photo #9385310

Brian CroninConspiracy theorists who say "Look at the evidence!" always have an unusual inverse perspective on what "evidence" is important. It's imperative to know that the accepted understanding of how the Twin Towers collapsed CHANGED as experts in the field clashed over their interpretations of the evidence. This was not some monolithic "Just shut up and listen to us" situation. This is where the whole "Steel can't melt!" stuff comes from, as it is actually true that initially, there were a number of people who suggested that the jet fuel from the planes burning through the elevator shafts is what weakened the steel support of the buildings, and ultimately led to their collapse. That was challenged by other experts, and after various tests were held by different experts independently from each other, the current accepted understanding was derived, which is that the main impact of the jet and specifically its massive amount of jet fuel was to cause such massive damage on multiple floors that it would knock out the fire prevention systems on those floors, causing the massive fires that eventually led to these floors separating from the frame of the building, which led to them quickly falling on top of each other, creating a cascading effect that led to the destruction of the whole building. The same thing happened on a much smaller scale in World Trade Center 7, where there were so many fires burning uncontrollably for hours (with a sprinkler system that was not working) that eventually the floors collapsed there, as well. Those fires weren't as intense as the ones caused by the massive amount of ignited jet fuel like the towers above it, which is why it took many hours to collapse. This has now been tested so many times by different groups, and they all agree that it was what happened (while still, of course, getting into squabbles about stuff within that broad agreement. Like how one study said that the fire alone could have caused the collapse of the towers regardless of the impact of the plane, which is mostly to say that any damage to the support of the building by the jets was incidental, but others would say, yeah, but the fires wouldn't have been there without the jets dislodging the fire prevention systems, so you can't really say that)But when it comes to conspiracy theories, any evidence OUTSIDE of these tests conducted by a number of different agencies and independent groups are the only ones that count. It is the same thing with vaccines. 99 scientists can tell you that X happened, but the one scientist who says otherwise is the only TRUE evidence, and thus you can say "Follow the evidence!" and not be completely hallucinating.You're not hallucinating, but nor are you acting in good faith when you only point to outliers in a group of many different experts who have investigated the same thing. It is similar to the whole "You can't trust scientists/doctors" stuff during COVID, which became, of course, "You can't trust scientists/doctors...except for this one scientist/doctor that says what I want to believe!" Being skeptical about shit is TOTALLY FINE, but when multiple independent groups come to the same conclusion, a conclusion that matches what we all saw live on TV, then you holding on to the outlier evidence as the only proof that matters to you doesn't make you special or smarter, it makes you, well, you know, a conspiracy theorist.