the son of the grandson of cognitive dissonance

Es­ti­mated reading time is 2 min­utes.

THE FURSHLUGGINER HEADLINE SCREAMS in huge 30-point type: “Met­al­worker De­bunks One of the Big The­o­ries Held by 9/11 Truthers.” The ar­ticle was written by David Ed­wards for Raw Story but I re­ceived it in my morn­ing’s email newsletter from Al­ternet. It in­cludes a sub-title: “The idea that jet fuel can’t melt steel beams’ is bullsh*t, he demon­strates.” 1

The met­al­worker is quoted as saying, “If [9/11] was a con­spiracy, I do not care. What I am upset about is the ridicu­lous met­al­lur­gical things that you guys are saying. If you hold this up as reason for con­spiracy, you are an idiot.”

We then are treated to a video of his proof that some of us are id­iots. But here’s the kicker—the final para­graph in the ar­ticle quotes Pop­ular Me­chanics on the met­al­work­er’s demonstration:

“He openly ad­mits that the forge he was using heated the steel beam sev­eral hun­dred de­grees above the tem­per­a­ture at which jet fuel burns. That, and he doesn’t say how long the beam has been in the forge, or offer any ev­i­dence of the forge’s ac­tual tem­per­a­ture. His little ex­per­i­ment here is more party trick than per­fect simulation.”

If this is so, then not only has the met­al­worker NOT de­bunked ANY thing about ANY con­spiracy, he has ac­tu­ally given cre­dence to sev­eral of those conspiracies.

What is this ar­ticle then about?

Did Mr Ed­wards re­alize that his quoting Pop­ular Me­chanics de­bunked his “de­bunking” article?

Or maybe Ed­wards is part of some bigger, deeper, more sin­ister conspiracy . . .

Fi­nally, please note that with “son of grandson of cog­ni­tive dis­so­nance” I have not made an ar­gu­ment for nor against any theory re­garding the truth or un­truth be­hind the of­fi­cial 9/11 con­spiracy theory prof­fered by the Na­tional Com­mis­sion on Ter­rorist At­tacks Upon the United States. 2

So there, Mr. Dealy-Buddy, sir!



HEADER IMAGE: One of many pho­tographs of New York City on Sep­tember 11, 2001, after two of the World Trade Center sky­scrapers were struck by two jet air­craft and in a sym­pa­thetic re­sponse to their sister building, four other build­ings in the WTC ap­par­ently suf­fered si­mul­ta­neous bouts of spon­ta­neous com­bus­tion. 3



1  I have no idea why there is an apos­trophe after “beams.”

2   The 9/11 Com­mis­sion Re­port is no­table not only for the volume of data it presents to back its con­spiracy theory, but also for the volume of data that it ig­nores that flies in the face of its of­fi­cial con­spiracy theory.

3   Prior to 9/11, plumes of black smoke in a fire of this kind was usu­ally in­ter­preted as the fact that the source was oxygen starved and hence burning low and out. Of course, that would un­der­mine the of­fi­cial con­spiracy theory, so now we have years of de­bate as to what black smoke means post-9/11. And since spon­ta­neous com­bus­tion is a damn near para­normal phe­nom­enon, where the hell were Mulder and Scully on this one?


Notify of
Rate this article:
Please rate this article with your comment.
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Foot­note #3 : I think it means that the Col­lege of Car­di­nals elected a new Pope, or not...

It gives the the­o­rists a whole new group to blame the last 14 years on!!!

Crank Up The Bubble Ma­chine, Myron.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x