you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]PecosinRat 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Seems to be missing all the physical evidence of the towers collapsing, or am I just missing something...?

[–]TheJamesRocket[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The problem is that debunkers have specifically tailored their strategys to 'disprove' and 'refute' the WTC demolition theorys. Its a topic they are well prepared to argue about. They have lots of delaying tactics that can bog down an inexperienced truther, and discredit him in front of an audience.

I have no doubt at all that the twin towers were demolished, but the fact is, thats NOT the first issue you should bring up when trying to educate newbies (or take down skeptics). Demolition theorys are the path of most resistance. Thats not to say you can't win a debate against a debunker on that topic.

You CAN win, but only if you are very knowledgeable and are prepared to spend some time and effort working through their arguments. It'll be a long and boring discussion, and many people will have tuned out by the end. (Thus its a pyhric victory for a truther)

[–]PecosinRat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Interesting, James. I've always felt that any arguments beyond the "asymmetrical damage versus symmetrical collapse" were unnecessary. However, I do understand what you're getting at.