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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
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.
|
Sorry your anology doesn't work in this case, no matter hobby or career, California is going to require an operating braking system.
It's interesting that you chose Cessnas and jetliners for your point in a thread about 9\11.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
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.
|
They may, or may not have foreseen the exact circumstances of the event, but a fuel line can be ruptured by many things including a faulty hose.
I will limit my answer to the pressurized fuel line feeding the fire in WTC 7.
There would be a cutoff valve operated by a drop in pressure on the line. It would be mechanical, and not depend on electricity to operate. There would also be an operational inspection done monthly requiring an activation of the valve. There would also be a cutoff valve that is activated by the fire alarm system with a battery backup in case of electrical failure.
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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
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?
|
Firstly your assuming I'm saying there was a conspiracy by the government.
That is not what I'm saying. My point is there may be, and we need a real investigation. Not one run by what may well be the perps.
You also said you did your research, if you had done an indepth look, you would know why "New Pearl Harbor" has quotation marks.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
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.
|
Well they did some outrageous things. Bush admitted having the EPA drop cautionary language from their report. As a result many of the workers at ground zero have become victims as well. Some are even added to the official victims list. Thousands more will have their lives cut short by trusting the administration, and not taking safety measures cleaning up the mess.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
What false blips? Do you have any documentation of those?
|
Why do you think the military had to rely on the FAA to track the airplanes?
Listen to the NEADS tapes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
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.
|
The administration wouldn't have it anyother way.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
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.
|
I have an open mind regarding what happened on that day. Hell, I even liked Bush, and gave him a pass until he started acting like a perp. Then I started doing my own research, and I have come to realize there may be something rotten in Denmark.