[PREV - BURNED_IN_2004] [TOP]
AN_INCONTINENT_TRUTH
October 4, 2006
This weekend I realized that
a friend of mine took the
"9/11 Truth Movement" guys (You know the Truthies, right?
somewhat seriously... They're into ideas like:
planted-explosives must have
taken out the World Trade
Center, a few plane crashes
I was a little suprised by alone *couldn't* have done it).
that, because I'd heard the
"Loose Change" guys debated by
the "Popular Mechanics"
people, and while the Pop (On "Democracy Now!".)
Mechanics guys did not come
off as very scintillating, the
"Loose Change" folks seemed
like classic nutjobs...
These are the guys who like to
coldly repeat Facts like "jet
fuel doesn't burn hot enough
to melt steel".
You don't have to look into
this much to turn up the
counter-arguments to that one:
(1) it doesn't have to *melt*
it, just weaken it
(2) there *are* reasons that
they require thermal (And the quality of the
insulation on steel supports. thermal insulation used
on the WTC is an open
But anyway, since I met someone question, I would say...)
who seemed to think that there
was something significant about
the Building 7 collapse I spent
a good chunk of the time the
other day reading up on the Not such an easy task, really.
Truthies and digging around for Every published criticism of
rebuttals the "Movement" produces a
firestorm of indignant wining
What I found: from the entire crew, and they
are absolute *masters* of the
Building 7 went down "google bomb": their own
after having debri rained rebuttals always get top billing.
down on it and burning
for many hours...
Why does this seem so
weird?
Even if you argue it should've
been able to take it, why
postulate thermite charges when Much is made of the remark
you can easily explain it by, "I guess we'll have to pull
for example, sub-standard it", which is supposed to
thermal insulation on a corrupt be demolition expert lingo...
government construction job?
This would seem more
significant if anyone
speaking were demolition
experts.
And it's hard to get
the scenario to make
sense as any sort of
conspiracy... why
was it necessary to
I note that there are some order it "pulled" if
schisms in "The Truth that was the nefarious
Movement", in particular scheme all along?
there are complaints about Why would you talk about
so many of the critics it in public?
focusing on the "not hot
enough to melt" factoid. SKEPTIC_MOLE
It is evidently not fair to
regard this particular
argument as representative It's not clear to me what
of The Movement... is supposed to be a
representative argument.
And at least one There was some short-selling
fellow insists of airline stock before hand,
that the "Loose but the counter-claim is that
Change" guys are this is traceable back to a
part of a single investment newsletter.
conspiracy to I couldn't
make the "Truth make one up (June 21, 2007)
Movement" look better than More recently, I've come
bad. that. across the argument that
there were these war games
scheduled for that day that
tangled things up enough
to prevent interception of
the hijacked planes.
Even if this is all
correct, it's difficult
to see why you would
assume it was planned
But any way, here's that way...
another item for the
"grimly amusing" file: I've heard the factoid
hyped that there wasn't
This entire debate takes just *one*, but *many*
place on the grounds of war games scheduled at
technical plausibility. the same time... but so?
Only very rarely does
someone argue "It is Even if that's a weird
absurd to think that our state of affairs --
fine, upstanding leaders and I have no idea if
would be willing to kill it is, or even if the
innocent civilians for claim is accurate --
political reasons". "providing cover for
the bad guys" would
only be *one* possible
explanation.
You want another?
Maybe the various
warnings of possible
terrorist attack were
starting to filter into
the institutional brain
of the military, so
they were stepping up
their readiness
exercises and thereby
shot themselves in the
foot.
(Far-fetched, eh?)
--------
[NEXT - FALLEN_TOWERS]