Anders

One of the most tiresome things about debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories is that the comments never change. It has been 25 years. The same claims are repeated endlessly, no matter how many times they’ve been answered: • “Jet fuel can’t melt steel.” • “The buildings fell at free-fall speed.” • “People heard explosions.” • “It looked exactly like a controlled demolition.” • “WTC 7 wasn’t hit by a plane.” Over and over and over. And what’s remarkable is how little the conspiracy theory itself has developed in 25 years. No improved model. No detailed mechanism explaining how the supposed demolition was actually accomplished. No credible evidence of explosives, detonators, wiring, blasting caps, or demolition charges. No explanation for how an occupied office complex could have been secretly prepared for demolition. No serious attempt to resolve the enormous contradictions their theory creates. No new evidence that finally closes those gaps. Nothing. They don’t refine the theory when its weaknesses are exposed. They simply return to the beginning and repeat the original claims again. “Jet fuel can’t melt steel.” “Free fall.” “Explosions.” “Controlled demolition.” As though repeating something for the ten-thousandth time somehow makes it stronger. After 25 years, you would expect a serious alternative explanation to have evolved, become more detailed, made successful predictions, addressed criticism, and accumulated compelling new evidence. Instead, 9/11 conspiracy culture is still recycling essentially the same talking points people were posting on message boards two decades ago. At some point, the complete failure of a theory to progress becomes evidence about the theory itself.