CHF
17th September 2007, 07:34 AM
I thought I'd take the opportunity to do what truthers refuse to do and consider the obvious implications of some of their most common talking-points.
Truthers are great at repeating slogans over and over again yet they've apparently given absolutely no consideration to where these claims actually lead. I hope that it will help some of them to WAKE UP if they see what happens when one actually asks the obvious questions.
For example...
Molten steel – Assume for a second that the metal in question was actually steel, as opposed to another metal with a lower melting point. What caused it? "Thermite!" is their answer. But thermite cools off quickly, as the recent "truth burn" fiasco demonstrated. So therefore...
The government decided to use not only enough thermite to cut the WTC support beams (sideways, no less!) but enough to keep steel molten for weeks on end!
Why would they feel the need to do this? How much thermite would this require? Is it a realistic amount? Does this scenario make any sense at all? If not, perhaps its time to re-evaluate the premise of "molten steel."
Pulverized concrete – According to truthers, the collapsing masses couldn’t do it so therefore bombs somehow did.
Therefore...the government not only used enough bombs to blast the support beams but enough to blast tens of thousands of tons of concrete into dust!
What the hell for? Why use so much more than needed? How many bombs would this require? If the answer is absurd (and it certainly is) then it's once again time to re-examine the original premise.
Pull it – I'm amazed that this claim is still so popular in truther circles. Consider its obvious implications:
- Silverstein admits to a demolition during a TV interview.
- He doesn’t immediately retract his incriminating remark or pressure the network into not airing it.
- Silverstein and the plotters decided to blow up WTC7 (what for?) seven hours after the last tower fell (why not at 10:30am with a massive dust-cloud smokescreen?)
- He give his "demolition order" to a fire chief (thus dragging the FDNY into the plot)
- He gets FDNY fire chief Daniel Nigro to cover things up for him by stating that he gave the order to pull back.
Yet amazingly, truthers seem surprised when told these things and strongly deny the FDNY involvement that their theory clearly calls for.
A missile hit the Pentagon – Again, a whole lot of obvious implications.
- The government decided to switch a 757 with a missile when they had a 757 to get rid of anyway
- Lampposts were knocked down, suggesting either a missile with the wingspan of a 757 or agents knocking down lampposts after the fact
- Hundreds of crash investigators are all lying
- Witnesses (none of whom saw a missile) are all lying
- Passenger phone calls must be faked
- Passenger DNA is faked
The fact that so many truthers express surprise when hearing these things or deny the obvious conclusions of their claims tells me that most of them aren't "thinking outside the box." They aren't thinking at all!
Truthers are great at repeating slogans over and over again yet they've apparently given absolutely no consideration to where these claims actually lead. I hope that it will help some of them to WAKE UP if they see what happens when one actually asks the obvious questions.
For example...
Molten steel – Assume for a second that the metal in question was actually steel, as opposed to another metal with a lower melting point. What caused it? "Thermite!" is their answer. But thermite cools off quickly, as the recent "truth burn" fiasco demonstrated. So therefore...
The government decided to use not only enough thermite to cut the WTC support beams (sideways, no less!) but enough to keep steel molten for weeks on end!
Why would they feel the need to do this? How much thermite would this require? Is it a realistic amount? Does this scenario make any sense at all? If not, perhaps its time to re-evaluate the premise of "molten steel."
Pulverized concrete – According to truthers, the collapsing masses couldn’t do it so therefore bombs somehow did.
Therefore...the government not only used enough bombs to blast the support beams but enough to blast tens of thousands of tons of concrete into dust!
What the hell for? Why use so much more than needed? How many bombs would this require? If the answer is absurd (and it certainly is) then it's once again time to re-examine the original premise.
Pull it – I'm amazed that this claim is still so popular in truther circles. Consider its obvious implications:
- Silverstein admits to a demolition during a TV interview.
- He doesn’t immediately retract his incriminating remark or pressure the network into not airing it.
- Silverstein and the plotters decided to blow up WTC7 (what for?) seven hours after the last tower fell (why not at 10:30am with a massive dust-cloud smokescreen?)
- He give his "demolition order" to a fire chief (thus dragging the FDNY into the plot)
- He gets FDNY fire chief Daniel Nigro to cover things up for him by stating that he gave the order to pull back.
Yet amazingly, truthers seem surprised when told these things and strongly deny the FDNY involvement that their theory clearly calls for.
A missile hit the Pentagon – Again, a whole lot of obvious implications.
- The government decided to switch a 757 with a missile when they had a 757 to get rid of anyway
- Lampposts were knocked down, suggesting either a missile with the wingspan of a 757 or agents knocking down lampposts after the fact
- Hundreds of crash investigators are all lying
- Witnesses (none of whom saw a missile) are all lying
- Passenger phone calls must be faked
- Passenger DNA is faked
The fact that so many truthers express surprise when hearing these things or deny the obvious conclusions of their claims tells me that most of them aren't "thinking outside the box." They aren't thinking at all!