Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]
You STILL don't get it you are the one making claims... I put that up because it calls into question your claims, and the only claims I've made about it beyond that is to point out how you won't defend your claims.
Ummmmm, :no:
The
commonly accepted narrative, the one with the
overwhelming support of professional opinion is that
high-speed aircraft impact + fire + time + gravity = collapse. That is the null hypothesis. YOU are the one claiming that hypothesis is incorrect. It is
your claim another mechanism was involved and it is
your claim that is up for discussion in this thread which is after all titled :
Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE? . Therefore
your burden of proof to support
your claim - or abandon it.
Your choice.
As for b) you are the ones that made claims that there was no evidence for explosives, so, it's on you to defend that claim from the counter claims of eyewitnesses. Seriously, after probably over 100 posts, the best it's been addressed was to concede that there were in fact eyewitnesses that described explosions, and even getting that far has been like pulling teeth.
First off, the above is false and you know it. No one has ever disputed there were people who heard things that they described as sounding like explosions and you won't find a post where any of our regular debunker contributors state otherwise - so drop it already. The
only disagreement has been over what that means; you taking the overly simplistic and completely literal approach of '
explosions must = explosives', the rest of us understanding the use of
simile, the limitations of the English language and the necessity for corroboration of witness accounts (the least reliable form of evidence) with physical evidence.
At the risk of repeating myself, YOU are the one claiming explosives were used, contrary to overwhelming public and professional opinion and quite frankly against the preponderance of evidence supporting impact + fire + time + gravity. The thread is called:
Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE? specifically so you and others of similar opinion can present your claims and your evidence supporting said claims, not so you can run and hide behind reversed burden-of-proof, forcing others to do your thinking for you (because you either can't or won't - same difference).
And how is it exactly that any of us are expected to prove a negative? I might as well ask you to prove Unicorn's don't exist.
But of course, those of use who accept
impact + fire + time + gravity = collapse have volumes of documentation and the overwhelming consensus of professional opinion on our side, none of which has ever been falsified. That makes our job pretty easy.
OTOH - Your entire case for bombs in the WTC to date can be summarized as:
1. Some witnesses heard things that sound like explosions - yet you won't even provide one "star witness" that best makes your case, telling the rest of us we have to do it for you (presumably because you can't)
2. A very brief period of free-fall of 7 WTC (but not the twins)
3. A tiny selection of videos in which faint rumbling can be heard which only you think sounds like explosions
4. Laterally projected multi-ton beams
Let me know if I missed anything else.
What is conspicuous from this list is all the things that
should be there but aren't. Plus the complete lack of physical evidence, your consistent refusal to tie any of your witness accounts to any physical or even your video evidence, etc, etc, etc,...
