Thursday, December 08, 2005

Once more into the fray

I've been reading some of the comments on my supposed turnaround on the issue of controlled demolition. It's really quite sad. Or course, there is no turnaround as I've never bought the controlled demolition story with respect to the two towers, just as I've always been skeptical about what brought down WTC 7 and always been certain - and still am - that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. We all have our own realms of conspiracy. The critics seem to have somewhat accepted the inevitable logic of my position, that the owner of the building had no economic reason to pull down his own buildings, and every economic reason not to, but just shift the rationale. Now its all about removing asbestos, which he didn't want to pay for, so he trashed the buildings. This raises the instant question of why he bought buildings full of asbestos only a few months before September 11, so they again shift the rationale to somehow making money off the stockmarket (but wouldn't the stockmarket have gone down anyway, even if the buidings had stayed up?). If it makes no sense for him to take down the buildings, why his Israeli (naturally) security company planted them behind his back. Or they used the thirty-year old explosives the Rockefellers had thoughtfully planted in the buildings during construction. Or, or, or. The sum total proof of actual planting of explosives is that they've found one guy, out of the hundreds or even thousands who must have been in the buildings over the weekend, who claims that the power was shut down in the tower he was in over the weekend. On that, and that alone (oh, there are some anomalies on some videos which you can see if you squint, and a janitor heard some explosions in the basement), a massive conspiracy, one that makes no economic sense, rests.

The most hilarious thing about all this nonsense is that these morons don't realize that their pathetic attempts at rationalizing their pet theory are letting the current owner off the hook. If the buildings weren't fit for safe occupation, the owner could be sued by the people harmed by his negligence in continuing to lease them without fixing the problems (and he could in turn claim against those he bought from, and so on back). Perhaps something could be done about other buildings which are similarly unsafe. With the controlled demolition theory, all the plutocrats are off the hook, as it was all the doing of the nefarious, and extremely mysterious, Israelis.

The controlled demolition theory is much closer to a religious belief than anything rational, and bears a strong odor of anti-Semitism. Since it must be true, anyone who even mentions the many obvious problems with it is some kind of disinformation agent, obviously paid off by the bad guys (i. e., Israel). Criticizing the theory is a form of blasphemy, and so any number of inconsistent 'rebuttals' are wheeled out to deal with the problem. If all else fails, attack the messenger.

The most recent, and predictable salvo, concerns the crash of the plane in Iran. Plane crashes into tall building, building catches fire, doesn't fall down, therefore WTC must have been brought down by controlled demolition. But the Iran crash is relevantly different. The plane hit the top of the 10-story building (or rather, it appears that it hit the eighth floor, fell to the ground, and a wing clipped the lower floors, although even that explanation may just be an assumption based on a gas explosion that occurred on the fourth floor). The key to the WTC collapse was that the planes knocked off the insulation, and the fire weakened (but not melted, which I read again and again from the controlled demolition theorists, who seem to feel that the Official Story must be nonsense as the heat of the fire could not have melted steel) the steel, causing it to be unable to bear the weight of many, many floors above. It there are no or few floors above, there is no reason for collapse. Why do you think they put insulation on the steel anyway? Just for this reason. Similarly, tall buildings which catch fire and don't fall down are no mystery as nothing has hit them causing the insulation to be knocked off (the building in Tehran appears to be structurally intact). Since the insulation is still on, it does exactly what it is supposed to do, which is to keep the steel from being weakened by the fire, and thus keep the building from collapsing. Structural engineers involved in the WTC seem to be shaken by the fact that they apparently assumed the insulation would stay on despite a plane crash, something which it would be wise to reconsider in building other tall buildings, including the new WTC (I actually wonder whether any, or the proper amount of, insulation was applied to the upper floors of the towers, something which can't be confirmed as they were built under the Port Authority - even though the buildings had nothing to do with New York city ports or transportation, and thus had no reason whatsoever to be built by the Port Authority - with the specific purpose of avoiding inspection, and all the evidence from the WTC scene has been safely buried or shipped to China). The new religion seems to be that checking people's shoes at the airport will stop a repeat of 9-11, so there is no reason whatsoever to worry again about the safety of tall buildings.