As you know, I will soon quit this blog because -- well, because the readers turn my stomach. This decision, though unimportant to the world at large, depresses me more than you can guess. I have wasted a large section of my life yet again, and I\\\'m too old for such errors.

Life is what happens when you are making other plans. My original plan, silly as it may now sound, was to attract a more-or-less sensible readership -- the kind of people who follow the work of Josh Marshall and the other \\\"left wing gatekeepers\\\" you people seem to hate so much. Of course, this blog could never attain anything like those numbers, but I did, at least, want the average Cannonfire reader to have a certain level of sanity.

Instead, I find that my readers have become obsessed with the inane \\\"controlled demolition\\\" theory of 9/11. Which means that I address on a daily basis people I consider enemies and fools.

Do you know what it\\\'s like to sell a painting you love to a patron you hate? I do. It\\\'s a bad feeling. And that is what I feel like every day.

Right now, the site still attracts (Lord knows why) a decent-sized readership. Many high-traffic pages link to it. The Google pagerank is a respectable 6. The blog makes no real money now, but with BlogAds and an uptick in readership (perhaps a 7 pagerank?), it could generate a pleasant little income stream. So perhaps someone may want to take it over, gratis, even though doing so means inheriting my name in the title. Starting a political blog from absolute zero is not easy these days; building a readership base takes years.

Until someone new shows up, I\\\'ll keep the thing alive with some material in preparation.

In the meantime, the extremely masochistic among you can read (after the jump) a re-written compendium of some of the CD debunking material previously relegated to the comments section. This should give you some idea why I\\\'ve reached the end of such wits as I possess.

(To read the rest, click \\\"Permalink\\\" below)

A message to those who preach the Gospel of Controlled Demolition:

THERE WAS NO REASON TO BLOW UP THE DAMN TWIN TOWERS.

The sight of jets hitting the building was all that any neocon plotter needed, if plot there was. That image alone birthed all the fear and anger that the Republicans needed to do what they subsequently did.

Yes, I\\\'ve heard your stupid \\\"Oomph\\\" arguments. (That is my pet name for any argument which holds that the towers were brought down to maximize psychological impact.) There really is no need to recite that argument to me yet again, folks; I heard you the first thousand times, and I really wish you would stop acting as though you have anything to say to me that I have not heard before.

The \\\"Oomph\\\" argument is PURE HORSESHIT.

Even if we concede (hypothetically) that the whole thing was a conspiracy, with Bush and Rove and Cheney and the head of Mossad all cackling like demons as they engineered the disaster, I would STILL say that the extra psychological \\\"oomph,\\\" which supposedly could be achieved only by the fall of the towers, did not justify the loss of life and the massive drain on the economy.

Not to mention the added risk.

The chance of discovery. The chance of someone talking. The chance of a deathbed confession.

And: The likelihood, nay, the certainty that a real controlled demolition would immediately be identified as such by every expert in that field.

I\\\'ve read more books and articles on espionage and parapolitics than have the puerile kids who think they can lecture me. I\\\'ve been around the block a few times. I\\\'ve met plenty of shady types, and I generally assume the worst of my fellow human beings. More than that, I\\\'ve been on the receiving end of the \\\"conspiracy theorist\\\" accusation a few times. Yet even I cannot believe that a sizable group of American conspirators would engineer such explosions, such a massive loss of American life, such a crippling blow directed at the heart of the American economy, with nary a peep of protest from any perp.

These Americans-conspiring-against-Americans would have to include a legion of experts, including those who wrote the NIST report, as well as all the other scientific papers which argue against the idea of a CD conspiracy.

The \\\"oomph\\\" argument is the worst sort of ex post facto reasoning. You people have decided that CD occurred. CD is the central fact of your universe; all else is mutable. Therefore, you are looking for an after-the-fact way to rationalize the use of CD when none was needed.

I\\\'ve said it before. Let\\\'s say it again:

Let us suppose that some \\\"Mr. Evil\\\" type was pressing buttons and setting off bombs remotely that day. Why would he detonate the south tower first -- a move which seems counter-intuitive, since it was hit first?

Why not wait until the south tower was evacuated?

If the idea was to maximize the loss of life in order to scare people and provide that oh-so-necessary maximum psychological OOOMPH, then why did Mr. Evil allow the north tower to be evacuated before the alleged \\\"detonation\\\"?

Why not bring \\\'em both down at the same time? THAT would have been the oomphiest move of all.

