have discussed this before Mike. I'm beginning to question your reading comprehension.

No I was not on site. No, I have not conducted my own experiments.

Yes, I read a lot of material and try to learn something.

Yes, I have always considered the nuclear option as a possibility, but until I recently read Prager's book I never realized how strong that theory is. The many facts support it, and it is the only theory that solves all the anomalies observed since Day One.

The NIST theory of natural collapse simply fails--it is impossible and requires that the laws of physics be suspended.

The nuclear theory reconciles all the strange events we saw, and it honors the principle of Occam's Razor.

no comprehension problem. but thanks for the dig.

I can guess your sources of information/research (VToday, and any new CT author like Prager that comes out with a new book.

Facinating how your post follow a great deal of what is posted on VToday. Just saying.

 

[mike2810]

Good example how some authors take information from medical studies and use to promote conclusions not supported by the studies.

JAMA Network | JAMA | Association Between World Trade Center Exposure and Excess Cancer Risk

"In summary, this study found significantly increased prostate and thyroid cancers and multiple myeloma among rescue/recovery workers in the later period that were not significantly associated with intensity of WTC exposures. Given the relatively short follow-up time and lack of data on medical screening and other risk factors, the increase in prostate and thyroid cancers and multiple myeloma should be interpreted with caution. The etiological role of WTC exposures in these 3 cancers is unclear. Longer follow-up of rescue/recovery workers and participants not involved in rescue/recovery is needed with attention to selected cancer sites and to examine risk for cancers with typically long latency periods."

"Dust, debris, and fumes from the WTC contained known and suspected carcinogens, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, asbestos, benzene, and dioxins.10,19- 21 At issue is whether dosages to exposed individuals were sufficient to cause excess malignancies and, if so, whether such excesses are epidemiologically detectable at present."

interesting no mention of neutron radiation as possible causes.

Guess this is just another govt. conspiracy put out by JAMA:mrgreen:

 

[SanderO]

You and I have discussed this before Mike. I'm beginning to question your reading comprehension.

No I was not on site. No, I have not conducted my own experiments.

Yes, I read a lot of material and try to learn something.

Yes, I have always considered the nuclear option as a possibility, but until I recently read Prager's book I never realized how strong that theory is. The many facts support it, and it is the only theory that solves all the anomalies observed since Day One.

The NIST theory of natural collapse simply fails--it is impossible and requires that the laws of physics be suspended.

The nuclear theory reconciles all the strange events we saw, and it honors the principle of Occam's Razor.

HD,

You appear to me to be trapped in connect-the-dots-ignore-the-dots approach. You also seem to have a confirmation bias which informs your connect-the-dots-ignore-the-dots approach.

It's understandable that we accept and rely on others to inform our understanding. Unfortunately this often is nothing more than the appeal to authority trap we all fall in from time to time. Prager does not understand engineering nor the specifics of the structure... nor has be carefully studied the sequence of their collapse/failures. He bases his entire arguments (appeal to authority and connect-the-dots-ignore-the-dots) on dust analysis... ignoring the visual record which suggests a different explanation.

There is so much fog, so little consensus on the basic facts that it lends itself to all manner of speculation such as Prager's which can convince those who can't find the answers for themselves and need to be led in their thinking (very common).

 

[SanderO]

VT is clearly a very partisan site pushing a rather obvious agenda. This obvious bias seems to disqualify its sources... and may be the kiss of death for a critical thinker.

I've been encouraged to read some lengthy book about nukes at the WTC. I am quite sure it would be a waste of time and am not encouraged to read it because of the flawed work of people like Prager and Khalezov (or are the the same thesis?).

 

[Thoreau72]

no comprehension problem. but thanks for the dig.

I can guess your sources of information/research (VToday, and any new CT author like Prager that comes out with a new book.

Facinating how your post follow a great deal of what is posted on VToday. Just saying.

I visit VT maybe once a week, maybe not that.

The 'dig', really just honest language, came from your asking questions of me that have been answered already many times here at DP. Repeatedly asking the same question(s) suggests that the asker is not keeping up with the conversation, or.... eace

 

[mike2810]

I visit VT maybe once a week, maybe not that.

The 'dig', really just honest language, came from your asking questions of me that have been answered already many times here at DP. Repeatedly asking the same question(s) suggests that the asker is not keeping up with the conversation, or.... eace

or your answers are dodges, or you bring up a change i.e. nuclear
Yes, it is clear it unlikely you will state what sources you use in your "research" to back up your opinions.

 

[Thoreau72]

HD,

You appear to me to be trapped in connect-the-dots-ignore-the-dots approach. You also seem to have a confirmation bias which informs your connect-the-dots-ignore-the-dots approach.

It's understandable that we accept and rely on others to inform our understanding. Unfortunately this often is nothing more than the appeal to authority trap we all fall in from time to time. Prager does not understand engineering nor the specifics of the structure... nor has be carefully studied the sequence of their collapse/failures. He bases his entire arguments (appeal to authority and connect-the-dots-ignore-the-dots) on dust analysis... ignoring the visual record which suggests a different explanation.

There is so much fog, so little consensus on the basic facts that it lends itself to all manner of speculation such as Prager's which can convince those who can't find the answers for themselves and need to be led in their thinking (very common).

You seem to enjoy the fog. Indeed, with your natural collapse theory, you add to the fog at every opportunity.

I bought into that nonsensical story for several years. It's an impossible story.

Claiming the rational high ground by supporting the NIST theory? Puh-leeze. The gullible buy into that, but I'll pass, thanks just the same.

 

[Thoreau72]

or your answers are dodges, or you bring up a change i.e. nuclear
Yes, it is clear it unlikely you will state what sources you use in your "research" to back up your opinions.

I'm an old hippie Mike, a child of the 60's, and I'm also a Libra. If you're into astrology at all you know that Libras are generally able to see both sides of any issue.

When studying any given issue, I always look at all the evidence, all the facts, and I positively LOVE to have the input of others. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with them, but I love to consider it all. And then eventually I will reach a conclusion. Sometimes a definitive conclusion is impossible, and I remain undecided and agnostic.

As I've previously explained to YOU Mike, I first encountered and considered the nuclear theory back when I actually believed the Official Theory. At that time, I scoffed and rejected the possibility, but that was long before Prager wrote his book, and long before the data was gathered and analyzed, and very long before the epidemiology became established.

I am always able to change my mind, to admit that I was wrong in a conclusion, as long as someone can make a rational and persuasive case to change my mind.

The official theory that you embrace is intellectually bankrupt, and that has been known for years, before Prager wrote his book.

12 years later, the data is in, the epidemiology is in, and the nuclear theory as advanced by Prager is the only theory that answers all the nagging questions. It is the only coherent and complete explanation, although there are still questions as to the fine details.

The demands of Occam's Razor are met by Prager's theory. I am able to see that, but clearly you are not. eace

 

[mike2810]

I'm an old hippie Mike, a child of the 60's, and I'm also a Libra. If you're into astrology at all you know that Libras are generally able to see both sides of any issue.

When studying any given issue, I always look at all the evidence, all the facts, and I positively LOVE to have the input of others. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with them, but I love to consider it all. And then eventually I will reach a conclusion. Sometimes a definitive conclusion is impossible, and I remain undecided and agnostic.

As I've previously explained to YOU Mike, I first encountered and considered the nuclear theory back when I actually believed the Official Theory. At that time, I scoffed and rejected the possibility, but that was long before Prager wrote his book, and long before the data was gathered and analyzed, and very long before the epidemiology became established.

I am always able to change my mind, to admit that I was wrong in a conclusion, as long as someone can make a rational and persuasive case to change my mind.

The official theory that you embrace is intellectually bankrupt, and that has been known for years, before Prager wrote his book.

12 years later, the data is in, the epidemiology is in, and the nuclear theory as advanced by Prager is the only theory that answers all the nagging questions. It is the only coherent and complete explanation, although there are still questions as to the fine details.

The demands of Occam's Razor are met by Prager's theory. I am able to see that, but clearly you are not. eace

good post.

Yet, I noticed you ignored the post I had from JAMA and their study. Why is that?
Oh wait, it doesn't support the idea of radiation as the cause of some of the medical issues. Yet, I can see people taking the JAMA article and say well, the report did say its to early for definite results therefore you can't rule out radiation.:mrgreen:

Well, HD, I also tend to look at a lot of articles,papers,studies, etc that cover both sides of the issue.
It is easy to say the "demands of Occam's Razor are met by Prager's theory", yet that does not make it true.
Interesting that people can look at an event, data, etc. and come to different conclusions.

My opinion, Prager and other nuke supporters (former Russian) have taken many legitimate facts out of context or distorted them to support their foregone conclusion (nukes).
The Russian one especially. There are so many questions there theory cannot explain? They fail in the concept of Occam's Razor.

 

[SanderO]

You seem to enjoy the fog. Indeed, with your natural collapse theory, you add to the fog at every opportunity.

I bought into that nonsensical story for several years. It's an impossible story.

Claiming the rational high ground by supporting the NIST theory? Puh-leeze. The gullible buy into that, but I'll pass, thanks just the same.

I don't support the NIST theory. I support my own theory!

 

[mike2810]

I don't support the NIST theory. I support my own theory!

imo, some posters like HD at times lumps anyone who does not support control demolition as accepting the govt reports in total.
You and I have stated we do not accept the report in total. At least for me I still accept the premise of jets/fire/damage/collapse as the more valid explanation. If some what to say that supports the govt report in total, that is there issue, not mine.

 

[SanderO]

imo, some posters like HD at times lumps anyone who does not support control demolition as accepting the govt reports in total.
You and I have stated we do not accept the report in total. At least for me I still accept the premise of jets/fire/damage/collapse as the more valid explanation. If some what to say that supports the govt report in total, that is there issue, not mine.

I agree... for the most part I accept that jumbo jets struck the towers and the pentagon and they fell without any placed devices as a result of heat weakening from fires and in the case of the twins mechanical damage... absent fire protection and fire fighting. I don't agree with their details about where and how it happened.

 

[Thoreau72]

And so we agree to disagree. There was no plane at the Pentagon and the evidence shows it. What videos the Pentagon refuses to release supports that. No plane at Shanksville.

A natural collapse at WTC? :lamo

 

[mike2810]

And so we agree to disagree. There was no plane at the Pentagon and the evidence shows it. What videos the Pentagon refuses to release supports that. No plane at Shanksville.

A natural collapse at WTC? :lamo

Interesting statement HD (bold)


The number of tapes for the Pentagon has been debated. So how do you know they are holding tape(s). and how do you know what alleged tape contains?

If you really know, you should go by a lottery ticket, bet you know what numbers are coming up.:mrgreen:

 

[Thoreau72]

Interesting statement HD (bold)


The number of tapes for the Pentagon has been debated. So how do you know they are holding tape(s). and how do you know what alleged tape contains?

If you really know, you should go by a lottery ticket, bet you know what numbers are coming up.:mrgreen:

Maybe I'm wrong Mike, and maybe you can educate me. Besides the several frames from the parking lot video camera, how many videos has the Pentagon released? Maybe I missed them?

Are you aware of how many video cameras facing out bristle from the building? I don't know the number exactly, but it must be in the dozens, at least.

If you could point me to any such footage, I would greatly appreciate it.