Well I've not posted on here for a long time, so I thought I'd come back as I've got some time to kill. Let me pre-empt the question of whether I've got better things to do with my time by saying, yes I have...but not at the moment.
Anyway, this bring me onto the point of this blog......Pantomime debunking. I am currently in a discussion/argument with various pantomime debunkers on this very good forum but I am struggling with their logic.
We had 3 buildings which collapsed on 9/11, WTC 1 & 2 of which were hit by a plane and suffered damage and fires and collapsed. Then there was WTC 7, which was damaged by the falling debris of WTC 1 & 2, caught fire and then collapsed, apparently.
So a pantomime debunkers says that it looked like a building collapsing therefore its a building collapsing from fires. Which makes perfect sense, right? Err! Wrong! You see, in order to make a judgement that a building is collapsing because of the fires, you would need to have seen previous examples of other buildings collapsing from fire, in order to make that judgement that it looks like it, therefore it is.
The problem comes when it comes to evidence to support this notion. There are no videos of building collapsing to the ground or even close to the same speeds as WTC 1 & 2 or 7. So how can someone know something is definitely happening, if they have never seen this happen before? lol This is pantomime logic at it's finest!
On the flipside, I can't show other demolitions which look like WTC 1 & 2, cause there isn't any as far as I know. Now imagine if I were to make the argument that WTC 1 & 2 looked like demolitions, therefore it is a building collapsing from demolitions! That would be a dumb twoofer argument, yet the pantomime debunkers will make the same counter argument without a hint of irony or intelligence to work out how dumb that position is.
There is a difference though, I can show you a few buildings which collapse from demolition which look like just like WTC 7. Don't worry my fellow readers, this is not evidence to prove that WTC 7 was demolished, I know the burden of proof is much higher, but it suggests it was possible and that's all.
I started a thread and showed over 30 buildings which didn't collapse from a fire, and about 12 which were hit by planes and subsequent fires and didn't collapse. Somehow the pantomime debunkers have got their knickers in a twist to think that I am arguing that because it has never happened before, it couldn't have ever happened. Utter nonsense of course, but false arguments are the pantomime debunkers best defence. Just because it hasn't happened or been caught on camera, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.
So now we are left with pantomime debunkers asking me to prove it was a CD with concise evidence such as steel with blast marks on it, even though they do not require the same concise evidence of heat weakened steel which they believe existed.
hypocrisy
Anyway, this bring me onto the point of this blog......Pantomime debunking. I am currently in a discussion/argument with various pantomime debunkers on this very good forum but I am struggling with their logic.
We had 3 buildings which collapsed on 9/11, WTC 1 & 2 of which were hit by a plane and suffered damage and fires and collapsed. Then there was WTC 7, which was damaged by the falling debris of WTC 1 & 2, caught fire and then collapsed, apparently.
So a pantomime debunkers says that it looked like a building collapsing therefore its a building collapsing from fires. Which makes perfect sense, right? Err! Wrong! You see, in order to make a judgement that a building is collapsing because of the fires, you would need to have seen previous examples of other buildings collapsing from fire, in order to make that judgement that it looks like it, therefore it is.
The problem comes when it comes to evidence to support this notion. There are no videos of building collapsing to the ground or even close to the same speeds as WTC 1 & 2 or 7. So how can someone know something is definitely happening, if they have never seen this happen before? lol This is pantomime logic at it's finest!
On the flipside, I can't show other demolitions which look like WTC 1 & 2, cause there isn't any as far as I know. Now imagine if I were to make the argument that WTC 1 & 2 looked like demolitions, therefore it is a building collapsing from demolitions! That would be a dumb twoofer argument, yet the pantomime debunkers will make the same counter argument without a hint of irony or intelligence to work out how dumb that position is.
There is a difference though, I can show you a few buildings which collapse from demolition which look like just like WTC 7. Don't worry my fellow readers, this is not evidence to prove that WTC 7 was demolished, I know the burden of proof is much higher, but it suggests it was possible and that's all.
I started a thread and showed over 30 buildings which didn't collapse from a fire, and about 12 which were hit by planes and subsequent fires and didn't collapse. Somehow the pantomime debunkers have got their knickers in a twist to think that I am arguing that because it has never happened before, it couldn't have ever happened. Utter nonsense of course, but false arguments are the pantomime debunkers best defence. Just because it hasn't happened or been caught on camera, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.
So now we are left with pantomime debunkers asking me to prove it was a CD with concise evidence such as steel with blast marks on it, even though they do not require the same concise evidence of heat weakened steel which they believe existed.
hypocrisy