Originally Posted by geggy
Again, this is an "affirming the precedent" logical fallacy.
You can't compare what the WTC looked like as it fell to what a controlled demolition looks like to conclude that the WTC was a controlled demolition.
You have to compare what the WTC looked like to what an uncontrolled
look like to conclude that the WTC was a controlled demolition.
Otherwise, you end up proving that parakeets are cats because they both have claws on their feet.