I might be conflating the conspiracy theory narratives myself, but I had an epiphany last week and like all good skeptics I tried to figure out how the available evidence fit into it.
I was wondering whether or not this whole superfluous "controlled demolition" idea sprang up from the no-plane theories of the early 2000s. No plane = no reason for the towers to collapse except by brute force demolition. Then the demolition scenario took on a life of its own, eventually standing alone as the main talking point while the other crazy theories quietly fizzled out.
For a reasonable skeptic, on its face, the controlled demolition claim is grossly superfluous. Why crash a jumbo jet into skyscrapers and THEN demolish them. It's simply not worth the effort.
My theory about the origins of the controlled demolition scenario may explain how truthers ended up in such an awkward spot.
Then again, it could have sprung up on it's own when truthers used their "common sense" to determine that any building collapsing is demolition :rolleyes:.
I was wondering whether or not this whole superfluous "controlled demolition" idea sprang up from the no-plane theories of the early 2000s. No plane = no reason for the towers to collapse except by brute force demolition. Then the demolition scenario took on a life of its own, eventually standing alone as the main talking point while the other crazy theories quietly fizzled out.
For a reasonable skeptic, on its face, the controlled demolition claim is grossly superfluous. Why crash a jumbo jet into skyscrapers and THEN demolish them. It's simply not worth the effort.
My theory about the origins of the controlled demolition scenario may explain how truthers ended up in such an awkward spot.
Then again, it could have sprung up on it's own when truthers used their "common sense" to determine that any building collapsing is demolition :rolleyes:.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2lMfblj
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire