There are many flaws in the truther hypotheses, however, the biggest would be the fact that they claim Nano-thermite was deployed to cut the columns and beams at the impact points, yet being highly flammable, this material survived the intensity of the fires for over an hour. Obviously, this one wasn't thought through.
Others have claimed the use of Nuclear weapons and space energy beams, but these nutters are too 'out there' to be taken seriously. Hell, they all are.
Let's examine the reasoning: They wanted to invade Iraq so they came up with such a ridiculously Byzantine plan in order to do so. If so, why the WMD charade? Why invade Afghanistan instead? Others have suggested it was to invade Afghanistan. If so, they had all the pretext required to address AQ with the Cole attack and the bombings at the Kenyan and Tanzanian Embassies. Obviously, they haven't thought this through.
Naturally. The truther schtick is to announce that if an official report (which they reframe as an official
narrative) is true, then they personally would expect to see things A,B, and C in it. This is generally pulled from their colons. They then argue that because those things were not in the report, the report cannot be true. This then justifies rampant speculation.
When challenged on the complete lack of positive evidence for what they're saying, they treat the lack of that evidence as evidence of the conspiracy: the evidence for their theory isn't there because the conspirators hid it. (Remember truthers going on about how the WTC rubble was supposedly cleared away faster than they demanded, thereby 'proving' a coverup?).
Of course, many other truthers instead switch to simply insulting their questioners. This may be by announcing that the truther has superior analytic skills, or by naming the questioner a "sheep" for not questioning the official report instead.
The one thing they
never do is say: this is what the conspiracy was, these are the goals it served, this his own it met those goals, this is who is in on it, and here is positive evidence that it was done, A,B,C --> Z.
Observe:
No, it didn't explain it perfectly well, and you know it.
Open by attacking the questioner.
Many including AE911 have shown the many ways it fails. For this layman, it fails because common sense demands that ALL the observed damage, including 3 months worth of molten iron, including the lateral ejection of massive pieces, including the many pictures taken by Kurt Sonnenfeld, could not possibly have been caused by gravity and office fires.
Continue by announcing that the truther personally claims to expect to have seen certain things if the official report is true, then tries to use this bootstrapped premise to say that his failure to see those things means that the official report is false.
Note the complete lack of evidence for why these things would be not only expected to be seen, but
so expected that their absence is mutually exclusive with the truth of the official report. He just
says that it is so.
There is a reason Sonnenfeld became persona non grata. Like Edward Snowden, he told the truth.
No doubt his inability to prove his case is because the conspirators hid the evidence, and now he is being silenced. Note that the fundamental structure of all this bloviation is the attempt to repurpose a
lack of evidence as positive evidence of the conspiracy.
The truth is what you and Mike, the government and the mainstream media, simply cannot handle.
You're welcome.
And the finale: back to attacking the questioners and calling them sheep.
_________________
And, PS Thoreau, I really did write the part of the post before quoting you before I saw you had posted. I was responding to something on the first page. But I went to edit my post and saw that you had posted on the pager and that that post really did fit what I said of truthers in general because they really are that predictable; hence the second half of the post was added, identifying how your behavior lined up with prediction.
Learn from this.
