This is how we lose the argument with truthers. It is simply implausible that, after twenty years, there's a logical contradiction within established "professional opinion"
on the WTC collapses. It would, perhaps, be reasonable that some disagreements
remain, but if that were the case they would be openly acknowledged. Even the idea that the science might be unsettled to this day seems strange, however. So strange, in fact, that it warrants the truther's suspicions.
To see what I mean, consider a recent popular video by "Mentour Pilot" on the Paris Concorde crash.
Notice how confident and detailed he is (the video runs to almost 40 minutes). He's an expert (a pilot) talking about the results of an official investigation, which arrived at conclusions that are not really in dispute (Wikipedia's "alternative theories"
section notwithstanding). At no point does he have to explain something from "first principles" without a solid grounding in the accident report; and at no point, certainly, does he have to contradict "accepted wisdom". He is simply and calmly (with clean, comprehensible visuals) explaining to interested members of the public what is known
about the accident. He's not embroiling his viewers in controversy. He's just telling us "the REAL story".
The fact that this sort of public performance of knowledge and expertise doesn't exist for the WTC collapses yet (and remember that the Paris crash is just a little older than 9/11) is a serious embarrassment for us. It's exactly for this reason that AE9/11T's "experts" are persuasive. We can "debunk" them only in the sense of engaging with their ideas and "proving" them wrong, but in the next breath, it seems, we debunk the "official" experts too, and on the same "first principles" that show that the truther's "architects and engineers" don't know what they're talking about. The public is left to wonder whether "the experts" even know
how the buildings collapsed.
This is a hugely unsatisfying situation, in my opinion. I don't think this is any fault of Econ's or any other metabunkers. I think this is a serious failure of the engineering profession to, well, know
how those buildings collapsed, to be the experts,
"the adults in the room," if you will. They should have sorted out the "received view", the "official position", long, long ago, so that we could just illustrate and explain it to people who are in doubt.