It's entirely possible that an innocent clean-up crew was forced to make the tough decision you describe. I don't dismiss the possibility, so I'll upvote you. However, we have also seen numerous corrupt local governments over the years make questionable and sometimes deadly decisions that are obviously intended to harm this country. We don't know, and we have little reason to believe the official explanation of anything anymore.
It is epistemological procedure: the presumption of innocence, until guilt (of falsity) is proven. A perfectly justifiable procedure, based on thousands of years of experience.
I am mindful of the EPA breach of the contaminated water in the Gold King mine into the Colorado River. But we had to learn the facts before we could blame anyone. Same thing here. We have to wait and see. Jumping on the "it's a lie" wagon is unwarranted and leads to an unhealthy prejudice against information.
It is irrelevant whether the cleanup crew was "innocent." The only relevant consideration is whether that decision was warranted. Nobody has identified any practical or viable alternative. Sometimes you have to shoot the rampaging elephant before he gets into the village. Tough luck for the elephant.
Nobody has identified any practical or viable alternative.
Alternative: Bad actors interested in causing a major environmental disaster over farmland lied about the amount of pressure in the tankers so that local officials were forced to burn off the toxic chemical "out of an abundance of caution."
We simply don't know. And frankly, neither the government, the "experts," or the official narrative deserve the "presumption of innocence" these days.
Then you are lost, because it is never possible to prove innocence.
But you still haven't identified any alternative to the burn-off. Supposedly, it was an emergency response team that decided to conduct the burn-off, not local officials. Just because you are ignorant now, does not justify concluding someone is lying. If they are, we need to catch them in the lie. But that requires more information.
you still haven't identified any alternative to the burn-off.
Again, what is with the insistence in this thread from multiple accounts now that I have to believe the official narrative? Why am I expected to dismiss the possibility that bad actors may have lied about the danger that the derailed tankers truly posed? Why am I expected to believe that this "emergency response team" (Which is who exactly? The Feds? Compromised railroad officials? Do we know?) was totally truthful about the danger and weren't just there to carry out the rest of the planned sabotage?
If the facts truly are what the official narrative claims—the tankers really were under pressure and the clean up crew didn't have any other options—then, yes, I agree there was no alternative but to burn off the chemicals. The problem here is that I reject the entire premise that we must stick to the official narrative's explanation of events. There are corrupt and traitorous shitheads at all levels of government, and no, I do not put it past these same shitheads who stole the last three elections and are currently attacking our food supply in various ways to intentionally cause an environmental disaster over our farmland.
It's entirely possible that an innocent clean-up crew was forced to make the tough decision you describe. I don't dismiss the possibility, so I'll upvote you. However, we have also seen numerous corrupt local governments over the years make questionable and sometimes deadly decisions that are obviously intended to harm this country. We don't know, and we have little reason to believe the official explanation of anything anymore.
It is epistemological procedure: the presumption of innocence, until guilt (of falsity) is proven. A perfectly justifiable procedure, based on thousands of years of experience.
I am mindful of the EPA breach of the contaminated water in the Gold King mine into the Colorado River. But we had to learn the facts before we could blame anyone. Same thing here. We have to wait and see. Jumping on the "it's a lie" wagon is unwarranted and leads to an unhealthy prejudice against information.
It is irrelevant whether the cleanup crew was "innocent." The only relevant consideration is whether that decision was warranted. Nobody has identified any practical or viable alternative. Sometimes you have to shoot the rampaging elephant before he gets into the village. Tough luck for the elephant.
Alternative: Bad actors interested in causing a major environmental disaster over farmland lied about the amount of pressure in the tankers so that local officials were forced to burn off the toxic chemical "out of an abundance of caution."
We simply don't know. And frankly, neither the government, the "experts," or the official narrative deserve the "presumption of innocence" these days.
Then you are lost, because it is never possible to prove innocence.
But you still haven't identified any alternative to the burn-off. Supposedly, it was an emergency response team that decided to conduct the burn-off, not local officials. Just because you are ignorant now, does not justify concluding someone is lying. If they are, we need to catch them in the lie. But that requires more information.
Again, what is with the insistence in this thread from multiple accounts now that I have to believe the official narrative? Why am I expected to dismiss the possibility that bad actors may have lied about the danger that the derailed tankers truly posed? Why am I expected to believe that this "emergency response team" (Which is who exactly? The Feds? Compromised railroad officials? Do we know?) was totally truthful about the danger and weren't just there to carry out the rest of the planned sabotage?
If the facts truly are what the official narrative claims—the tankers really were under pressure and the clean up crew didn't have any other options—then, yes, I agree there was no alternative but to burn off the chemicals. The problem here is that I reject the entire premise that we must stick to the official narrative's explanation of events. There are corrupt and traitorous shitheads at all levels of government, and no, I do not put it past these same shitheads who stole the last three elections and are currently attacking our food supply in various ways to intentionally cause an environmental disaster over our farmland.