[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
    insulation on steel supports.

But anyway, since I met someone
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
                                       from the entire crew, and they
   I note that there are some          are absolute *masters* of the
   schisms in "The Truth               "google bomb": their own
   Movement", in particular            rebuttals always get top billing.
   there are complaints about
   so many of the critics
   focusing on the "not hot
   enough to melt" factoid.

   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 fellow insists          There was some short-selling of
that the "Loose Change" guys are         airline stock before hand, but
part of a conspiracy to make the         the counter-claim is that this
"Truth Movement" look bad.               is traceable back to a single
                                         investment newsletter.
     I couldn't make one
     up better than that.                Building 7 went down
                                         after having debri rained
                                         down on it and burning
                                         for many hours... this
                                         just doesn't seem that
                                         weird.

                                         Even if you argue it should've
                                         been able to take it, why
                                         postulate thermite charges when
                                         you can easily explain it by,
                                         for example, sub-standard
                                         thermal insulation on a corrupt
                                         government construction job?



                     But another item for the "grimly amusing"
                     file: this entire debate takes place
                     on the grounds of technical plausibility.

                     Only very rarely does someone
                     argue "It is absurd to think that
                     our fine, upstanding leaders would
                     be willing to kill innocent
                     civilians for political reasons".


--------
[NEXT - SLOW_ARC]