Why the burden of proof is on the Truthers

[aggle-rithm]

One of the most important tactics of members of the "truth" movement is to create the impression that their viewpoint is on equal footing with what they call the "government's official story". Never mind that most of us did not get our information about the events of 9/11 from the government. Never mind that the truthers don't HAVE a viewpoint, simply a strong antipathy towards the "official version".

Truthers often say either that we (meaning rational adults) share the burden of proof equally with them, or that we actually bear the burden of proof because their non-existent viewpoint is "obviously" superior.

Truthers, here is the reason that you, not we, have the burden of proof.

The so-called "official story" is superior to anything offered up by the truth movement because it relies on zero, count them, ZERO unknown entities.

For everything that we claim happened on 9/11, we can point to a KNOWN person, thing, or event that explains it.

We claim the planes were hijacked by Middle Eastern terrorists.

We KNOW there were people linked to al Qaeda in the US. We KNOW they trained for this mission. We KNOW they were on the planes that crashed. We KNOW they inadvertently contacted air traffic control indicating they had hijacked the planes. We KNOW that stewardesses and passengers corroborated this before the planes crashed.

We say the WTC towers fell from a combination of impact damage from airplanes and fires.

We KNOW there were airplanes. We KNOW there were fires.

We claim that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

We KNOW flight 77 disappeared at the same time the Pentagon was hit. We KNOW that the wreckage of flight 77 was found in the Pentagon. We KNOW that the remains of the passengers were also found there.

Does that mean that our claims are guaranteed to be 100% true? No, but it does mean that for an alternate theory to be considered equal, it must also have zero unknown entities.

Do the truther claims meet this criteria? Let's examine of few of them:

Claim: The towers were brought down by thermite/thermate.

Unknown entities: Thermite/thermate, the technology to use same in destruction of a large building.

Claim: People whose testimony contradicts the truther claims are in on the conspiracy.

Unknown entities: The conspiracy, the people who are in on it.

Claim: A missile hit the Pentagon, not flight 77.

Unknown entities: The missile, the operation to fake evidence found at the Pentagon.

Claim: The term "pull it" is often used by demolition experts to describe controlled demolition by explosives.

Unknown entities: The actual use of the term "pull it" by demolition experts to describe controlled demolition by explosives.

See how that works?

Note that just because one theory has zero unknown entities and the other has many doesn't mean that one is true and the other is not. However, it DOES mean that the burden of proof is on the party that supports the theory with more unknown entities.

Is it POSSIBLE that some of the known entities of the "official story" are not real? Sure it is, but again, this hypothesis can only be supported by adding more unknown entities (accomplices who faked evidence and are unwilling to come forward), which again shifts the burden of proof back to the truthers.

Before we discuss this, truthers, please ask yourself one question: If your claims are really as convincing as you think they are, then wouldn't it be possible to make your case without resorting to verbal tricks and attempts to derail the topic?

And, before you invoke the "tu toque" defense, remember: The burden of proof is on you.

[DC]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

One of the most important tactics of members of the "truth" movement is to create the impression that their viewpoint is on equal footing with what they call the "government's official story". Never mind that most of us did not get our information about the events of 9/11 from the government. Never mind that the truthers don't HAVE a viewpoint, simply a strong antipathy towards the "official version".

Truthers often say either that we (meaning rational adults) share the burden of proof equally with them, or that we actually bear the burden of proof because their non-existent viewpoint is "obviously" superior.

Truthers, here is the reason that you, not we, have the burden of proof.

The so-called "official story" is superior to anything offered up by the truth movement because it relies on zero, count them, ZERO unknown entities.

For everything that we claim happened on 9/11, we can point to a KNOWN person, thing, or event that explains it.

We claim the planes were hijacked by Middle Eastern terrorists.

We KNOW there were people linked to al Qaeda in the US. We KNOW they trained for this mission. We KNOW they were on the planes that crashed. We KNOW they inadvertently contacted air traffic control indicating they had hijacked the planes. We KNOW that stewardesses and passengers corroborated this before the planes crashed.

We say the WTC towers fell from a combination of impact damage from airplanes and fires.

We KNOW there were airplanes. We KNOW there were fires.

We claim that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

We KNOW flight 77 disappeared at the same time the Pentagon was hit. We KNOW that the wreckage of flight 77 was found in the Pentagon. We KNOW that the remains of the passengers were also found there.

Does that mean that our claims are guaranteed to be 100% true? No, but it does mean that for an alternate theory to be considered equal, it must also have zero unknown entities.

Do the truther claims meet this criteria? Let's examine of few of them:

Claim: The towers were brought down by thermite/thermate.

Unknown entities: Thermite/thermate, the technology to use same in destruction of a large building.

Claim: People whose testimony contradicts the truther claims are in on the conspiracy.

Unknown entities: The conspiracy, the people who are in on it.

Claim: A missile hit the Pentagon, not flight 77.

Unknown entities: The missile, the operation to fake evidence found at the Pentagon.

Claim: The term "pull it" is often used by demolition experts to describe controlled demolition by explosives.

Unknown entities: The actual use of the term "pull it" by demolition experts to describe controlled demolition by explosives.

See how that works?

Note that just because one theory has zero unknown entities and the other has many doesn't mean that one is true and the other is not. However, it DOES mean that the burden of proof is on the party that supports the theory with more unknown entities.

Is it POSSIBLE that some of the known entities of the "official story" are not real? Sure it is, but again, this hypothesis can only be supported by adding more unknown entities (accomplices who faked evidence and are unwilling to come forward), which again shifts the burden of proof back to the truthers.

Before we discuss this, truthers, please ask yourself one question: If your claims are really as convincing as you think they are, then wouldn't it be possible to make your case without resorting to verbal tricks and attempts to derail the topic?

And, before you invoke the "tu toque" defense, remember: The burden of proof is on you.

burdon of proof??
does that still exist in the age of Guantanamo? i thaught to suspect someone is enough to lock them up, so i assumed its ok when i suspect someone, but never touch his freedom in any way, i just speak open about that i suspect them, like Cheney,i suspect him to be one of the 9/11 conspirators.

and to use the same lang the politicans do. it is pretty well confirmed that Cheney was one of the 9/11 conspirators, and we cannot wait for the smoking gun, that could come in the form of a mushroomcloud.

let me waterboard Cheney and i will delive you some evidence.

[Architect]

It's not so much that the burden of proof is on "truthers", but rather on "accusers".

Now in the case of the NIST report we have a highly detailed, compelling technical analysis of the collapse sequence and so on. It is quite literally voluminous. The Truth Movement have nothing like this level of detail and analysis. Ergo the burden is on them to show, to the same level, why their alternative hypotheses should carry weight.

[Architect]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

burdon of proof??
does that still exist in the age of Guantanamo? i thaught to suspect someone is enough to lock them up, so i assumed its ok when i suspect someone, but never touch his freedom in any way, i just speak open about that i suspect them, like Cheney,i suspect him to be one of the 9/11 conspirators.

and to use the same lang the politicans do. it is pretty well confirmed that Cheney was one of the 9/11 conspirators, and we cannot wait for the smoking gun, that could come in the form of a mushroomcloud.

let me waterboard Cheney and i will delive you some evidence.

No, much as I despise the man it is not "pretty well confirmed" that Cheney was a 9/11 conspirator. If you can show it do be so, then prove it.

[uk_dave]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

and to use the same lang the politicans do. it is pretty well confirmed that Cheney was one of the 9/11 conspirators, and we cannot wait for the smoking gun, that could come in the form of a mushroomcloud.

let me waterboard Cheney and i will delive you some evidence.

Ahhh so you're saying that what the US government has done with Guantanamo and with 'waterboarding' is ok because you'd actually do that yourself if you were in a similar position?

Is this another case of "We hate this fascist dictatorship because it's not our fascist dictatorship"?

[peteweaver]

DC, for all intents and purposes regarding the events on the day of 11th Sept 2001, Guantanamo bay, distasteful an issue though it is, is irrellavent. Please do not change the subject.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Before we discuss this, truthers, please ask yourself one question: If your claims are really as convincing as you think they are, then wouldn't it be possible to make your case without resorting to verbal tricks and attempts to derail the topic?

