>and since I do not claim things I cannot reasonably prove, I lean to the side that says these ideas are false
I find this line so strange in the context of this series, particularly the next installment in which you examine the origins of sars-coV-2. You did not "reasonably prove" lab origin by any stretch, but then you didn't deem to lean towards its falsity.
Why not apply the same rubric to the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 as you did to the origin of sars-coV-2? Ie. point out the improbabilities in the official narrative and quote independent experts? Or you "will continue to insist that the detonation hypothesis has been debunked, and that anyone still talking about it is a conspiracy theorist"?
I have enjoyed your writing here on the whole, but there seems to be this discordant thread running through the entirety of it.
The demolition of the World Trade Centers 1 and 2 would have each broken several world records in demolition of a structure (tallest building and largest by volume). When a building is brought down with explosives, there is a vast amount of evidence left in its wake (blasting caps, wires, bits of the cutter charges, etc). Buildings are prepped for weeks, or months in advance, and they are stripped of all walls and finishings that block access to the structure itself.
To believe that these three structures were all brought down by controlled demolition, but that none of them had any of this evidence left behind and none of them were first stripped to reveal the structure is very, very unlikely.
If one believes that some new technology was used (painted on nano-thermite, etc) means you believe not only that secret crews of people worked long hours in the shadows where they couldnt be noticed, somehow accessing necessary core building supports, and that the masterminds of this whole affair were very confident that this new technology would work. They were so confident, they broke something like 6 controlled demolition world records that day with a never before used technology.
Its very, very, very far fetched.
As it stands, there is no counter-hypothesis to lab leak for SARS 2 that has any weight to it. They have no zoonotic link, but they have a disease from one thousand miles away that develops in bats deep in caves somehow springing up in an urban area, right next to a virology lab that studies those specific viruses, and no trail of sick people between Yunnan and Hubei. The alternative hypothesis is currently sitting at "maybe it was in frozen food?" and that's all they got.
>and since I do not claim things I cannot reasonably prove, I lean to the side that says these ideas are false
I find this line so strange in the context of this series, particularly the next installment in which you examine the origins of sars-coV-2. You did not "reasonably prove" lab origin by any stretch, but then you didn't deem to lean towards its falsity.
Why not apply the same rubric to the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 as you did to the origin of sars-coV-2? Ie. point out the improbabilities in the official narrative and quote independent experts? Or you "will continue to insist that the detonation hypothesis has been debunked, and that anyone still talking about it is a conspiracy theorist"?
I have enjoyed your writing here on the whole, but there seems to be this discordant thread running through the entirety of it.
The demolition of the World Trade Centers 1 and 2 would have each broken several world records in demolition of a structure (tallest building and largest by volume). When a building is brought down with explosives, there is a vast amount of evidence left in its wake (blasting caps, wires, bits of the cutter charges, etc). Buildings are prepped for weeks, or months in advance, and they are stripped of all walls and finishings that block access to the structure itself.
To believe that these three structures were all brought down by controlled demolition, but that none of them had any of this evidence left behind and none of them were first stripped to reveal the structure is very, very unlikely.
If one believes that some new technology was used (painted on nano-thermite, etc) means you believe not only that secret crews of people worked long hours in the shadows where they couldnt be noticed, somehow accessing necessary core building supports, and that the masterminds of this whole affair were very confident that this new technology would work. They were so confident, they broke something like 6 controlled demolition world records that day with a never before used technology.
Its very, very, very far fetched.
As it stands, there is no counter-hypothesis to lab leak for SARS 2 that has any weight to it. They have no zoonotic link, but they have a disease from one thousand miles away that develops in bats deep in caves somehow springing up in an urban area, right next to a virology lab that studies those specific viruses, and no trail of sick people between Yunnan and Hubei. The alternative hypothesis is currently sitting at "maybe it was in frozen food?" and that's all they got.
Thanks for reading.