Jeff Wells made a misstep in his latest post. So convinced that the issue of the WTC buildings is a minor issue in the 9-11 story, he smears Paul Craig Roberts for suggesting the buildings were felled by controlled demolition. Roberts was a Reagan Administration official, worked for The Wall Street Journal, and has written for National Review. In the great class struggle, Roberts is supposedly on the side of the rich. He's one of them. Therefore, his published opinions on 9-11 just might be part of a secret disinformation campaign to discredit the 9-11 Truth Movement in general. Apparently, Roberts must be paid under the table to be a 9-11 Conspiracy Theorist and Bush-basher: "I think Bush should be impeached, but I also believe in the controlled demolition theory! So I must be a nut-job and you shouldn't listen to me!"
Contra Wells, a lot of people believe in controlled demolition, and it hardly serves Bush's interest for a conservative like Roberts to be writing anti-Bush columns week in and week out. How much money would it take to get someone like Roberts to knowingly discredit himself? The much sounder explanation is that Roberts honestly believes what he writes, and that his views are representative of many on the anti-war, pro-civil liberties Right.
Controlled demolition is, according to the popular definition of Occam's Razor, the best explanation of how the Twin Towers and especially Building 7 fell. It is the simplest scientific explanation, at least from a layman's perspective. However, it relies on numerous sociological assumptions, namely, how can so many people be involved in a conspiracy? According to a more elegant definition of Occam's Razor, it is not the "simplest" explantion, but the explanation with the fewest assumptions, that is most probably correct.
What is more improbable, that three steel-framed buildings would collapse at free-fall speed (one of which was not even hit by an airplane) due to fire, that there were numerous individuals secretly involved in demolishing the buildings, or that they were felled by special advanced technology (such as the Tesla Howitzer)? I have no idea; each one is hard to believe. But whether Wells likes it or not, the collapse of the buildings is, for many, the smoking gun pointing to conspiracy.
James Leroy Wilson's one-man magazine.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I could see your point of view, based on the fact the way the buildings fell and I must admit that it looked exactly how you seen it, as if a demolition dropped the building. However, with that said, to believe that it was a controlled demolition then why only building 7? Once the world trade center buildings collapse the government does not need building 7. Why take the after even one trade collapse why risk getting caught. It is easy to ram a plane into a building with very little preparation, but to do a control demolition would take a lot of preparation. In order for the government to do a control demolition the government would have to plan months in advance and sooner or later somebody would have notice something. In the event that only building 7 collapse in order for the government to get there hype meaning needing more then just an explosion or as if in 1993 it was not a plane, but in quote a planted bomb I would definitely be on board with your theory.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to what I previously stated before, looking at your anti government views I can not come to the same conclusion. To believe that the government would kill sent out to kill even one or two people doesn’t make sense but mass murder in this magnitude is out right insane. Our very system of government prevents this; the checks and balances, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. One example of this is President Nixon and Watergate, and was just a brake in and cover up. Perhaps maybe this was South America, Russia, or Africa I would share your view point.
ReplyDeleteUh, I didn't come to any conclusions here. I'm just saying that none of the explanations are believeable: coincidence, conspiracy, or scifi.
ReplyDeleteI lived about 1000 meters east of the towers .
ReplyDeletePhysics HAS explained the building collapses thoroughly and with Occam's parsimony .
It is sad these stupid fantasies persist .
See http://www.cosy.com/CoSy/ConicAllConnect/
for a vision of what could be created in the towers' memory .