A and Not A

One of the things that is so irksome about the "Truthers" is that they are completely immune to common logic. Logically speaking, both A and Not A cannot be true. If I say, "I'm not in my house and I'm in my house," it is pretty freaking obvious that only one of those statements can be true.

But the "Truthers" appear to have adopted as their credo the White Queen's claim of believing six impossible things before breakfast.

Take, for example, the many supposed warnings the US government supposedly received about 9-11. Now, most of the "Truthers" we discuss around here believe 9-11 was an inside job, planned and executed by the US government. But if that's the case, exactly what were the foreign intelligence personnel passing on in their warnings? "Hey, we want to warn you guys that a rogue element in your government is planning on crashing planes into the World Trade Center." See the problem? If you believe 9-11 was an inside job, then you should, logically speaking, discount the notion that the US government received warnings.

For another example, consider the fuss that the Truthers are kicking up about a structural engineer blasting his professional association for covering up the design flaws in the construction of the World Trade Center.

Now when you first look at this, you can see it might sound like it's conducive to the crackpot claims of controlled demolition:

In the World Trade Center case, critics contend the engineering society wrongly concluded skyscrapers cannot withstand getting hit by airplanes.

But reading further should reveal the problem:

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a structural engineer and forensics expert, contends his computer simulations disprove the society's findings that skyscrapers could not be designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner.

Astaneh-Asl, who received money from the National Science Foundation to investigate the collapse, insisted most New York skyscrapers built with traditional designs would survive such an impact and prevent the kind of fires that brought down the twin towers.

See the problem? It's that little phrase "with traditional designs". The World Trade Center was built with an untraditional design. But in the effort to prove that the buildings must have been demolished, the Troofers have routinely exaggerated the construction quality of the Towers. Uncle Fetzer used to talk about how "extremely robust" the buildings were. I don't recall Richard Gage's phrase offhand, but the 43 central steel columns get described in loving detail.

But with his ability to believe A and Not A, Gage has already pounced on Astaneh-Asl's statements:

Richard Gage AIA, the founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and hundreds of other industry experts' call for a new investigation into the collapse of the WTC twin towers and Building 7 is gaining strength following revelations of falsification and cover-up in relation to the FEMA-funded inquiry into the destruction of the buildings on 9/11.

Richard, Astaneh-Asl is saying you're wrong. He's saying that normal skyscrapers might have survived 9-11, but NOT the WTC Towers, with their untraditional design.