Do any "truthers" actually think they will get another investigation?

[DGM]

The title says it all.

 

[swright777]

Planet X, of course.

But seriously, getting a new investigation would be the worst thing in the world for truthers.

The results would be the same, truthers would no longer have a battle cry, and truthers would be hated even more for wasting time and money.

"We need another-nother investigation" just doesn't go over too well imo.

 

[jaydeehess]

As I said in 'tother thread, yes, I believe that some do.

Poor deluded souls, bless their hearts

 

[Craig4]

I don't think they want one. It's much easier to pretend to know some secret truth and be all superior to the "sheeple".

 

[threadworm]

I don't think they want one. It's much easier to pretend to know some secret truth and be all superior to the "sheeple".

My exact thoughts - it's much better for their POV if 'they' keep 'them' from finding the 'truth'.

Of course if there was one, it would find exactly the same things and they would then get to start the battle all over again.

 

[Spanx]

I think the truthers idea of an investigation is an investigation into all of the BS on the net.

They will want answers to questions which have nothing to do with the events of 911, things like, "did larry pull it" etc.

Even if they got millions of signatures they would not get a say in how any investigation would be carried out, this would mean another fund raiser and another petition and the cycle will continue.

 

[Redwood]

I think a new invesigation run by truthers would he hilarious; the freak show to end all freak shows. Imagine all the factions showing up, demanding to be heard. Mini-nukers, Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer, September Clues, Ace Baker no-planers, Morgan Reynolds, April Gallop - pure comedy gold.

 

[thedopefishlives]

I think a new invesigation run by truthers would he hilarious; the freak show to end all freak shows. Imagine all the factions showing up, demanding to be heard. Mini-nukers, Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer, September Clues, Ace Baker no-planers, Morgan Reynolds, April Gallop - pure comedy gold.

And this is the desired end result of any such "investigation". Think about what they want: An "impartial panel" (read: people who aren't brainwashed sheeple, aka Truthers) with subpoena powers (so they can assert their dominance over Darth Cheney and his ilk). They basically want a show trial, and anything less is unacceptable. But it would be absolutely hilarious to watch the parade of so-called "evidence" and grandstanding done by the Truthers as they carry out their little fantasy.

 

[Spanx]

I think they will want large tv screens on every street corner playing YouTube clips 24 7 and any trial will take place through Facebook. a massive cash injection in Gage's bank account and perhaps someone could rustle up a Caribbean island for him live on with hardcore truthers sucking his toes.

 

[Blaupunkt69]

Unless each Truther ran their own investigation, presided over their own courtroom, produced their own press, and ensured every individual on the planet reveived and 100% bought into their way of thinking, etc they will never accept or trust an investigation.

 

[JSanderO]

I suspect a non biased person who had questions about the collapses and felt that the explanations don't make perfect sense might welcome additional study and analysis... and the results.

The typical truther has a confirmation bias and would want to investigation to prove there was a CD and if it didn't they would like call it another cover up conspiracy.

Truther is not an accurate way to describe that side of the *debate*.

 

[ozeco41]

I suspect a non biased person who had questions about the collapses and felt that the explanations don't make perfect sense might welcome additional study and analysis... and the results.

That person's need is for better explanations - explanations that they can understand - not further investigation. If they cannot understand the current stuff then producing more at the same level of technicality wont prove a thing. They won't understand the new stuff. They probably need "WTC Collapses For Dummies" and a few others
- maybe "Persian Pilot Penetrates Pentagon - People Perish..."

We have had all the technical investigation we need. MIHOP/LIHOP/LIHOOI and political accountability may warrant more investigating. No-one posting here has made a strong enough case.

...The typical truther has a confirmation bias and would want to investigation to prove there was a CD and if it didn't they would like call it another cover up conspiracy.

Yes

...Truther is not an accurate way to describe that side of the current *debate*.

I added the word "current" - it wasn't always as it is now. "Truther" was an honourable term from an earlier era when there were "genuine truthers". What we have left are the Untruthers and some trolls.

 

[dafydd]

I would love to see truthers conducting their own investigation. Talk about a chimps tea party!

 

[ozeco41]

I would love to see truthers conducting their own investigation. Talk about a chimps tea party!

They cannot even say what they want investigated - let alone prepare a Specification Brief for what and how they would conduct any investigation.

Since, almost by definition, they cannot think - they always ask us to do their thinking - "I don't understand this - therefore CD or inside job - now you debunkers you prove me wrong". That is actually a compliment to debunkers. "They" cannot explain their problem but fully expect that we can PLUS read their "minds" - identify the problem even tho' they can't THEN debunk it.

