Reply With Quote
I've bolded the part of the statement you should concentrate on.
Bush was competent enough to get elected president of the United States, twice. Part of being competent is delegating power to the right people.I fully believe they would kill people. I also fully believe they are not competant enough to pull it off. I mean, really, Rumsfeld a master evil genius?
The problem I have with the explosives theory is that the available evidence indicates a simple gravity-fed collapse due to fire and damage.
The whole controlled demolition theory can't answer a lot of questions. When I ask honest questions and point out logical flaws, just as would happen in any good trial, people like you simply go "you know they did it" and wave their arms.
The rest of your posting makes no sense.
I've bolded the part of the statement you should concentrate on.
bombs sound like bombs.
Who?
Cheney?
Rumsfeld?
So do other things.
Since you put it in terms of a trial, but then I would do exactly as I have done here.
I would present a very plausible alternative explanation, in the form of transformers blowing, as well as the sounds of a massive collapse.
In the end, you have no eyewitness testimony to say that they saw explosive devices, do you?
In the end, based on this evidence, you do not have enough conclusive proof one way or the other.
So, we would then move on to the next bits.
You say that the building was too strong to collapse, I provide simple physics to disprove that point.
You say that no steel framed building has ever collapsed from a fire, and I ask how that applies to a building damaged by the impact of a jetliner.
The "case" of evidence you could present in a courtroom would be laughable.
For you to be able to logically prove that, when someone hears something that sounds like a bomb, it MUST be a bomb.
If one can find ONE instance, like say, a blown transformer, or a fuel tank exploding, or simple mechanical failure of structural members, then you CANNOT logically conclude that it was a bomb.
You can logically conclude that it was possibly a bomb, just as you can logically conclude it was possibly a host of other things.
The "sounds like a bomb" only suggests a possiblity that must be proven some other, more conclusive way.
You have not done that yet.
there aren't any witnesse who said they heard what sounded like a transformer blowing up, most of the witnesses were not near the transformers, and bombs could have blown up the transformers, so you have a very weak argument.
mattersWho?
Cheney?
Rumsfeld?
Nobody ever says, when they hear ANY explosion "oh it sounded just like a transformer blowing up".
Such is not the stuff of popular imagination.
Do you have any eyewitness accounts of visible explosive devices?
(1st time this question is asked)
Last edited by RandomGuy; 03-27-2008 at 12:02 PM.
you are confusing an absolute logical proof like in mathematics, with reasonable inferences.
We have 300 witnesses who heard explosions, many of the witnesses having expertise. If you can place all the witnesses near transformers, you might have the beginning of a case.
that's Whitewater sarcasm.
I would try to change the subject too if I were you.
If you had a jury and paraded 300 firemen and police officers in front of them with their eyewitness testimony about exploisions, and then brought in expert witnesses to explain that this was caused by bombs, and then had your lawyer make the same argument, you can bet the jury will believe that bombs were in the buildings
Which expert?
The theologian or the fake PhD.?
Each building had 22 or so, if memory serves from the article that I read.
Electrical Fire Hurts 6 at Trade Center
Published: July 24, 1992
An air-conditioning transformer five stories below the World Trade Center caught fire after an explosion last night, the authorities said. Six people were injured, none of them seriously, but the 110-story twin towers did not have to be evacuated, the authorities said.
The fire was first reported at 10:02 P.M. in a 13,000-volt transformer in the Trade Center's refrigeration plant, which provides air conditioning and ventilation for the complex, the Fire Department and the Port Authority said. The electrical fire, which went to three alarms, was brought under control at 11:24 P.M., said a Fire Department official, Lieutenant Erick Weekes.
February 26, 1993. It started like most other days. A 4 A.M. wake up, coffee and a buttered roll while driving to work at the Manhattan Central Office. At 12:18 P.M., lunch was being served when we received a call via a street alarm box at the corner of West & Liberty Streets. At the same time Engine Company 10, whose quarters are across the street from the World Trade Center, called us via radio and reported a possible transformer vault explosion on West Street near the Trade Center.
Transformer vault (also called manhole) explosions are fairly common place in Manhattan, especially during wet weather. They're highly visible and normally generate numerous telephone calls to the Central Office. We didn't think this one was going to be any different. When Engine 10 advised us by radio they had a working fire in the Trade Center, we thought the transformer vault was located within the basement of the complex. Not a routine event, but still,it's only a transformer vault we thought.
The Trade Center was never designed for the amount of emergency power necessary for all those trading floors they have there," Calabro said. "Tenants would come in and need emergency power, and it was not available."
To solve that problem, E-J Electric set four generators on the roof of Tower 5, which was nine stories, as opposed to the 110-story Towers 1 and 2. E-J then ran high-voltage feeder cable to Towers 1, 2, 4 and 5, installed three substations and distributed power to the tenants.
"We pulled 6,000 feet of high-voltage feeder cable from the roof of Tower 5, through the building, down through the concourse, through the parking garages and to the roof of Tower 1 and 2," Calabro said.
Current standard tenant power capacity is 6W up to 10W per usable square foot depending on location. The World Trade Center's electricity supply is segmented for greater reliability and safety. Eight dedicated 13,800-V feeders divide into 23 building substations. On-floor electrical distribution is routed via at least two electrical closets per floor, each with separate high- and low-voltage bus ducts for tenant-dedicated use."
Here are the sources of the above quotes, with references
Astonishingly enough, if you click on the link you can also see a very stark example of how the 9-11 "truth" movement lies to you.
Do you have any eyewitness accounts of visible explosive devices?
(2nd time this question is asked)
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-19-2010 at 03:19 PM.
DON'T NEED THEM TO DEMONSTRATE EXPLOSIVES.
DO YOU HAVE ANY EYEWITNESSES TO TRANSFORMERS BLOWING THEMSELVES UP WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES?
Don't need them to demonstrate a much more plausible explanation for explosions. The transformers were indeed there. There is no doubt of that whatsoever.
This doesn't prove anything.
It doesn't even assert anything.
There is zero evidence that any transformers blew up. Do you have even one witness who went into a room where transformers were and saw it blown up?
Nadda.
Neither do your fairy tales.
DO YOU HAVE ANY EYEWITNESSES WHO SAW THE OFFICE FIRE MELT THE GIANT STEEL BEAMS?
They didn't have to melt. And the fires and beams were there. That is beyond question.
DO YOU HAVE ANY EYEWITNESSES WHO SAW THE OFFICE FIRE SOFTEN THE GIANT STEEL BEAMS?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions