"isn't it scientific principal (sic) to examine all possible explanations."
Not quite, the principles are better defined as: Conjecturing "reasonable" hypotheses, conducting experiments or gathering cogent evidence to investigate conclusions, and iterating the process so as to delineate and reproduce results. Science convinces the skeptic. Pseudoscience, even when attracting the zealot, persuades only through ignorance. The bomb theory tilts much more toward the latter. The FEMA documents are of the former.
The explanations for "controlled demolitions" immediately deviate into nonsense about jet fuel not being all that explosive, claims that aluminum didn’t melt because temperatures don’t get hot in a fire, pontifications regarding structural integrity that contradict expert advice and anecdotes about who should have become toast. Much of the evidence was on the site for months and was then was hauled elsewhere for examination, primarily in consideration of the dead. (Or so those who moved it believed). Somehow, we are asked to concur: “Here is more proof of tainted analysis.” Then the videos of the collapse are played repeatedly while disciples chant how each successive floor disintegrated in patterns recognizable to only conspiracy cognoscenti. We are expected to watch between the grain over and over until we finally shout with voice of the converted “Yes, I see it!”. But the arguments for “It” further rely on a cultural mythos that assumes demolition experts to be engineering's answer to Einstein as well as the innumerate belief that a crumbling building should really fall over like a tree. Yes, prior to 9/11, we all had seen video clips that show spectacular footage of a building being demolished and heard the voice-over intoning how precisely each charge must be laid and triggered before the da big boom just lets gravity do its work. Yes, a few of us have now realized: there are just so many ways a big building will crumble. Finally the bomb theorists would have us believe that charges were secretly inserted in three massive buildings even though the scale of this operation demands the joint talents of James Bond, Stanley Kubrick and the entire roster of several clandestine organizations (equally balanced between the fictitious and covert realities.) But when dealing with zealotry, just like when arguing about politics, it remains near possible to dissuade converts. For example, I might theorize that within a house fire (no jet fuel! still… temperatures can accelerate to over 1000 degrees F in minutes) people have died because they did not understand that livable temperatures were right near the floor. So if they had crawled they might have lived where, instead, they choose to run. This model of a dichotomy due to thermal distribution easily refutes much of the “why didn’t the inferno kill everybody that didn’t get burned” tenet of the bomb theorists. Yet, I doubt that my preceding statements have caused even one neuron anywhere to fire off in the defense of reason.
It is too time-consuming to snap off every branch of the tree of sophistry when each root claim is dismissed using casual thought experiments. You probably believe that this applies to the FEMA analysis. Well, perhaps, we can agree that the official story is certainly weightier. And better written.
I have now fought my allotment of one windmill (or dragon!) for the year. I now retire to chase after more conventional, nebulous boogiemen. |
