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

[JSanderO]

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

I know this is a gray area... I see an analogy as I've written before in the Ford Pinto case. The Pinto had no special problems different from any other car except in rear end collisions where they had gas tank explosions. The cause if the accident was bad driving... the cause of the explosion was determined to be at least partially the design of the gas tank. No accident...no gas tank explosion. It would be reasonable to expect the gas tank NOT to explode in a rear end collision and so the designer (Ford) was deemed partially negligent and I believe had to pay civil damages.

Flawed engineering design may be similar.

I raised the decisions which I believe might not fly today:

citing 30,000 gallons of stored fuel adjacent to a power station
building a tower over a power station
citing fuel tanks in close proximity to power equipment which is known to explode on occasion

One may not be able to hold the designers and developers accountable because the standards at the time were different. But also consider that the PANY got waivers from NYC code claiming they were a state agency... so there are some questionable code issues represented by the WTC.

None of this was ever discussed at all and I think it should have been.

Why would NIST not look into a single thing in 7wtc below floor 8? Seems fishy to me.

 

[Redwood]

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.

True dat.....

 

[jaydeehess]

While I believe that the truss transfer system failure was the cause of the local failure progressing to global collapse, I believe that it is quite plausible that the cause of that system's failure was impact from debris due to adjacent local failure. So, a heat induced floor failure at the 12th floor, induces lower, localized floor failures, this loss of lateral stability on one side of a major column , leading to its buckling, drawing down all floors adjacent to it as well as all rooftop mechanicals resulting in a huge cascade of heavy debris, some from 40+ storeys above, to come down and damage the eastern end of the core system severely compromising it and causing progressive failure of the major core columns at the southern end of the cantilever trusses, which thus allowed the entire northwestern section to come down, immediately destroying the rest of the core. The south side was already bulging south due to 1WTC impact damage, the north side's lower trusses failing first at their southern end, both causing the upper building to tilt/rotate/fall to the south.

 

[BrianH]

I know this is a gray area... I see an analogy as I've written before in the Ford Pinto case. The Pinto had no special problems different from any other car except in rear end collisions where they had gas tank explosions. The cause if the accident was bad driving... the cause of the explosion was determined to be at least partially the design of the gas tank. No accident...no gas tank explosion. It would be reasonable to expect the gas tank NOT to explode in a rear end collision and so the designer (Ford) was deemed partially negligent and I believe had to pay civil damages.

Flawed engineering design may be similar.
<snip>

I don't really think your analogy is appropriate. It is reasonable to assume that a car might be involved in a collision with another car on the highway. The damage and inadequately controlled fire that resulted in the destruction of WTC 7 is not something the designers would have been expected to plan for.

You might as well blame the manufacturers of the cars crushed in the Cypress St. viaduct collapse for not using a more robust design.