Reply #103: You wish. [View All]

[Jazz2006]

1) "Where is your evidence for complex electronic locking systems?"

I've posted it before. I guess you didn't bother to read it. You could actually research it yourself, too, you know. It's not hard to find information on proximity readers, access restriction, etc. that was put into place after the 1993 bombing at the WTC.

2) "What difference does it make if you can't open the locks in half the elevators if you can open them in the other half of the elevators?"

Again, you didn't bother to read. That's actually half (but only half) surprising, since some of the relevant information is in a link that you posted yourself a while back. I guess you don't even read your own links, let alone those that others post. But even in the elevators that did not have the type of locking mechanisms referred to above, it would require several very strong men to open the interior doors from the inside.

3) "You stop them between floors. That way you can climb onto the roof."

The locking mechanisms in place were specifically designed to prevent the elevators from being opened in between floors. Sadly, that is a large part of the reason why so many people died in the elevators on Sept. 11.

And even if you did manage to stop one in between floors, you'd still be unable to get to the roof if it was a car in a contained shaft (which the express elevators were), and if you were in a local car, you'd still not be able to get beyond a few floors, and you'd still be unable to get to other cars in other shafts without without risking being crushed to death from above or below.

4) "How is my characterization of his statement any different than the way the ABQ Journal reported it?"

Your "characterization" is exactly that. A characterization. Not what he said at all. But you keep pretending that that's what he said without acknowledging that he disputed the story and demanded a retraction. Your "characterization" that anything more than two = "a few" is silly. 1000 is more than 2. 100 is more than 2. 10 is more than 2. Etc. etc.

5) "You don't talk that way in court."

Oh, I most certainly do when someone asserts something utterly, ridiculously, outrageously laughable. Fortunately, it isn't often necessary in court because in that venue, critical thinking skills are much more frequently and conspicuously utilized than they are in this particular forum.

6) "That's freeper talk."

Hardly. It's calling a spade a spade.

7) "Planting explosives to prevent the buildings from toppling from hurricane damage is prudent. ... How does it not make sense?"

Planting explosives in a building during construction for future reference for any purpose is not "prudent" at all. The risks are too great. The exposure to liability is limitless. The suggestion is ludicrous on its face.

And you never did answer the questions about whether you've ever worked in a skyscraper with modern security and whether you've ever been in the WTC towers?

*Edit to fix quotation marks*