5 ms·

Being struck violently by an unarmed missile could have caused a massive structural failure of the aircraft, which then exploded. > literally zero evidence for

Being struck violently by an unarmed missile could have caused a massive structural failure of the aircraft, which then exploded. > literally zero evidence for it. There is literally circumstantial evidence for it, as well as eye-witness testimony. This is not "proof" by any stretch, but it's certainly evidence.

woodruffw 4y ago
My understanding is that the chronology of all eyewitness accounts for the missile have been after the airframe was known to have broken up, meaning that they were most likely seeing large sections of the burning fuselage. Are there other eyewitness accounts that don’t match that, or are you saying that the official chronology is itself suspect?
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  Eyewitness accounts are unreliable and may be completely mistaken. But nevertheless, they are evidence. 'Evidence' doesn't imply 'proof'.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    The existence of evidence is not veridical in nature: that’s why we classify evidence as circumstantial, observed, etc. In other words: if nothing has changed about the eyewitness accounts in the last 26 years, then there is no new reason to doubt the (overwhelmingly likely) explanation for them.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      I responded to the claim "there is literally zero evidence for it" by pointing out that there is circumstantial evidence, and eyewitness accounts.
      - growse 4y ago
        The problem is that this circumstantial evidence contradicts actual hard evidence on the wreckage.
        MichaelCollins 4y ago
        Circumstantial evidence that seems to be contradicted by other evidence is still evidence. To claim that there is 'literally zero evidence' is literally wrong.
- Gamecollector 4y ago
  > My understanding is that the chronology of all eyewitness accounts for the missile have been after the airframe was known to have broken up This statement is absurd on its face unless all the witnesses were simultaneously staring at the seconds ticking on a nuclear clock as they witnessed the plane explode. The whole thing would've transpired in less than a minute. There's no way they could pinpoint the timing of witnesses observations that accurately.

woodruffw 4y ago

My understanding is that the chronology of all eyewitness accounts for the missile have been after the airframe was known to have broken up, meaning that they were most likely seeing large sections of the burning fuselage. Are there other eyewitness accounts that don’t match that, or are you saying that the official chronology is itself suspect?

MichaelCollins 4y ago
Eyewitness accounts are unreliable and may be completely mistaken. But nevertheless, they are evidence. 'Evidence' doesn't imply 'proof'.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  The existence of evidence is not veridical in nature: that’s why we classify evidence as circumstantial, observed, etc. In other words: if nothing has changed about the eyewitness accounts in the last 26 years, then there is no new reason to doubt the (overwhelmingly likely) explanation for them.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    I responded to the claim "there is literally zero evidence for it" by pointing out that there is circumstantial evidence, and eyewitness accounts.
    - growse 4y ago
      The problem is that this circumstantial evidence contradicts actual hard evidence on the wreckage.
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        Circumstantial evidence that seems to be contradicted by other evidence is still evidence. To claim that there is 'literally zero evidence' is literally wrong.
Gamecollector 4y ago
> My understanding is that the chronology of all eyewitness accounts for the missile have been after the airframe was known to have broken up This statement is absurd on its face unless all the witnesses were simultaneously staring at the seconds ticking on a nuclear clock as they witnessed the plane explode. The whole thing would've transpired in less than a minute. There's no way they could pinpoint the timing of witnesses observations that accurately.