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.
The insistence is because you are omitting the possibility that aliens from space are behind it all. Or possibly gnomes and imps from the inner Earth. Once you declare the only news available is a lie, you are forced into two options: (1) just say "the jury is out" and don't comment, or (2) pick any pure fantasy you want. I guess you are at (2).
The rest of us are doing the only sensible thing, which is to take the news that comes and accumulate it to see if it coheres and does not have divergences. That would at least provide consistency. Like any disaster, the flow of news is secondary to responding to the disaster, so it will be piecewise. If there is misfeasance or malfeasance, that can be determined later. But it is just a paranoid prejudice to go for the Plot at the outset. If all you can do is condemn the news for being news (it is all a Plot), you have nowhere to go and nothing to know.
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.
The insistence is because you are omitting the possibility that aliens from space are behind it all. Or possibly gnomes and imps from the inner Earth. Once you declare the only news available is a lie, you are forced into two options: (1) just say "the jury is out" and don't comment, or (2) pick any pure fantasy you want. I guess you are at (2).
The rest of us are doing the only sensible thing, which is to take the news that comes and accumulate it to see if it coheres and does not have divergences. That would at least provide consistency. Like any disaster, the flow of news is secondary to responding to the disaster, so it will be piecewise. If there is misfeasance or malfeasance, that can be determined later. But it is just a paranoid prejudice to go for the Plot at the outset. If all you can do is condemn the news for being news (it is all a Plot), you have nowhere to go and nothing to know.