Perhaps (you might argue) he needed a certain degree of Oomph, but not too much Oomph. Perhaps the button-pressing fiend was Mr. Somewhat Evil, not Mr. Extremely Evil.

But even if I were to accept that inane logic, another problem arises. In real life, controlled demolitions begin at the bottom. These collapses began at the impact point.

How would the plotters know which floor the jets would hit?

The CD-ers say that there were earwitnesses to explosions in the tower in the period between impact and collapse. I say: \\\"So what? Gas lines, transformers and falling material could account for those sounds.\\\"

Okay, let\\\'s say that those explanations do not suffice. Let us concede, for argument\\\'s sake, that bombs and only bombs could have caused those noises. That means we must posit that someone pre-planted something that goes BOOM, like C4.

But then the question arises as to why the jet strike did not ignite either the explosive or its trigger.

The CD-ers, stumped by that poser, have proposed the use of thermite, which burns at 2000 degrees, hotter than a kerosene fire.

Proof of thermite? Dr. Jones says that sulfur and barium were found. Alas, we would expect that material to be found, due to the substances within the building.

Do you have any idea how much thermite would be needed to melt all those steel columns? TONS. See here.

How the hell could anyone secrete tons of the stuff -- on every floor (because there was no way to know which floor would be hit)?

Why wouldn\\\'t the jet fuel ignite the triggering device? Fourth of July sparklers can be used to set off thermite, and they can be lit by a match. Even matches have been used to ignite thermite (sez Wikipedia).

And how could thermite react vertically?

But never mind all that. Consider this: Thermite does not explode.

So what about those explosions that were heard? Gee, I thought they constituted positive proof of a CD! Suddenly, the \\\"best\\\" evidence of CD comes to...nothing.

OK, the theorists say, maybe it was a combo of thermite AND conventional explosions. As if that idea makes any sense.

Finally we have Jim Fetzer (whom I learned to dislike long before September 11, 2001) saying, no, it was an outer space Star Wars howitzer. Not probably, not perhaps, not maybe -- DEFINITELY.

Good God. Good God.

DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW FUCKING LUDICROUS THIS SOUNDS?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound when you come up with ornate formulae to explain (or to render mysterious) the pulverization of concrete, when anyone with eyes could see that floors and walls and drywall were collapsing under enormous weight?

Do you have any idea how annoying it is to be told repeatedly that the building collapsed at \\\"free fall speed\\\" when it clearly did not? The Loose Change video claims to demonstrate just that point, but the clip ends when the first bits of rubble (which are exceeding the rate of collapse!) hit the ground. Which proves only that free-falling rubble will fall at free-fall speeds. Like, duh.

The scenarios keep twisting into surreal new shapes. \\\"CD must remain. All other considerations may come and go.\\\"

Right now, I am sure that someone out there wants to tell me: \\\"The twin towers are a straw man. What about Building 7?\\\"

When I wrote about Building 7 some months back, snarky readers said \\\"WTC7 is a straw man. What about the Twin Towers?\\\"

The whole \\\"straw man\\\" argument is itself a straw man. Every time someone debunks one sector of the CD argument, the buffs counter: \\\"Oh, you are attacking a straw man. What about this other thing over here...?\\\"

Those who oppose pseudoscience are accused of acting in bad faith if they restrict the argument of a single essay to a single topic. Do you have any idea how irritating it is to have to write the equivalent of an entire book -- over and over, every time the subject comes up? Why must I operate under that requirement, when the CDers do not?

The fact is, you do not have a single expert in controlled demolition in the world who accepts the controlled demolition theory of the fall of the World Trade Center. No structural engineers. No architects. Not one.

You have but one expert in physics, who has been successfully refuted more than once. The fucking sulfur was in the fucking drywall, dammit!

Professor Jones\\\' other publication, in a world of publish-or-perish, tries to provide \\\"scientific\\\" proof that Jesus was in America 2000 years ago. Since that piece purports to be a scientific paper, not a religious treatise, and since Jones has not backed away from it, we are perfectly justified in using it to assess Jones\\\' capacity for self-deception.

How many pro-CD peer-reviewed articles have appeared in respected scientific publications -- that is to say, publications which started business before September 11, 2001? Zero.

The CD-ers began their own publication, the Journal of 9/11 Studies. CD-ers then have the nerve to say that the articles appearing within that journal were \\\"peer reviewed,\\\" even though no experts in controlled demolition are among the peers.

Of course, there are \\\"peer reviewed\\\" publications devoted to Creationism, Holocaust Revisionism and flying saucers. The fact remains that in all genuine journals in relevant disciplines, published articles have proven embarrassing to the CD gospel.