 

[dafydd]

I can see it now. 'Will the witness at the bar please return to the courtroom?'

 

[JSanderO]

That person's need is for better explanations - explanations that they can understand - not further investigation. If they cannot understand the current stuff then producing more at the same level of technicality wont prove a thing. They won't understand the new stuff. They probably need "WTC Collapses For Dummies" and a few others
- maybe "Persian Pilot Penetrates Pentagon - People Perish..."
.

I suspect, that the NIST progression/initiation explanations for all three towers was not correct on the details. I think that the proximate cause ie the straw that broke the camel's back was heat. I think they were way off on the location... the twins it likely was inside the core region and in 7 it was likely down in the load transfer region. if this is true... I think these are significant details. Why?

I suppose the answer to why goes to the overarching concept of the "quality" of the design... not whether they were strong enough to stand.. they were... but if they had some vulnerabilities which would promote such a total collapse as we saw. I suspect (don't know) that a typical frame of distributed columns in a grid over the entire plan and no light weight long span trusses might not see the global collapse we saw. Does this put some liability for the global collapse on those who were responsible for the designs? I don't know.

How *sensible* is it to build a 40 story skyscraper over an massive sub station? How sensible is it to build a 40 story skyscraper relying on a handful of massive field erected load transfer structures? How sensible is it to site 30,000 of diesel adjacent to a huge sub station? How sensible is it to have diesel tanks in close proximity to massive electrical switch gear and transformers and those massive transfer structures?

Basically how sensible were the designs and did those designs lead to the global collapse once the unthinkable happened? Was there a way around the global collapse had different design and development decisions been made?

Before any of those quasi legal questions can be even addressed... it would have to be determined... where the collapses initiated... no?

 

[DGM]

Basically how sensible were the designs and did those designs lead to the global collapse once the unthinkable happened?

There's the key.

For WTC7, if the fire protection systems were not breached by the collapse of the towers, you would not be here questioning the design.

 

[JSanderO]

There's the key.

For WTC7, if the fire protection systems were not breached by the collapse of the towers, you would not be here questioning the design.

Dunno about 7... large Con Ed transformers can and have exploded in NYC. They did with Sandy and they did in at a Queens sub station. The cause of a transformer explosion could be unrelated to a terrorist attack.

Maybe.

 

[DGM]

Dunno about 7... large Con Ed transformers can and have exploded in NYC. They did with Sandy and they did in at a Queens sub station. The cause of a transformer explosion could be unrelated to a terrorist attack.

Maybe.

Think about it. It took all day to come down with no fire protection systems. If they worked?

Seems like a really strong design to me.

 

[ozeco41]

...Before any of those quasi legal questions can be even addressed... it would have to be determined... where the collapses initiated... no?

We have had this discussion several times Sander.

The setting is that you are looking to assign accountably in hindsight for situations which were not foreseen by the reasonable person of the day. (The legal language of torts because that is the scenario you have implicitly adopted.)

Buildings are designed with reference to the standards of the day. Note "with reference to" not "in compliance with". Those standards include plausible risks which involve community through its agencies drawing the line as to level of acceptable risk Those levels of community acceptable risk are modified from time to time based on experience. And it is "community" because risk setting and legislatory provisions are a function of the governed community.

So your position resolves to one of two (If I am thinking clearly - there may be others)
1) Buildings should be designed to allow for risks which are not foreseeable or definable at the time. That is borderline ridiculous. OR
2) If unforeseen consequences arise accountability should apply in retrospect. And that one is obnoxious in any ordered society. Plus being a nightmare of scoping issues. How far back does accountably go? If you cannot nail the guilty bastards do you penalise their descendants or successors in title?

Plus some even hairier issues. Those "damaged' by this alleged negligence are damaged in your more enlightened era when the risks are known - or at least better known that they were at time of building. So caveat emptor. The damaged persons entered into a situation which had risks which were known by the community of the day they entered the risk. (Hold on to the obvious "yes but" - remember ignorance of the law is no defence.) WHILST the original perpetrator of alleged negligence was unaware.

So how do you balance the "contributory negligence" given that the self assumed risk was accepted by the damaged person who is better informed than the perpetrator and still took the self assumed risk.

The only people to make a profit would be.....(fill in the blank)

However let's leave the wild excursions and get back to reality.

The community risk level for buildings is that, put simply. they are designed to withstand fire for a period of time to allow the occupants to escape. Within that time frame based policy occupants are looked after; building is not if the safety time for occupant egress exceeded.

Are you suggesting that it should be different? Why?