I just want to jump in for a second here and stop this ridiculous “where is the evidence?” / “have you been to the site?” loop that we are in here.
So let’s talk specific examples. There is a lot of text to wade through (quantity is no measure of “weight of evidence”).
So I picked an article at random from the 911 section entitled “Evidence MicroNukes Used On WTC”.
Let me first bring to your attention that there is an impressive number of links in the articles, however, the vast majority link to other “troofer” websites (and thus are not independently verified facts), links to longer articles (with no indication of where in the linked document this evidence is to be found), and finally, a large number of broken links (but that’s just the government shutting-up the detractors, right?).
The basic argument is that we know:
- the US has developed nukes for demolition purposes,
- the “fact” of successful development of Minimum Residual Radiation (MRR) devices (with no corroborating evidence).
From these premises, the author goes on to say how MRR nukes were used in the WTC attack because (my emphasis):
So wait; you can’t use geiger counters to test Ed Ward’s hypothesis because they were reduced radiation nuclear bombs (thus giving-off undetectable levels of radiation?) but there is enough radiation to cause cancer. Hold-on, there is a minimum threshold for radioactive exposure to cause cancer, and the geiger counter can detect radiation levels far lower than that. In order for the few people who have developed cancer to have been exposed (no matter how long or short a time period) to a level of radiation high enough to cause cancer, that level would be detectable by a geiger counter and would continue to be detectable today (actually, for the next 25 000 years). But it isn’t detectable because they were MRR devices.
Being a student of formal logic, I recognise this as a logical argument which boils down to the structural fallacy called a tautology. This word gets bandied-around a lot on this forum, but this case can be conclusively shown as being such a fallacy with First Order Logic. In layman’s terms Ed is having it both ways, no matter which premises are true or false, the statement is always true. Kind of like “The sun is shining or the sun is not shining”.
And we all saw the news and how much dust and soot was around. We know that the dust in the lungs of the rescuers caused emphysema, bronchial damage and infection and even cancer. Why involve radiation?
Further in the quote we get to a section of logical leaps which draw the reader’s attention to future evidence such as “responders should be checked for thyroid cancer” and “noting of birth defects […] also needs to be done”. If this is not done are we hiding the truth? This future evidence is cherry-picking in advance. Selective statistics is a very easy practice; did you know that as many as 95% of accident victims ate bread earlier in the day (Arrive Alive doesn’t warn us about that one!) or that everyone who ate eggs in 1566 (all around the world) later died? You have to remember that in any normal population cancer happens. So I could survey people using the lift at a shopping mall (expecting that at least some would have contracted ovarian cancer - probably because of the music being played in the lift) and as soon as I have found just one I can jump up and down saying “You see? you see?”
And I simply cannot let the last statement from this quote stand. The only causes of these cancers is radiation? I’m wondering if “M.D” doesn’t mean Medical Doctor anymore.
Socrates famously said; “Nothing can convince me but reason”. The most important words being the last two words.
I am many things; a believer is not one of them, I need evidence. I am an atheist but no matter how much anyone goads me I will never say “Nothing can convince me of gods existence” without following it with something like “except if he poofed into existence in-front of me and turned my nose into a burning bush”.
Anyone who says to me “Nothing can convince me” (without the important caveat; “but reason” or “except evidence”) is immediately labelled an idiot in my book.
From my side; nothing can convince me of the 9/11 conspiracy except credible/verifiable evidence.
But please answer 'Luthon’s longstanding questions first.