I\\\'m sick of the bullying tactics employed by the CD-ers, and I refuse to apologize for bullying \\\'em right back. They deserve worse words than they ever have received from me.

Anyone who doesn\\\'t go along with their fantasies gets damned as a Bush-lover. Even well-known progressive writers stand among the damned: Amy Goodman, Kos, Marshall. Bush\\\'s buds, all of \\\'em.

This, despite the fact that the CD-ers have received plenty of exposure -- not always respectful exposure, but exposure -- on Hannity and Colmes and other right-wing shows. This, despite the fact that the CD movement includes many holdovers from the 90\\\'s era Clinton-haters, and is led by a conservative Mormon who voted for the sunvabitch in the Oval Office.

Finally, let us confront the famous words I\\\'ve heard more than once: \\\"I\\\'ll bet you think Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone!\\\"

If you feel tempted to repeat those dreaded words, let me clue you in: I\\\'ve met and corresponded with and spoken on the telephone with many of the most famous authors in the assassination research field. I\\\'ve spoken with eyewitnesses. (Well, I didn\\\'t exactly speak with Ed Hoffman.) In the 1990s, I helped, in a modest way, to found an organization devoted to researching the case.

The earliest critical authors on the JFK case -- Sylvan Fox, Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher, Thomas Buchanan, Harold Weisberg and company -- all wrote to a much higher standard than we see in the CD literature.

As far as I can see, the CD community has attracted only two sympathists from the JFK assassination research community: Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs. I wouldn\\\'t want either man on my side. If they said \\\"Cannon is a nice name,\\\" I would consider changing it. Marrs is the guy who wrote Alien Agenda, which expresses uncritical belief in every foolish rumor then current in the saucer-land. He also wrote Rule by Secrecy, which promotes every bizarre conspiracy hoax (including Holocaust revisionism) ever to seep out of the John Birch Society port-a-potty.

Fetzer annoyed every sensible JFK researcher with his inane insistence that the Zapruder film was heavily altered using technology not available at the time, even though the \\\"bad guys\\\" could not have had access to all copies of the film. Fetzer has refused to learn any of the relevant technical history. I doubt that he could replicate the feat using 8mm equipment, even if given a month\\\'s worth of time. I doubt that he could find any \\\"old hand\\\" at Hollywood special effects who could provide such results. (Even 2001: A Space Odyssey had obvious matte work. That show was filmed on 65mm stock. Imagine trying to do it in 8mm!) Hell, I doubt that Fetzer even has sufficient technical savvy to replicate the feat using Photoshop. With the Zapruder film, as with his 9/11 space howitzer, he follows the simple formula of technology=magic.

Those are the two fellows on your side, CD-ers. None of the other \\\"old guard\\\" members of the JFK research community can stomach your company. DiEgenio, Summers, Lane, Scott, Brown, Pease...? I suppose they must all be well-paid Bush-loving disinformationists.

No joke, that. CD-ers really do think that way. Look at this page from a true 911 conspiracist:

Lisa writes about the assassinations of the Kennedys and other people. Not surprisingly, Pease did not have much to say about 9-11 at our meetings, even though the meetings were about 9-11. However, she told me and Bollyn that there is no Zionist connection to the Kennedy assassination; that Apollo astronauts really did land on the moon; and that we are incorrect about a Zionist connection to 9-11.

In that writer\\\'s opinion, belief in the reality of Project Apollo is a bad thing.

The writer goes on to presume evil intent on Lisa\\\'s part because she does not believe that journalist Gary Webb was murdered, a conclusion she came to after discussion with Webb\\\'s family.The family must be part of the conspiracy.

Man, this thing is bigger than I thought.

I\\\'ve had it with people whose minds work in this fashion. I\\\'ve had it with people who think we never went to the moon. I\\\'ve had it with people who believe that Jews killed JFK. I\\\'ve had it with people who believe that Devil-worshipers run the world. I\\\'ve had it with CD-ers.

I know I cannot stop my fellow citizens from shouting bizarre views. But why do they come here? When I delete their comments, I am accused of censorship; when I allow anyone to say anything, insanity and insult rule the day. For God\\\'s sake, what writings of mine prompted this infestation? Did my pieces on Wilkes and election fraud and Litvinenko and \\\"bulge-gate\\\" open the door to Arkham Asylum? Did I really write such freak-friendly material?

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/12/anyone-want-used-blog.html