Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mr_alleycat
I'm not a building inspector in New York, or an architect. I am one who would install, and maintain such a system. I also know if you didn't have safety systems in place, you wouldn't get an insurance company underwrite a policy.
|
Okay.
I currently as a hobby and at some point in the near future as a career will be maintaining and operating motor vehicles. This in no way makes me qualified to talk about safety legislation in California and I don't pretend that it does. Do you see the analogy here? It's a bit like suggesting that someone who has flown a Cessna knows how jetliners handle. The two are only peripherally related.
I don't think anyone has suggested that there were no safety measures in place in the building, but I don't know the nature of those measures. Was there a valve in the line? More than one? Thermal insulation? Fireproofing? Was there a cut-out in place in the event that the line ruptured? Can you answer any of these questions? I would posit that if you can't, if you don't know what the actual system was, you're not qualified to comment. Safety measures in any mechanical system are designed to counteract foreseeable circumstances. There was nothing foreseeable about that day.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mr_alleycat
Really?
Them getting their "New Pearl Harbor", obstructing any investigation, loading the commission with people that CYA, and sacrificing thousands more New Yorkers by rewriting the EPA report, doesn't ease my mind any.
|
The phrase "New Pearl Harbor" is highly sensationalistic, but doesn't prove anything. The unspoken implication of comparing the World Trade Center attack to Pearl Harbor and then arguing that the World Trade Center attack was some form of conspiracy is that Pearl Harbor was also a conspiracy. Is that what you mean to suggest?
It could at best be deemed circumstantial. As to the rest, do you have any documentation to back that up? You're making some pretty outrageous claims, standard practice in that situation is to provide proof.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mr_alleycat
Agreed, but given the lack of military response, they may have gotten a little help from their friends. I mean OBL could not have placed those false blips on radar screens.
|
What false blips? Do you have any documentation of those?
In my reading I was lead to understand that the lack of military response was, at the time, pretty much the norm. I'll see if I can dig up supporting evidence tomorrow, but regardless that doesn't actually prove anything other than that there was a lack of military response.
This is why I try to stay out of these discussions. When a person is totally convinced that he is right, he tends to try to shape the evidence to support his viewpoint. It is very important to keep an open mind about things. Of course, that goes both ways and if anyone were to provide me with new evidence proving any of the claims made about the attacks I might reconsider my position. I state this every time I enter such a discussion, yet to date, nobody's been able to do it.