As further proof that no idea is so idiotic that it won’t be adopted and shouted from the rooftops by every wackjob with a proverbial megaphone, I caught this little nugget flying by on Digg BigSpy: CBS Anchor Said WTC 7 Collapse Resembled Demolition.

So I have a question for those who were absent from philosophy 1101 on the day Occam’s Razor was introduced, and have subsequently taken to seeking out the most complicated, illogical and painfully absurd answers - and I use the plural because these folks are inevitably presenting their ideas as “just one of many alternate theories” - to any given question (such as “Who was responsible for 9/11?”): Just how many different ways can a building collapse?

I mean, seriously. When someone says that WTC 7’s demise “looked like a demolition”, what do they mean? In comparison to what? Or, more precisely, try this: If the official story - that the building’s structural integrity was compromised by fire and the nearby destruction of buildings 1 and 2 - were true, what would the collapse of WTC 7 look like? The answer, of course, is that it would look like what we saw on 9/11. And yes, what we saw on 9/11 does resemble a demolition. This is not surprising, as the demolition of a large building is accomplished by weakening the structure’s base and allowing it to collapse in on itself - exactly what happened to WTC 7, except the weakened structure was the result of extreme heat and an unstable foundation (which were themselves the work of a small band of hoodlums dedicated to expanding the only remaining massively oppressive philosophical/theological system known to man).

On the other hand, the answer we get from the barking moonbat fringe of both the left and right wings is “Nothing like what happened.” This response remains - and will continue to remain - consistent in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary (not to mention common sense). If these folks had the intellectual honesty to admit that their theories would provide a spectacle identical to that suggested by official sources, one could at least partially justify lending them an ear now and then. Thankfully - for I have very little free time and few unoccupied neural synapses - they have managed to make complete asses of themselves from moment one. Don’t think for even a moment that I don’t appreciate this: not only does it keep things simple, it provides excellent fodder for blog posts.

The truth is that there is a limited number of ways in which a large building can collapse; such structures are, for example, unlikely to tip over like a bookcase or neatly split down the center. I have yet to hear one theory as to just what we should have seen if the official 9/11 narrative was accurate (and I hasten to point out that those peddling conspiracy theories of this genre are logically obligated to provide one). Anyone who can provide me with some speculation along these lines will have their comments amended to this post.

I’ll have more to say about this later.