alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Truthers display an amazing double standard and inability to view their arguments from another perspective.
Case in point: Bard's response to the fact that American demolitions experts and their teams were actually onscene, and have the skills and experience to recognize evidence. Instead of conceding the importance of their testimony, he resorted to a vague dismissal/smear
'Professionals can be genuinely wrong, and professionals can be dishonest. '
Of course, he wouldn't be able to see that his statement applies to Jowenko as well as Blanchard. Nor can he allow that Blanchard was actually there at GZ, and that makes his observations far less superficial than Jowenko's.
He's not the worst. I've seen truthers deny that Blanchard knows anything about CD's, since he has never demolished a building himself, only monitored demolitions. One person suggested he was just a photographer, not a CD expert.
Another claimed that Mark Loizeaux is working secretly for the conspiracy, and might have actually wired the buildings!!
Anything but accept these experts might indeed by correct (they most certainly are, IMHO), and that truther's assumptions might be wrong (they most certainly are).
This stuff is pretty low-grade denial, it's not even sophisticated enough to address the actual points made by Blanchard and Loizeaux. Now I guarantee you, as sure as butter comes from a cow, that if Blanchard was testifying that explosives WERE used in the towers, truthers would be crowing from the rooftops about him, as they do with Jowenko.
It's almost funny, except it's so sad. This willful blindness extends everywhere in trutherdom, right down to Tony Szamboti's ill-fated choice to ignore and deny the tower tilts.
Yeah, we should confront Jowenko with the absence of seismic, audio and visual corroboration of CD and see what excuses he can make for it. He really ought to go head-to-head with another demo expert on hardfire or something.
That would be worthwhile.
Case in point: Bard's response to the fact that American demolitions experts and their teams were actually onscene, and have the skills and experience to recognize evidence. Instead of conceding the importance of their testimony, he resorted to a vague dismissal/smear
'Professionals can be genuinely wrong, and professionals can be dishonest. '
Of course, he wouldn't be able to see that his statement applies to Jowenko as well as Blanchard. Nor can he allow that Blanchard was actually there at GZ, and that makes his observations far less superficial than Jowenko's.
He's not the worst. I've seen truthers deny that Blanchard knows anything about CD's, since he has never demolished a building himself, only monitored demolitions. One person suggested he was just a photographer, not a CD expert.
Another claimed that Mark Loizeaux is working secretly for the conspiracy, and might have actually wired the buildings!!
Anything but accept these experts might indeed by correct (they most certainly are, IMHO), and that truther's assumptions might be wrong (they most certainly are).
This stuff is pretty low-grade denial, it's not even sophisticated enough to address the actual points made by Blanchard and Loizeaux. Now I guarantee you, as sure as butter comes from a cow, that if Blanchard was testifying that explosives WERE used in the towers, truthers would be crowing from the rooftops about him, as they do with Jowenko.
It's almost funny, except it's so sad. This willful blindness extends everywhere in trutherdom, right down to Tony Szamboti's ill-fated choice to ignore and deny the tower tilts.
Yeah, we should confront Jowenko with the absence of seismic, audio and visual corroboration of CD and see what excuses he can make for it. He really ought to go head-to-head with another demo expert on hardfire or something.
That would be worthwhile.
Last edited:
