I watched the video KoiL. It ridicules anyone who tries to debunk 9/11 conspiracy claims.
Since you have posted a few my times since I thought we stopped I shall slip one more post in. I am not introducing new material; I going to expand one of the points that I made.
The thing is this: It is pretty much impossible to prove, categorically, that there was not/ is not a conspiracy around 9/11. This is because it is impossible to prove a universal negative.
For example: You can't prove that the US government is NOT controlled by aliens (from outer space). For all we know the aliens might be invisible and might have planted devices inside the brains of the president and his staff, devices which are nearly impossible to detect, and that the hosts are unaware of, and that control the hosts actions.
Given the outrageous nature of the Truthers' claims, the onus is on the Truthers to prove their case. I will concede that Truthers don't have to show their case is certainly true, merely they must demonstrate that their theory is more likely to be true than competing theories (that is, the debunkers' theory).
The same principle applies to the debunkers. The debunkers don't have to absolutely prove that Truthers are wrongs, merely that the Truthers' are unlikely to be right, given the evidence before us.
Going back to your point about the collapse of the towers and the way it resembles a controlled demolition... okay you haven't actually spelled that out yet, but you have said that there is no way the building were brought down by the airplanes and the resulting fire.
Your first point supporting this argument is that the no skyscraper has ever collapsed in this way (resembling a controlled demolition) before. Your claim is that this shows that there MUST be another cause. Note the emphasis on the word MUST. If this word is too strong for you, then we shall define MUST to mean more likely to be true than false.
I don't have to show, in my rebuttal of this point, that the Truthers' whole theory is wrong. That is not what I am trying to achieve. I don't pretend that the Truthers' argument is dead in the water at this point. All I need to show is that your claim that their MUST be another cause is false. All I have to show is that it is PLAUSIBLE that, even though the event was unprecedented, that the building COULD HAVE collapsed because of the planes and the ensuing fire.
We know that the planes + fire = collapse theory is plausible because the facts are their for all to see -- including engineers from all around the word. And guess what, most think it is indeed plausible. Yes there is a minority of Architects and Engineers who disagree (apparently). But that is okay. I am not trying to prove the buildings were destroyed by the plane and fire (at this juncture anyway), merely that would not be impossible for the buildings to have been destroyed by the planes and fire. That planes + fire = collapse is PLAUSIBLE.
Now we all know about the planes and the fire. We have proof that they exist. Thus if we are talking about causes, the pendulum of probability swings toward the official story and away from the Truthers. At this point at least.
Now KoiL you said that I had failed to rebut your point. I don't know why you said this because my rebuttal was there in green and white text for you to read. I assume that you mean that I had failed to PROVE the Truthers' wrong. If this is the case, you misunderstood what I was doing. I was not, at this point proving the Truthers' wrong about their whole theory, merely that your point that their MUST have been another cause is clearly false. There MIGHT have been another cause, but certainly not MUST. You need to present more evidence.
Now KoiL do you still maintain that I failed to rebut your point?
gmo gene silencing?
)
)
)
)
