Ty Webb wrote: A public release PLANNED AT BEGINNING OF THE CONFERENCE.

So what? The 'public release' was a distortion. It swept facts under the rug. Why can't you focus on the big picture? The CDC buried the data supporting the vaccine link.

Why am I even arguing with you? You think there was no advance warning of the attack on Pearl Harbor, for crying out loud.

Here's what I can say about the vaccine-autism link, and what I have said, over and over in this thread: the link has not been proved or disproved. There needs to be much much more research.

The 'no link' crowd just yells 'case closed case closed case closed'. Pathetic. The evidence of what the vaccines might have done is not completely in yet, and won't be for years. But you government trusters will understand none of that. Your history of accepting the first official story offered precedes you, Mr. Webb.

I think their opinions are based on the best available science and yours are based on a couple of poorly designed studies or those designed to assess something else entirely, plus your paranoia and knee-jerk distrust of anything an authority figure says.

many autistic children can be "cured" simply by removing most processed sugars, most starches, and dairy from their diets.

Ty Webb wrote:I think their opinions are based on the best available science and yours are based on a couple of poorly designed studies or those designed to assess something else entirely, plus your paranoia and knee-jerk distrust of anything an authority figure says.

You left out the part where you admit that you're afraid of people finding their way to both sides of the argument through my posts and then making up their own minds. You are anti-investigation, gatekeeper. You're worried that what appears to be 'poorly designed' to your completely biased mind will appear to be 'something worth thinking about' to someone with an open mind.

That's okay. I've been hearing 'case closed' on 9/11 for five years, and now we're fixing it. We'll tear down the propaganda on vaccines, and we'll tear down the propaganda on GM crops, and we'll tear down the propaganda on aspartame, just like we tore down the propaganda about the run up to the Iraq war.

clocker bob wrote:

Ty Webb wrote:I think their opinions are based on the best available science and yours are based on a couple of poorly designed studies or those designed to assess something else entirely, plus your paranoia and knee-jerk distrust of anything an authority figure says.

You left out the part where you admit that you're afraid of people finding their way to both sides of the argument through my posts and then making up their own minds. You are anti-investigation, gatekeeper. You're worried that what appears to be 'poorly designed' to your completely biased mind will appear to be 'something worth thinking about' to someone with an open mind.

Nobody has prevented anyone from investigating the "link." Scientists can investigate it until they're blue in the face.

Do you believe in intelligent design? Because your grasp of science and your methods of argument are just as poor as those used by intelligent design advocates.

Oh, and by the way, jet fuel burns hot enough to compromise the strength of steel (if not enough to actually melt it). Think of it this way: paper burns at 451 degrees F. If you subject paper to 400-degree temps, do you think the paper will come out unscathed?

Wood Goblin wrote: Oh, and by the way, jet fuel burns hot enough to compromise the strength of steel (if not enough to actually melt it).

You mean the jet fuel that burned off in huge fireballs outside the towers, and the widely-scattered fires that the firemen thought they could put out with two hoses? You mean the fires that looked like this at the impact zones?

Yeah, dude, like totally. Fires hot enough to cause symmetrical zipper collapses of trusses around the perimeter of the towers *and* hot enough to sever the 47 core columns, but people are standing in the impact zones and all we see is the black smoke of cooling fires!

Get over yourself. Even the NIST report doesn't claim that the fires burned hotter than 500 celsius, and then only in a few small spots. That doesn't weaken structural steel.

Enjoy your delusions about what brought those towers down, as well as what demolished WTC7.

Think of it this way: paper burns at 451 degrees F. If you subject paper to 400-degree temps, do you think the paper will come out unscathed?

What point are you trying to make here?? I don't care if the Towers were built out of old phone books. Hydrocarbon fires don't burn hot enough to bend and fracture structural steel. That's why guys in foundries use gas torchs and not burning wooden sticks to weld steel.

You don't even understand that the circulatory nature of a steel frame structure means that heat is always being wicked away from any scattered hot zones. You idiots talk about the inside of those towers like they were engulfed in flames from side to side- people were still going up and down the stairwells, right through the zones where your ridiculously false steel melting fires are claimed to be!

And you can't explain why the concrete *blew up* into dust! What, kinetic energy from the falling floors? What blew the concrete to dust *above* the collapse zone?? Why didn't the cap of WTC2 keep falling over when it looked like this? Why did it *blow up* in mid-topple?


Learn to trust your own eyes and not some physics-defying bullshit. Damn.

Wood Goblin wrote: Nobody has prevented anyone from investigating the "link." Scientists can investigate it until they're blue in the face.

And you cringe every time someone like me points out that it is being investigated. Keep rolling over for official stories.

Because your grasp of science and your methods of argument are just as poor as those used by intelligent design advocates.

You're the one throwing together the combustibility of paper and the weakening point of steel into a nonsensical useless paragraph, science guy.

