Originally Posted by thesyntaxera
Is that what you've been harping about? You think the prevailing theory of the 9/11 events is not falsifiable? You're flat wrong. Find evidence of explosives in the WTC. Find a picture of a missile, or anything other than a 757, hitting the Pentagon. There are literally thousands of ways to falsify it. Unfortunately for you and other CTs, nothing like that has ever shown up.
Well, duh! There was lots of evidence on the first day pointing to what happened. Should everyone wait quietly in suspense, like a jury, while they're waiting for all the WTC wreckage to be cleared?
After it's falsified, a theory is false. For example, Lamarckian evelutionary theory is false.
Maybe I could if I understood what you're saying.
What circumstantial evidence? Every bit of hearsay indicating a conspiracy that I've seen has been, uh, unreliable, to be polite. Are you saying that we should overlook the fact that all that hearsay and conjecture is unreliable, but instead look at the overall picture that this unreliable evidence points to? Is that your point of all this?