Last night, for some odd reason, I felt like I'd rather bicker with a 9/11 conspiracy theorist on Eschaton than stain and seal my entryway floor.
As you might imagine, I was plied with a fairly stiff dose of snake oil. While suffering through a description of the laborious pre-positioning of Thermate-TH3 charges – an improbable scenario floated by Steven E. Jones from BYU - a thought struck me: Why would they bother?
If 9/11 was intended to serve as a new Pearl Harbor, then flying two planes into the WTC would’ve been more than sufficient to set BushCo’s hair-trigger war machine in motion. Why go to the trouble, expense, and risk of trying to cut dozens of structural columns with something as unreliable (and unproven for the purpose) as thermite or its analogs? Why use micronukes, for that matter, or any of the other demolition methods championed by 9/11 “truthseekers”? How many politicians or journalists were going to say, “We can’t invade Afghanistan…the towers are still standing! Get back to us when something dramatic happens.”
We justified Gulf War I on the grounds that Saddam’s soldiers had murdered Kuwaiti babies by tipping them out of incubators - an atrocity which never actually happened. Call me a Pollyanna if you like, but I think that live footage of flame-enveloped Americans leaping from the upper floors of the WTC made the Kuwaiti incubator story seem like an episode of Green Acres. The shock, the fear, the desire for revenge…all of this could be exploited just as easily whether or not the towers actually fell.
All of which reconfirms my belief that the “controlled demolition” scenario is an escapist fantasy for people who can’t face the truth, and that its overall effect is not to cast doubt on the Administration’s laughable narrative, but to make it seem comparatively plausible.