Having visited multiple web-sites didscussing crashes I can tell you that there is nothing unique about the discussions on this web site.
Rather than just absorbing all the information from jounalists or in some cases waiting years for a final report the aviation curious among us start asking questions early on before making up their minds about the well being of their favorite interest.
To most of us there are little verifieable facts so there is a great tendancy to extrapolate from minute and fuzzy evidence to as far as our postulations will take us. The difference being in just how far will some of us go.
In the latter question the answer seems to have a great deal to do with the variations in persons among us. I hesitate to identify good or bad personal characteristis in discussion boards, but it's pretty easy to identify clashes between these personality types.
Given the discussion rules I see no way to forestall the clashes between the types of posters. There will always be type persons who questions every minute detail even among actual investigators on-site. There will be yet another person who picks at seemingly unimportant nits of information and extrapolates these far beyond the available evidence at the time to see if they might be missing the big picture. And still there are the types that become fixated on a cause du jour in proving their point while disparaging the other types.
To me all are acceptable as long as they operate within an acceptable framework which is an organized investigation, analysis, and reasonable recommendations for prevention without blame.
From a personal experience standpoint I will admit that the reason that I first started visiting some of these discussion boards a decade ago was to make sure that my investigations covered enough bases to be able to refute or confirm some of what I read on these boards.