I get that the absence of answers only leaves room for speculation, but I would caution everyone not to move to conspiracy.
I'm speculating.
I'm saying "What if...".
I see something that makes, to me at least, no logical sense. If it's really as simple as "saving money on operations", then I'm flabbergasted. This isn't something I can imagine any company in a position of fighting for any level of dominance in their field would do, nuking one of the main effects on one of their shows, that the whole show is effectively dependent on and designed around. To me, It's akin to trying to watch a Cirque du Soleli performance from a one inch hole on the side of the tent or through a crack in the doors to the theater.
After seeing the way some companies handle issues like these from personal experience, absolutely nothing I've said would surprise me. I've witnessed many crazy, silly, things first hand. There's no hard evidence for anything I've speculated, only observation. I wouldn't put any of these things on the record as hard truths. I'm not saying any of this is "why". I truly do not know why anything from the doors to the glasses has happened with the attraction, I just know they happened and are happening.
In regards to the 3d glasses, I can imagine a world where someone uses and abuses the ride verbiage of "protective goggles" or whatever they bill them as to think that meant something other than there intended use and claim an injury, or some other instance of misuse that calls into question operating the attraction with the goggles vs without, that gives more weight to the idea that the attraction should be operated without them as a cost cutting measure, or because this thing happened, it save them even more operating money without them. If you are saving so much money operating without a primary part of the attraction, Why? What happened?
It would make sense if there's another reason in addition to the glasses cleaners for this specific attraction being down a bunch.
Speaking of, I can even imagine a scenario where the manufacturer of the glasses claims cleaning them in another machine voids a warranty or creates an exception in an agreement somewhere so they refuse to fix the problem, or otherwise claim the operator is incorrectly operating the glasses and has such voided their agreement. I can then, very easily see a scenario where an exec says "Until we can find another manufacturer/supplier for a 3D solution, we will operate the attraction without using their tech, we are giving them no more money". I've seen things like this happen in my time, too.
This is all speculation. I do not know for sure. But quite frankly I don't believe it's unreasonable or edging on the brink of conspiracy to suggest in the spirit of "fandom speculation" any of these things as maybe a reason why, considering it seems the zeitgeist of this thread is the removal of the glasses was an idea handed down by mandate, and the "testing" of this mode of operations was rigged... Speaking of conspiracies... lol. If this is an "acceptable" string of speculation in this thread, then trying to understand why this is so is fair game.
This is how I think, I submit every possible vector of attack into my speculative reasoning. I think of solutions and different scenarios that can create the known unknown, or to try and understand the reasoning behind what I consider in terms of operations a silly decision, and I even will ideate on some of this speculative reasoning.
In the absence of absolute knowledge, in the absence of absolute truth, minds will wander. I'm just posting all the places my mind can wander on "why" based on my own personal experiences and observations. I'm not selling any of this as the absolute reason any of this is happening, and that's the primary difference between intense speculation and forming conspiracy.
Please take care of how you address people in public forum. I'm not really feeling being called out by a mod like I'm some sort of conspiracy nut-job. Your "warning" is closer to an attack than it is trying to cool wild speculation about an issue, and I understand it can be annoying if perhaps you might be more keen on exactly why the issue persist, or just being generally more knowledgeably about the attraction or park operations in general, but being a mod in this forum means you are also a KOL in this forum. You can address the reasons the content of my message might not be wholly viable in vague general terms, Maybe even asking me to defend my speculative reasoning versus creating a public implication in the form of a passive impression about how I speculate...