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

burdon of proof??
does that still exist in the age of Guantanamo? i thaught to suspect someone is enough to lock them up, so i assumed its ok when i suspect someone, but never touch his freedom in any way, i just speak open about that i suspect them, like Cheney,i suspect him to be one of the 9/11 conspirators.

and to use the same lang the politicans do. it is pretty well confirmed that Cheney was one of the 9/11 conspirators, and we cannot wait for the smoking gun, that could come in the form of a mushroomcloud.

let me waterboard Cheney and i will delive you some evidence.

I'll say this for you, DC: You're consistent.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Architect

It's not so much that the burden of proof is on "truthers", but rather on "accusers".

Now in the case of the NIST report we have a highly detailed, compelling technical analysis of the collapse sequence and so on. It is quite literally voluminous. The Truth Movement have nothing like this level of detail and analysis. Ergo the burden is on them to show, to the same level, why their alternative hypotheses should carry weight.

Nist was an investigation untill initial collapse, then we was left behind with Dr. Bazants "Progressive Collapse theory". it did not conatin detailed technical analysis of the collapse sequence. or am i wrong? didnt read the whole 10000 pages to be hones

[DC]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

I'll say this for you, DC: You're consistent.

do to my lack of proper english i dont get it

sorry

[DC]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

do to my lack of proper english i dont get it

sorry

darn i think i got it, i did derail again

sorry, burdon of proof. back to topic. i dont feel i have to proof anything

[DC]

Originally Posted by uk_dave

Ahhh so you're saying that what the US government has done with Guantanamo and with 'waterboarding' is ok because you'd actually do that yourself if you were in a similar position?

Is this another case of "We hate this fascist dictatorship because it's not our fascist dictatorship"?

no, i say, aslong this is ok for the "US government" , i will use it against the "US government"

[Architect]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

Nist was an investigation untill initial collapse, then we was left behind with Dr. Bazants "Progressive Collapse theory". it did not conatin detailed technical analysis of the collapse sequence. or am i wrong? didnt read the whole 10000 pages to be hones

1. If you're seeking to criticise the report, don't you think you should have read it?

2. Professionally speaking, after initiation it's obvious that global failure is inevitable and I wouldn't consider it a failing to have omitted subsequent analysis.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Architect

1. If you're seeking to criticise the report, don't you think you should have read it?

2. Professionally speaking, after initiation it's obvious that global failure is inevitable and I wouldn't consider it a failing to have omitted subsequent analysis.

initial collapse = global collapse ? obvious? only in the case of the tube in tube towers or always? or only steelframe buildings? or what?

initial collapse is not always global collapse.

[Architect]

In the case of 33,000t more or less monolithically coming down on a structure patently not designed for that kind of kinetic load then global collapse is inevitable.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Architect

In the case of 33,000t more or less monolithically coming down on a structure patently not designed for that kind of kinetic load then global collapse is inevitable.

it was designed to keep that 33 000T up there, it sure was not designed to take the energy when that upper part would accelerate among 3.7m. but i still dont belive that would trigger a globel collapse like we saw it, 16 seconds or so. or even 8 and 11 seconds like that Nist Dr. claimed.

i still belive it was a top down demolition.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

initial collapse = global collapse ? obvious? only in the case of the tube in tube towers or always? or only steelframe buildings? or what?

initial collapse is not always global collapse.

And yet, let's apply the principles of the thread topic to this:

Experts say the building collapsed from a combination of structural damage and fires. Structural damage and fires have indeed been documented.

Truthers say the building collapsed from explosives. There is no evidence of explosives.

Therefore, it falls to the truthers to prove there were explosives (or thermite, or whatever).

[DC]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

And yet, let's apply the principles of the thread topic to this:

Experts say the building collapsed from a combination of structural damage and fires. Structural damage and fires have indeed been documented.

Truthers say the building collapsed from explosives. There is no evidence of explosives.

Therefore, it falls to the truthers to prove there were explosives (or thermite, or whatever).

ok can you give me acces to the remaining WTC steel?
including sample 1 and 2 from FEMA. so i can test it for traces of explosives?

who tested it for explosives?

