(October 15, 2013 at 8:18 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:(October 14, 2013 at 10:10 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: The manner in which the buildings collapsed will be directly influenced by the political atmosphere. This would be the case if the buildings really were demolished. Therefore, if we look at the WTC buildings in isolation and come to a conclusion, it will have powerful implications for what the political atmosphere would have been like. And, personally, I find it a lot easier to analyze something physical such as buildings collapsing than the political atmosphere. Physics doesn't lie.
Cause and effect, though, which was really what I was asking in my other post a whilst back.
The political and social context of the event may also impact on the way the act is carried out too. I think it's impossible to look at weather the WTC was demolished in a controlled demolition synchronically. Indeed, I think doing a diachronic analysis really does blow the idea that the WTC was demolished out of the water if I'm honest.
I just think a diachronic analysis has too many dimensions to it. In saying that though, the dimensions grow proportionally to how much one is willing to assume. An extreme example: for those that believe the Illuminati are behind it, they will happily assume that the media is controlled by them. Thus, in the event that a diachronic analysis leads to the conclusion that the buildings weren't demolished, the "Illuminatist" will say "but of course you'd come to that conclusion!" They might also believe that evidence has been destroyed which would lead back to the US having performed the "attacks". Then at the other end of the scale, we have more.. uhh.. "down to earth" people who will assume every bit of info/media can be trusted, and thus, an altogether different theory will be put forward.
A synchronic analysis bypasses all the subjectivity and tedious effort of the diachronic analysis. Physics is rather straight forward as opposed to trying to follow a story.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle