- Joined
- Jun 6, 2014
- Messages
- 43,804
- Reaction score
- 8,672
- Location
- Flanders.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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.
For years I have been asking truthers for their full alternative 911 theory. None have been forthcoming.