The Bird On Gadsby
Our longtime buddy Stephen Lemons has some thoughts on the 9-11 "Truth" Diet.
I for one hope that Gadsby is successful in his hunger strike. Nah, I don't want him to get any time with McCain. I want him to starve! And as he does so, I'd like to be there, noshing on some Chinese takeout. Plus if Gadsby keels over from lack of sustenance, maybe his students will get a replacement religion prof who has a PhD and is not a complete fruitcake. Hey, dare to dream, people.
As I've pointed out in the past, WTC 7 is a foolish focus for the "Truthers", because it takes too long a chain of an argument:
Truther: WTC 7 proves 9-11 was an inside job.
Debunker: How so?
Truther: Because it came down in a controlled demolition.
Debunker: So what? The fear that the building would collapse was impeding rescue efforts in the towers, so maybe they brought down the building.
Truther: No, it takes months to rig a building for controlled demolition.
Debunker: So they couldn't have done it? Is that what you're saying?
Truther: No, I'm saying that they did do it. They set it up months in advance.
Debunker: And nobody noticed this? But let's grant your point for a second. What's the big deal? Nobody died in WTC 7, so what does it matter?
Truther: But if WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, then the towers must have been controlled demolitions too!
Debunker: Okay, so what you're really trying to prove is that the towers were controlled demolitions, and the reason you know this is that another building was a controlled demolition? Why do the collapses of the two towers look nothing like the collapse of WTC 7?
Truther: Because they were a different kind of controlled demolition!