3 ms·

> I'm not sure how those things discredit the janitor. He claims there was a massive explosion that shook the walls, caused part of the ceiling to cave in, and

> I'm not sure how those things discredit the janitor. He claims there was a massive explosion that shook the walls, caused part of the ceiling to cave in, and other significant effects. The obvious source is the plane impact. If there were multiple explosions of the magnitude he claims, surely other people would have noted them. And of course, the standard conspiracy theory caveats apply: Do you really believe that their was a massive conspiracy perpetrated by experts who can coordinate such things at scale, yet are also simultaneously so incompetent that they forgot to wait until the plane impact to start demolishing the building? It's nonsense. I highlighted the speaking tour to explain how he has perverse incentives to be continue spreading the conspiracy theory. EDIT: I removed a comment about common sense because it seems to be distracting people from the actual comment

tommymachine 5y ago
"Common sense" isn't that common. Do you also acknowledge the perverse incentives of government bureaucrats to promote their story?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
fighterpilot 5y ago
> Do you really believe that their was a massive conspiracy perpetrated by experts The conspiracy theory about explosives is even more idiotic than that. It's not merely that the conspiracy would needed to have been extremely complicated and involve 10s or 100s of silent accomplices, which is true. It's also that it would have been completely unnecessary and redundant, and is therefore a violation of Occam's Razor. Whatever the purported political objectives behind a conspiracy to put explosives in the towers, the planes themselves should have been sufficient to achieve those objectives, and so what motivation would there be to tack on yet another entirely different conspiracy (different in terms of operational details, skills required, additional headcount, etc)? You're multiplying the difficulty and complexity of the operation and increasing the chances of getting caught by a good 2-10x, for little benefit due to that redundancy. > Common sense discredits the story. They say things like "jet fuel can't melt steel", when nobody even makes that claim. The claim is that the burning jet fuel made the steel weaker. So don't expect them to exercise common sense when they're insisting on these strawmen.
mannanj 5y ago
Common sense is a weak argument. common sense is only common sense when it’s in the favor of your narrative. In the other direction, it’s not. Right? “Everyone knows the towers collapsed cause we studied it for 10 years. Everyone still asking questions is a conspiracy theorist. Common sense” vs “everyone knows that jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt structural steel cause we studied it for 10 years. Everyone still believing otherwise is … common sense.” See my point here with your logic?

tommymachine 5y ago

"Common sense" isn't that common. Do you also acknowledge the perverse incentives of government bureaucrats to promote their story?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

fighterpilot 5y ago

> Do you really believe that their was a massive conspiracy perpetrated by experts The conspiracy theory about explosives is even more idiotic than that. It's not merely that the conspiracy would needed to have been extremely complicated and involve 10s or 100s of silent accomplices, which is true. It's also that it would have been completely unnecessary and redundant, and is therefore a violation of Occam's Razor. Whatever the purported political objectives behind a conspiracy to put explosives in the towers, the planes themselves should have been sufficient to achieve those objectives, and so what motivation would there be to tack on yet another entirely different conspiracy (different in terms of operational details, skills required, additional headcount, etc)? You're multiplying the difficulty and complexity of the operation and increasing the chances of getting caught by a good 2-10x, for little benefit due to that redundancy. > Common sense discredits the story. They say things like "jet fuel can't melt steel", when nobody even makes that claim. The claim is that the burning jet fuel made the steel weaker. So don't expect them to exercise common sense when they're insisting on these strawmen.

mannanj 5y ago

Common sense is a weak argument. common sense is only common sense when it’s in the favor of your narrative. In the other direction, it’s not. Right? “Everyone knows the towers collapsed cause we studied it for 10 years. Everyone still asking questions is a conspiracy theorist. Common sense” vs “everyone knows that jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt structural steel cause we studied it for 10 years. Everyone still believing otherwise is … common sense.” See my point here with your logic?