ozeco41
Philosopher
Where to start?
First most of those claiming to be truthers are trolls first with truther at best a distant secondary objective. The easiest way to play troll is to reflect some topic that the target has raised and pick a hole in it or twist it to further the trolling goal of keeping the opponent biting. You don't have to look far for examples - I'll point, you look!"
Then, for that portion which is genuine truther, there are some big problems. Let's illustrate with the 'controlled demolition' camp of trutherdom.
The most obvious big problem is that there was no controlled demolition. A related issue is that no truther anywhere has ever been able to construct a reasoned overall explanation for a method of CD which could stand scrutiny. CD is (just) technically plausible but there is simply no way it could have been done without getting found out.
Since there is no overall explanation coming even from the leading lights - Gage, Jones et al - the lesser lights right down to the small candles have no model of comprehensive explanation to repeat parrot fashion. That means they have to think which leads to two further barriers. (1) Their obviously limited competence in that activity; and (2) the reality that there almost certainly isn't a plausible CD scenario out there to be thought of.
So they lack the expertise to construct one of their own and there is probably no way that a comprehensive pro CD hypothesis could exist.
From that no winner position their second option is to force the debate of technical details to go continuously round and round in circles. "Was there thermXte residue on site?" A total waste of time if the objective is support a CD hypothesis. There was no CD. There could not have been CD for reasons in the domain of logistics and security. Simply put it could not be done without being found out. So the technical discussion is meaningless in the bigger picture.
If the technical discussion falters then switch to the human domain with "what are the qualifications of the person making statements" "Is it published in a peer reviewed journal?" More red herrings when the real question is "Is the claim correct or not?"
Has any truther ever seriously attempted to explain the logistic and security aspects of a CD hypothesis? No. They cannot.
And I have not even touched on the technical plan - the details of what charges on what locations to cut what members at what time to supplement the damage caused by aircraft impact and fire. Remember the CD has to disappear behind the cover story of plane hijacks and crashes.
So any genuine truther (if that is not an oxymoron
)..any genuine truther supporting CD has an insurmountable challenge to demonstrate that CD is feasible.
The alternate facing the truther is to ensure that discussion/debate never focuses to a conclusion. The strategy is sow doubt and discontent. In full knowledge that no honest professional with relevant expertise will be fooled. And that a fair proportion of the intelligent lay population will likewise not be misled.
So we get an endless stream of bits of technical claims, each one totally out of context, with the aim of debate forever. And at that point the distinction between truther and troll probably becomes relevant.
And, whilst the foregoing referred to CD, it can easily be applied to the Pentagon and Shanksville branches - just change the technical details to suit. Add salt to taste. Simmer over a low stove....etc etc
