no, BOTH sides bear the burden of proof. there is no "default" position that is inherently true unless proven otherwise.
You're kidding, right?
I see big airplanes hit the towers. I see the towers collapse. I know engineers and physicists who say the physics involved therewith do
not demand extra terms; moreover, there is no proof of these extra terms (e.g., "molten" steel, bombs supposedly exploding in approx. conjunction with the impact(s)).
Therefore, the planes alone brought down the towers. It's not sexy but, if aforesaid physics experts are correct, it's
very much the "default" position by virtue of Ockham's.
So, yes, the burden resides with conspiracy theorists. CTs are telling us what we saw is
not what we got and/or appeal to what I call unnecessary terms. CTs need to show that those terms are necessary.
additionally, the majority of "conspiracy theorists" don't dogmatically say it was an inside job, instead pointing out that there is a whole host of questions that simply cannot be explained by the "official" stories.
Keep in mind, Mr. Magoo, that I'm only focusing on the folks who say the towers couldn't be brought down by the planes alone. I'm not talking about anything else, like someone in the government letting it happen (or whatever). OK?
you know why people say to watch a video? because it's easier than typing out bullet points because people like you are going to immediately start yapping "oh yeah? what proof??" and next thing you know we have to explain every point in the movie.
Please do not assume what kind of debator I am.
My point is that directing folks to a movie is intellectually lazy, not to mention evasive ("Hey, read the book!"). If someone so strongly believes that there's more than met the eye Sept. 11th, he/she shouldn't have a problem listing just a few reasons to support his/her case. Agree?
