Asking for a new 9/11 investigation is highly unreasonable

Framework:Pro's brightline for Con victory is for me to provide "a logical reason to assume that investigation will reveal something of significance."I will add to this and say that we should also consider the costs of the investigation. If it would cost $10,000,000,000 for 1% chance to uncover something new, it is probably not worth it. Conversely if it only cost $500 for a 10% chance to uncover something new, lets go for it.Inherency:A large portion of the support for the official version of 9-11 is ipse dixit. "We assure you that the FBI did a good job and were honest and they assured us that 9-11 happened just how we say it happened".1) NIST reportsVirtually the only part of the official story that made any attempt at transparency or rigor was the 2005 NIST reports. Several hundred pages long, NIST utilized ANSYS software to analyze the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7 [1]. There are several problems with this approach that significantly discredit its accuracy.A) ANSYS Multiphysics LimitationsFires from the impact continued for up to 90 minutes, burning up a mixture of leaking jet fuel and building materials [2]. ANSYS Multiphysics cannot model chemical reactions such as burning [3]. The NIST reports attempt to estimate fire distribution using photographs [4], which is problematic because it does not indicate internal distribution of fire, or distribution of fire over time. The NIST conclusion relies heavily upon thermal induced structural weakness [5], and is therefore poorly substantiated.B) WTC 7 Analysis IncompleteNIST claims: "The analysis focused on the WTC1 and WTC2. Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7 [...] properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents." [6]So they just used average properties for steel, not the actual steel from the tower. To a skeptical observer, this would allow NIST to pick and choose which steel properties to use in order to cook their calculations.C) Collapse Simulation OmissionsNIST explains: "The parts of structures below the impact zones (Floor 89 to Floor 91 in WTC 1 and Floor 73 to Floor 77 in WTC 2) contributed little to the overall behavior of the buildings. Previous analyses of subsytem [SIC] models and preliminary global models showed that the elements below the impact zone did not experience plastic deformations or buckling. Therefore, they were eliminated to further reduce the size of the models." [7]So they took out the floors directly beneath where the planes hit. Their defense is that they did not matter in local-simulations, but the tower is thousands of feet high so even a 0.1 degree change could result in enormous shear lower in the tower. They have essentially simulated it so that planes hit the weakest part of the tower.2) Norad nonresponsivenessNorad was notified it 8:34 AM. I don't know what a good response time is, but they should probably be able to do SOMETHING about flight 93 which crashed nearly 90 minutes later [8].The failure to intercept the planes is due to several factors. One suspicious fact was that military exercises coincided with the 911 attacks, precluding NORAD and FAA response [9]. This implies that a $400bn military budget was undermined by $4 boxcutters. This is a prima facie bad explanation.Plan:It basically won't matter if we run another better simulation of the tower's collapse. There are too many unknown variables, such as the distribution of fire and structural creep [10]. The engineering is just impossible.Fortunately, the claim of most 9-11 conspiracy groups is that people within the government know something they're not telling us about the attacks. Maybe it was all faked and they flew missiles into the buildings. Maybe George Bush and Osama are secretly collaborated on the project. Maybe the White House knew about the attacks but let them happen anyway as an excuse to start the War on Terror. Who knows.Plan AGeorge Bush and Dick Cheney were not under oath when questioned about 911 [11]. Why not? There is a chance they know something they're not telling us. There is also a (slim) chance that they respect oaths. It would be worth a shot to put them under oath and ask them some questions.But sure, it is not likely that either heads of state respect the oath system enough to incriminate themselves. This can be ameliorated if we shoot them up with Sodium Thiopental [12] and employ the various torture techniques used by the Bush Administration to uncover vital intelligence for national security purposes. This is helpful because Sodium Thiopental and torture are *somewhat* reliable. They are certainly better than nothing. Dick Cheney himself thought that "dunking terrorism suspects in water during questioning was a "no-brainer.""[13].Even if you think there's only a 5% chance this will reveal something new, the benefits far outweigh the costs. The physical "procedure" is itself very simple and cheap, while the benefits of uncovering the True 9-11 story measure at least in the billions. There is also the intangible weight of justice that could be done to so many suffering families.The only possible objection to this plan is that George Bush and Dick Cheney would have their rights violated. But they are mass murderers. They have collaborated in the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people [14]. So from a moral standpoint, we can do just about anything we want to them.Plan BThe bureaucratic response structure of NORAD and the FAA should be evaluated. Is there evidence of foul play? Does it look like the institutions were deliberately designed to fail? The architects of our national defense system need to be investigated. At the very least, they have endangered American lives by building such flimsy institutions. I suggest starting with Ralph Eberheart, who was the Commander of NORAD at the time [15]. To my knowledge he has never been conscientiously [16] evaluated.Sources:[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.ansys.com...[4] http://wtc.nist.gov...[5] http://wtc.nist.gov...[6] http://wtc.nist.gov...[7] http://wtc.nist.gov...[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...[9] http://liberatingmemes.wordpress.com...[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...[11] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...[12] http://en.wikipedia.org...[13] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...[14] http://en.wikipedia.org...[15] http://en.wikipedia.org...[16] http://en.wikipedia.org...