Posted: Nov 30, 2010 7:32 am
by econ41
Patriots4Truth wrote:pretty sad that the only feasible global collapse scenarios that support natural collapse are relatively new and are still under construction/scrutiny

Not really.

The inevitability of "global collapse" was never seriously doubted from the outset. My own postings on the matter came within weeks of my interest in the matter bringing me to the RDNet forum. Even then there was no doubt among those who accepted "no demolition" - merely curiosity as to the details. My posting of details was independent of any other Internet posting - the global collapse is relatively easy to explain - however I was not aware of anyone actually explaining it at the time I posted my material.

It may help if you can get yourself into the mindset of 2006-2007-early2008. There were few "Truthers" in the sense of those obsessed with conspiracy and prepared to argue at any cost to personal integrity. There were quite a few genuine sceptics - those who were sceptical to the "Official Story" of (in this case at WTC) "no demolition" AND those who simply did not understand the natural collapse mechanisms.

So it was nowhere near the same polarised two sided debate you see now. And reasoned debate was more the norm contrast with now where "truthers" dominate and have not the slightest interest in reasoned discussion or (much misused word) "truth".

It is all much easier to understand if you remember that there never was any serious possibility of demolition at WTC. Take that as your base line when looking at the history.

I realise that all of us involved in this debate tend to think from the distorted and untrue paradigm which presupposes that demolition is a reasonable alternative to consider. That is nonsense in any objective framing of the issues. But we have become accustomed to accepting it because the whole Internet debate requires the "opponents of truthers" to debate within the false boundaries set up by the truthers. That or there will be no debate.