This below? It makes no sense

wood goblin wrote:Oh, and by the way, jet fuel burns hot enough to compromise the strength of steel (if not enough to actually melt it). Think of it this way: paper burns at 451 degrees F. If you subject paper to 400-degree temps, do you think the paper will come out unscathed?

Try making an argument that begins with the fuel source and then moves on to the temperatures produced by the resulting fire. Then describe the extent of the fire, and then finish with a cause for a symmetrical collapse of hundreds of steel columns and trusses. I wish you luck, because you and your silly cool fires can't make steel do what that steel did that morning.

clocker bob wrote: And you cringe every time someone like me points out that it is being investigated. Keep rolling over for official stories.

Being that you didn't do that, no, I don't cringe. You simply believe one set of results and not others, even when the others are better results from more comprehensive studies.

And then you accuse others of "rolling over for official stories" or of "always siding with the police."

This below? It makes no sense

My example makes perfect sense to somebody who isn't an idiot.

My wife's in public health - kind of a badass actually - and the public health community still thinks the verdict is way out on this one. Some people think it merits a look, other don't, but it's being discussed.

Over dinner the other night she brought up a good point. Say some of the vaccines *do* make people autistic.
For argument's sake, because at the end of the day, nobody knows yet.
Before these vaccines were administered, people dropped dead of all sorts of awful things. If we stop vaccinating kids, more than likely considerably more kids would die or be disabled by those diseases. Also, some of them are transmitable, so you'd also have kids possibly infecting other kids whose parents opted out of the vaccines. A bunch of vectors in society.

Does that make it all OK? No way. If there's any indication that we are "giving" kids autism, then we need to figure out another way to innoculate them. In the meantime, the least worst solution is probably to keep vaccinating them. The numbers aren't in line with, say, thalimide and it's "seal limb" issues.

One day we may find out that this was actually like thalimide, and it just took a long time to connect the dots. We also may find that the "evidence" is easily disproven, like the claims associated with flouride.

I think an extreme, accellerated parallel would be anthrax. If there were ever an attack, the innoculation administered to the public, by most people's estimations, would make 10% of the population drop dead instantly from the medicine. However, it would stop the spread of the disease and cure 90% of people.
Given those choices, I would go with the greater good.

Maybe this point has been brought up, but I didn't want to go back 15 pages.

Zom's point that kids used to play with mercury from thermostats is a good one. Most people I know over the age of 45 played with the stuff. You could buy quicksilver at the hardware store. My mom used to play with it. Then there's paint, drinking water and other things that people didn't notice until almost the 1970's. My guess, is that just as many people came into contact with mercury by other means when it was off of our radar, and that the exposure was greater.
Just a theory.

-A

Wood Goblin wrote:

clocker bob wrote: And you cringe every time someone like me points out that it is being investigated. Keep rolling over for official stories.

Being that you didn't do that, no, I don't cringe. You simply believe one set of results and not others, even when the others are better results from more comprehensive studies.

Well, of course you believe the anti-vaccine link studies are better- they're supported by one of the richest industries in the world and their government puppets and their media allies. No reason to check the bias of those studies at all.

wood goblin wrote:
My example makes perfect sense to somebody who isn't an idiot.

Your example is garbage. There is no such thing as scattered hydrocarbon fires in open spaces weakening structural steel. You can't cope with the reality of what caused those towers to blow up, so you accept ludicrous lies about the capabilities of those fires. You don't have the guts to properly describe how those fires could have collapsed all that steel, because you know you can't.

Try making an argument that begins with the fuel source and then moves on to the temperatures produced by the resulting fire. Then describe the extent of the fire, and then finish with a cause for a symmetrical collapse of hundreds of steel columns and trusses. I wish you luck, because you and your silly cool fires can't make steel do what that steel did that morning.

Good luck, keep ducking, keep throwing back ad-hominems, because YOU DON'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE YOU NEED TO MAKE YOUR CASE.

The report referenced below is the NIST Report:

The Report repeatedly makes claims that amazingly high fire temperatures were extant in the Towers, without any evidence. The Report itself contains evidence contradicting the claims.

Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (p 90/140)

The highest temperatures estimated for the samples was 250 ºC (482 ºF). That's consistent with the results of fire tests in uninsulated steel-framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 ºC (680 ºF). How interesting then, that NIST's sagging truss model has the truss heated to 700 ºC (1292 ºF).

Keep dreaming of fires and temperatures that did not exist, Wood goblin. Even the gov't's own report does not claim the temperatures you are claiming. Keep ignoring thermal conductivity, you meatball.

Exploding south tower on the left. Cool fires and black smoke from north tower on the right.

Yeah, dude. Looks like gravity was extra strong that day. That kinetic energy was so strong on 9/11. It was driving through the floors below *and* shooting debris out laterally. So much extra kinetic energy!

Hard to understand what's going on upstairs in the minds of people who let lies block what their eyes are showing them... whatever. Keep panicking. The myth is dead already. You can't save it.