Thursday, June 23, 2011

Truther Legal Strategery

I know picking on the silly things that Truthers say on their forums and blogs isn't really fair, but this one was just too funny, and sort of of ties into the recent April Gallop legal debacle. On 911 Flogger Kevin Ryan posts another one of his "A Beautiful Mind: the Home Game" essays in which he posts a bunch of snippets on nanothermite research and then concludes that this magical substance must have blown up the World Trade Centers. That isn't really the funny part though, it really gets amusing, as usual, in the comments, where one genius decides that they should file a lawsuit against the Port Authority.


One “back door” means of investigating with subpoena powers, the origins of the nano-thermitic incendiary material discovered in the World Trade Center (WTC) dust [1], would be a class action civil damages lawsuit comprised of willing 9/11 victim family members and survivors, based on the apparently unlawful presence of these hazardous nano-thermitic incendiaries within the WTC towers immediately prior to September 11, 2001. Such a complaint could proceed under the position of attributing culpable negligence to the Port Authority of NY/NJ and construction contractors assigned by them, for being the likely reason these materials became present within the buildings. Such a civil complaint could reasonably allege, that these nano-thermitic incendiaries: 1). contributed to the fires already present in both buildings and or; 2). somehow contributed to the possibly related and well documented accelerated corrosion [2] (and thus weakening) of WTC structural steel noted by official studies and contributed to the building collapses and loss of life that ensued.


Of course their current argument is that nanothermite was used as an explosive, not an incendiary, but nevermind that ubiquitous inconsistency in the name of the truth, another commenter gives his two hilarious cents:


Great idea! Civil court...hazardous nano-thermitic material

Part of the beauty of this idea: It assumes the presence of nano-thermitic material in the buildings. It would be difficult for the defendents [sic] to prove it was not present.


Uhh, yeah, because judges normally just let you "assume" your key evidence! I am reminded of the old economist joke, "Assume a can opener".

Labels:

6 Comments:

At 23 June, 2011 20:45, Blogger paul w said...

It would be difficult for the defendents [sic] to prove it was not present.

Says it all, really. The old 'we don't have to prove anything, you have to disprove it' truther line.

In the truther mindset, this is considered 'evidence'.

 
At 23 June, 2011 21:15, Blogger Arcterus said...

I mean, seriously, that's the complete OPPOSITE of what a defendant is supposed to do. Can you imagine this in a murder case? "You can't prove the wrench ISN'T yours!" The prosecutor would be laughed out of the courtroom, and possibly even be reprimanded by the bar for being a fucking idiot, although I'm sure they'd use some legal term for that.

 
At 24 June, 2011 03:00, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Even assuming the presence of some sinister material in the building, one would still need to prove that it got there through the Port Authority's negligence. What's the argument there? That if I bring dangerous stuff into your building and light it off, it's your fault?

 
At 24 June, 2011 08:09, Blogger Ian said...

It would be difficult for the defendents [sic] to prove it was not present.

The Brian Good method of argument in a nutshell.

 
At 24 June, 2011 09:24, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Thermite is amazing stuff. I mean all of us use that stuff on the 4th of July (and it's coming quick) in the form of sparklers.

It must be "magic" that the thermite sparkler doesn't explode in childrens faces or melts that thin steel wire it's on.

But then again Truthers are the villiage idiots.

 
At 25 June, 2011 09:18, Blogger TANSTAAFL said...

"...possibly even be reprimanded by the bar for being a fucking idiot, although I'm sure they'd use some legal term for that."

I believe that the legal term is "...a Brian Good."

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home