Creative Speculation

For most people who were actually paying attention to what was being said, waking up to the future of the "9/11 truth movement" started happening around 2006. Dusterwald seems to be blissfully oblivious to the fact that engineers have been speaking out about 9/11 for a long time. But apparently, the problem is that they've been doing it in venues appropriate for technical discussions rather than YouTube videos and crackpot websites:

http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_literature_that/

Dusterwald thinks there needs to be a new investigation because he doesn't understand the collapses, completely ignoring the fact that the vast majority of his profession understand it quite well. Furthermore, it isn't really all that difficult for non-professionals to understand, provided that they have a genuine interest in doing so. If Dusterwald or anyone else has a genuine interest in understanding it, a small sampling of the above list would be a damn good start. But instead, all we get from Dusterwald and other "truthers" is delusional and self-aggrandizing excuses for why 99.99% of all civil and structural engineers aren't impressed with "truther science."

Over and over, in this interview and his appearance as one of Richard Gage's "experts," Dusterwald demonstrates that he doesn't really know what happened in the collapses, which goes a long way in explaining why he doesn't understand why they happened. The problem is not so much that what Dusterwald says is technically wrong; the bigger problem is that it has virtually nothing to do with what actually happened on 9/11: His irrelevant and/or imaginary scenarios simply don't contribute anything meaningful to any serious technical discussion.

The future of the "truth movement" is that its only remaining sustenance comes from willful ignorance, which means that it will never quite go away, but neither will it ever rise above being an insignificant internet cult, preyed upon by hucksters like Richard Gage.