[Architect]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

it was designed to keep that 33 000T up there, it sure was not designed to take the energy when that upper part would accelerate among 3.7m. but i still dont belive that would trigger a globel collapse like we saw it, 16 seconds or so. or even 8 and 11 seconds like that Nist Dr. claimed.

i still belive it was a top down demolition.

But with the deepest respect, your lay beliefs are irrelevant unless they are supported by hard data, analysis, and calculation.

I can tell you that no structure would have been designed to take that kind of kinetic load. Absolutely none. Furthermore it would massively exceed safety margins in the original design. That position is supported not just by NIST but the wider engineering community.

So where is your proof, of a level comparable with NIST?

[DC]

Originally Posted by Architect

But with the deepest respect, your lay beliefs are irrelevant unless they are supported by hard data, analysis, and calculation.

I can tell you that no structure would have been designed to take that kind of kinetic load. Absolutely none. Furthermore it would massively exceed safety margins in the original design. That position is supported not just by NIST but the wider engineering community.

So where is your proof, of a level comparable with NIST?

i never claimed to have proof

i would not spend my time on JREF when i had evidence. i would run to every single court worldwide if i had any

to you my lay oppinion is sure irrelevant, but not for me

[peteweaver]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

it was designed to keep that 33 000T up there, it sure was not designed to take the energy when that upper part would accelerate among 3.7m. but i still dont belive that would trigger a globel collapse like we saw it, 16 seconds or so. or even 8 and 11 seconds like that Nist Dr. claimed.

i still belive it was a top down demolition.

Laying down you could easily hold up a brick with your chest, but were that brick to fall two floors first then land on your chest, what do you think would happen to your ribcage DC ?

Because it is falling, it applies more energy to that which it comes into contact with, than if it were static.

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

it was designed to keep that 33 000T up there, it sure was not designed to take the energy when that upper part would accelerate among 3.7m. but i still dont belive that would trigger a globel collapse like we saw it, 16 seconds or so.

Back to the burden of proof, since Bazant's analysis pretty clearly shows why global collapse was inevitable after initiation, wouldn't you agree that the Trooth Movement has some burden of explaining why it wouldn't be, other than saying "I don't think so"?

We have the data showing that it was inevitable, you have your own personal incredulity. The ball is in your court to refute the analysis or to give up on that point.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

ok can you give me acces to the remaining WTC steel?
including sample 1 and 2 from FEMA. so i can test it for traces of explosives?

No. The burden of proof is on YOU. That means YOU get samples of the steel and do your own analysis. If you lack the expertise, then you hire someone to do it.

In a criminal trial, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Would it make sense for a prosecutor to expect the defense lawyer to compile evidence of his client's guilt for him?

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

i would not spend my time on JREF when i had evidence. i would run to every single court worldwide if i had any

Listen to what you're saying here, man! You have no evidence, but you're still accusing people of mass murder. Why would you think that's OK to do?

[DC]

Originally Posted by peteweaver

Laying down you could easily hold up a brick with your chest, but were that brick to fall two floors first then land on your chest, what do you think would happen to your ribcage DC ?

Because it is falling, it applies more energy to that which it comes into contact with, than if it were static.

i know the law of physics
and i even understood them.

but i have a hard time to belive the Bazantsche rpogressive collapse theory.
i know you say now i did simply not understand his theory. but im sorry, in my eyes it is totaly bogus and does not reflect what we saw from those collapses.
but we are so far OT again, and i fear its once again my fault. and i dont gonna blame bush or the US for my derailing :P

[DC]

Originally Posted by CurtC

Listen to what you're saying here, man! You have no evidence, but you're still accusing people of mass murder. Why would you think that's OK to do?

because its that what i learned from the US government.

[Architect]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

i never claimed to have proof

i would not spend my time on JREF when i had evidence. i would run to every single court worldwide if i had any

But how can you have arrived at a theory without analysis and proof ?!?

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

i know the law of physics
and i even understood them.

but i have a hard time to belive the Bazantsche rpogressive collapse theory.
i know you say now i did simply not understand his theory. but im sorry, in my eyes it is totaly bogus and does not reflect what we saw from those collapses.
but we are so far OT again, and i fear its once again my fault. and i dont gonna blame bush or the US for my derailing :P

Here, I'll get you back on topic.

