 |
|
|
|
 |
ogvh5150
Formula 1 Addict
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: F1 2008 Red Bull Racing/BMW Sauber
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Marc Summers
I honestly don't understand why people keep comparing events as if they are alike. |
From an earlier post:
| quote: | Anyone here that's pro-Al Qaeda hear the one about the C-130 that crashed into a building in Iran?
Fuel stoked fire that DIDN'T cause any collapse from a fuel laden plane.
Anyone that could possibly tell us about Iranian building codes will be gladly heard with open minds. Don't let the trolls scare you off.
Oh yeah what about the one where a Yankee baseball pitcher flew his little Cirrus into an apartment building on the Upper East Side?
Or the B-25 that flew into the Empire State Building in July 1945?
EDIT:
| quote: | Firefighter Mag Raps 9/11 Probe
by Joe Calderone
New York Daily News
January 4, 2002
A respected firefighting trade magazine with ties to the city Fire Department is calling for a "full-throttle, fully-resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center.
A signed editorial in the January issue of Fire Engineering magazine says the current investigation is "a half-baked farce."
The piece by Bill Manning, editor of the 125-year-old monthly that frequently publishes technical studies of major fires, also says the steel from the site should be preserved so investigators can examine what caused the collapse.
"Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happy Land social club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center," the editorial says. "The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately."
Fire Engineering counted FDNY Deputy Chief Raymond Downey, the department's chief structural expert, among its senior advisers. Downey was killed in the Sept. 11 attack.
John Jay College's fire engineering expert, Prof. Glenn Corbett, serves as the magazine's technical editor.
A group of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, with backing from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has been studying some aspects of the collapse. But Manning and others say that probe has not looked at all aspects of the disaster and has had limited access to documents and other evidence.
A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers," the editorial stated.
A FEMA spokesman, John Czwartacki, said agency officials had not yet seen the editorial and declined to comment.
Norida Torriente, a spokeswoman for the American Society of Civil Engineers, described her group's study as a "beginning" and "not a definitive work."
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has joined a group of relatives of firefighters who died in the attack in calling for a blue-ribbon panel to study the collapse.
"We have to learn from incidents through investigation to determine what types of codes should be in place and what are the best practices for high-rise construction," Manning told the Daily News. "The World Trade Center is not the only lightweight, core construction high-rise in the U.S. It's a typical method of construction." |
|
But if you want to explain the WTC collapse as an isolated incident then no one can explain sans forensic evidence the reason that the WTC fell the way they did.
If people keep ranting on about what the TV set told them on the evening news then we'll never get anywhere because this same news media told us that Saddam had nukes.
Without any forensic testing for explosives (demolition or military) or combustibles (office equipment, paper, carpets) the argument using news outlets coverage or eyewitness/earwitness accounts are suspect and therefore less convincing than that of admissible evidence for a court of law.
Sure there are hundreds if not thousands of people that claim they heard or saw something alluding to explosions but a court will make you look like you heard or saw what you wanted to see. Kind of like a UFO effect. People see silver orbs in the sky and swear up and down they see spaceships when quite possibly they are looking at mylar balloons. So you get the spaceship crowd jumping on the government cover up of spaceships bandwagon.
I know that previous statement would be interpreted as a bad anology but you have to see this as the mass hysteria that leads people to believe what they want to believe.
I would like to believe that there were no explosives that toppled the WTC but the evidence is convincing (on the visual and audible level but lacking in the physical) to the contrary. I am not wavering on the strong possibility of a deliberate demolition of the WTC but will also add that both sides can benefit from actual evidence from the steel of the WTC for forensic testing.
Some people parrot the official version whilst not taking into account of whats being offered to them as evidence. They take it as prima facie in their argument.
It's similar to the argument that because the police arrest you then you must have done something wrong. If you are innocent then why did they arrest you, etc.
___________________
|
|
 May-12-2007 01:34 
|
|
|
|
|
VAR
Suspended User
Registered: Mar 2006
Location: 8==D~
|
|
|
May-14-2007 00:51 
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:53.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|
