Enough!!
There are at minimum four independent lines of evidence that demonstrate the presence of jetliners hitting the Twin Towers.
- Everyone has already cited the eyewitness accounts, but the truther responses to those are inadequate. No one can dismiss those accounts on the basis of them being listed on a specific individual's page, given that the individual in question has linked to original sources, and no one can dismiss them on facile lunacies like the inaccuracy of human recall; while there's not universal agreement on the details of the jets that impacted, every single witness testifies that jets hit. This is indisputable. In order to make refutations to their testimonies to work, those refutations must 1. Demonstrate that a jet was in fact not present, and 2. Establish what the item was that they did see. General issues with witness recall are limited in scope to details and fail to refute the summary of testimonies adding up to jets being present. And stupid requests for "official documentation" in the face of multiple news quotes as well as independent supporting evidence is not an attempt to establish reality, it's an attempt to negate it. In the absence of that, simplistic, argumentative dismissals fail to refute their testimony. End of story.
- The radar data in conjunction with other electronic evidence also establishes the presence of jets at the Twin Towers. In order to refute this, the refutation must attempt to explain how the radar data is wrong, and/or how people interpreting it were fooled. Simple handwaves of the supposed omnipotence of the government are NOT sufficient. On top of that, refutations of this must also not contradict the witness statements, so taking the easy way out by saying records were faked is insufficient in the face of eyewitness testimony (see above) unless the explanation for how they were faked is somehow made consistent with what witnesses saw. And then, it still must agree with the other lines of evidence following.
- The aircraft debris by itself establishes the presence of jets in the area. Refutations to this must not contradict with both the radar/electronic evidence given above, and with the eyewitness testimonies.
- Video evidence (Google these for yourselves). This also establishes the presence of jets in the area, and above and beyond that, is replayable and can be used to pick out details that a real-time eyewitness wouldn't have had time to discern. Refutations to this, like above, can not contradict the previous lines of evidence.
The fact that jets hit the Twin Towers is established. The evidence has been in existence for a long time now. If one wants to rebut this evidence, as I noted above, the rebuttals must explain what happened in return. And it must conform to the evidence that does exist. Saying that witnesses could not have seen a jet is contradicted by the wreckage and the radar/electronic data, as well as the video. Saying that the radar data or video was faked is contradicted by the eyewitnesses who clearly saw aircraft hit both towers. Saying that the debris is faked is also contradicted by eyewitnesses, debris, radar, and video. A rebuttal, in order to be a consistent and correct explanation of the event,
MUST take into account
all the lines of evidence and
explain them. It must explain what the witnesses did see. It must explain what the radar recorded. It must explain what the jetliner debris was doing in New York, and how it got there. And it must explain what was recorded by video and film crews. If it does not,
then it fails to refute the established narrative. Period.
Now, if truthers want to have a productive, sensible conversation, then they
must take
all that into account. This is because the above is the bar that
logic sets; it's not a requirement that I or anyone else generates. Explanations must take into account
all lines of evidence. If they do not, they fail, pure and simple. And they fail because they not only do not account for what is know, but are contradicted by it.
Explain the event now using the
totality of the evidnece. And put away with this senseless distortion of irrelevant details. Not only is that mere argumentiveness for the sake of being disruptive, it fails to address what's known and established.