Demonstrate why it is totally bogus and does not reflect what we saw from the collapses. The burden of proof is on you.

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

but i have a hard time to belive the Bazantsche rpogressive collapse theory.
i know you say now i did simply not understand his theory. but im sorry, in my eyes it is totaly bogus

OK, then let's see your specific disagreements with it. Show us the math. Either that, or admit that you have nothing.

[Disbelief]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

because its that what i learned from the US government.

If you don't trust the US gov't, why would you want to use methods that you ascribe to it? How does that make you any better?

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

because its that what i learned from the US government.

The US government CAN accuse people of mass murder, but can only convict them if it has proof. It also must demonstrate at least some of this proof in a timely manner or else it must let the matter drop.

(For US citizens, that is, or foreign nationals on US soil.)

[thebestodb]

I can't post images until 15 posts. I'm probably not going to make 15 posts. I'm Andoo over at the LC boards. Despite the lovely relationship between all of you and Killtown, no one really ever seems to address the only information I find important on that day. That would be the latitudinal distance between the base of the plume and then crash site. Despite proximity (z-axis) there is still this 200 yard displacement. I used yellowpages to draw a line from McClatchey's house through the base of the middle white barn area you find the plume sitting directly above. Having looked at it so many times I might be going loony, but I don't know what else I would need besides my image I can't post, which looks like what jimbob's will be or what Killtown's (google earth) pretty much already is. What other proof do I need besides the visual evidence of 200 yards. I know this seems very sophomoric to just come up and here and blab with no picture. I've noticed how much detail you guys require before you even listen to someone, but truth be told I haven't had any solid logical explanations as to why the vectors show this oddity.

[Disbelief]

Originally Posted by thebestodb

I can't post images until 15 posts. I'm probably not going to make 15 posts. I'm Andoo over at the LC boards. Despite the lovely relationship between all of you and Killtown, no one really ever seems to address the only information I find important on that day. That would be the latitudinal distance between the base of the plume and then crash site. Despite proximity (z-axis) there is still this 200 yard displacement. I used yellowpages to draw a line from McClatchey's house through the base of the middle white barn area you find the plume sitting directly above. Having looked at it so many times I might be going loony, but I don't know what else I would need besides my image I can't post, which looks like what jimbob's will be or what Killtown's (google earth) pretty much already is. What other proof do I need besides the visual evidence of 200 yards. I know this seems very sophomoric to just come up and here and blab with no picture. I've noticed how much detail you guys require before you even listen to someone, but truth be told I haven't had any solid logical explanations as to why the vectors show this oddity.

Welcome to the forum. If you post the link info, someone here will fix it for you. That way, your pics can be here for all to see and discuss.

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

i never claimed to have proof

You don't say.

Quote:

i would not spend my time on JREF when i had evidence. i would run to every single court worldwide if i had any

In other words, you come to a skepticism/educational forum where evidence is the only thing that matters without any. So you're just here to troll?

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by thebestodb

I can't post images until 15 posts. I'm probably not going to make 15 posts.

You can post links to images, just leave off the "http://" part. It doesn't matter in this case, though, we're very familiar with that. Yes, the plume is displaced to the south from the crash site. Were you aware that the wind that day was out of the northwest?

Quote:

I know this seems very sophomoric to just come up and here and blab with no picture.

Quite the contrary. Presentation using words is what gets you respected here. Images can be nice to go along with that, but it's your words that count. My other favorite forum doesn't even allow pictures to be posted (nor avatars, nor auto-sigs). That board is very high on the signal to noise ratio.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Drudgewire

You don't say.


In other words, you come to a skepticism/educational forum where evidence is the only thing that matters without any. So you're just here to troll?

im sure not here to wake up you "conspiracy-deniers"
but i like controversal debates.

[thebestodb]

s305.photobucket.com/albums/nn224/thebestodb/?action=view&current=shanks.jpg

Yeah, most people don't really talk about the 9.8 knots of wind. I don't remember the exact number. Most counter-arguments are that it since it had a northwesterly blow, we dont' know where on the z axis it is. That has no bearing on the limited information we have, which puts that plume 200 yards southerly of the crash site. That distance is just so huge for only a said "5 seconds". The only thing I can't conclude for certain is what the plume did upon impact. I am no expert on that and could only assume the plume had a rather linear effect going upwards.

[CurtC]

Here's your link in clickable form:
http://s305.photobucket.com/albums/n...ent=shanks.jpg

Yes, 200 yards would be a long way for it to travel in five seconds. What if the time between the crash and the photo was significantly longer than that?

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

im sure not here to wake up you "conspiracy-deniers"
but i like controversal debates.

Wrong guy to pull that on. I was a HUGE CT'er back in the day.

Until it finally hit me the same people were making the same claims based on the same absence of proof, using the same arguments from one conspiracy to the next, and continuing to build on their theories based on stuff that had already been disproven ages before. All that was coupled with the fact there was never ANYTHING solid to ANY of the claims, it just sounded good as long as there was plenty of paranoia to keep the fire burning.

In other words, I stopped believing in Santa Claus. It's part of growing up.

[ElMondoHummus]

Conspiracy fantasists need to get past the notion that collapse initiation does not equal global collapse. First of all, making a blanket statement like that does not take into consideration the design of the WTC, which BTW happens to be one of the issues Dr. Astaneh-Asl keeps bringing up (the non-traditional design being vulnerable to such a tragedy). Second of all, it's been demonstrated by multiple people - Bazant, Greening, Newton's Bit (and I think R. Mackey may have done calculations too; correct me if I'm wrong) - that there is enough potential energy stored in the towers to account for a global collapse to result from collapse initiation.

But all that's offered in rebuttal to those calculations are arguments from disbelief? Stop and thing about this for a minute: Explosive demolition is also merely collapse initiation; gravity takes care of the rest. Does anyone criticize the hypothesis of explosive demolitions because that, too, would only account for collapse initiation? Of course not; that would be a ridiculous argument.

People need to get past the silly equation that initiation does not equal progression. There's nothing to stop progression; this has been demonstrated time and time again. Saying that initiation does not equal progression in the case of the Twin Towers is as illogical as separating the act of the lumberjack from the fact that the tree falls. The only way to make the equation work is to demonstrate that the segment of the towers below the impact zones could absorb the energy from the upper section's collapse. Heiwa realizes this, and tries to argue exactly that in the other thread he's in. Even he doesn't merely state "initiation does not equal progression", and he's full of on just about everything else he says. So why are other truthers doing so?

You want to get our attention with the argument "initiation does not equal progression"? Demonstrate the flaws in the current collapse scenario. Counter the works of Newton's Bit, Dr. Greening, etc. Convince Mackey and Architect. But don't just state "initiation does not equal progression". That's a mere assertion, and needs to be backed up.

[Myriad]

Highfalutin philosophy aside, I find that in the real world the burden of proof is on the party who wants something.

For instance, sometimes when I buy alcohol, I must prove that I am over 21 years of age. One look at me makes the proposition that I am younger than 21 years an extraordinary claim. If you go by the number of unknown elements inherent in the claim, or any rational epistemological principles, the burden of proof for such a claim surely must be on the person making it.

But I'm the one who wants the booze. Hence, I must provide the proof.

Having given up their calls for hangings and revolution, most of the truthers who post here say they want a new investigation. Clearly, they will not get a new investigation unless they can convince judges, prosecutors, elected officials, and the technical experts those people would consult on such matters. That's why the burden of proof is on them.

And yet, instead of coming here and attempting to convince us (at least, as practice for attempting to convince public officials who could set a new investigation in motion), so many of them waste time challenging us to convince them, demanding absolute proof that a specific column cut was made by a cleanup worker (name, date, and specific cutting tool used, please) or that some specific bit of crash damage was done by some specific part of the airplane (serial number of the part, please). That effort -- though guaranteed to succeed because it's already absolutely clear that they cannot be convinced -- does not advance their claimed goals in any conceivable way. That's why I believe that those who engage in it have given up on those goals and are engaging in recreational trolling.

Respectfully,
Myriad