Another Look At The Generator Trailer Damage, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 23-1-2009 @ 11:52 AM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Seymour Butz


We choose to accept scientifically validated independent verifiable evidence.

You choose to accept what the government tells you based on pure faith and blanket accepting of all controlled, sequestered, and provided unverifiable data with zero skepticism.

I am a skeptic and you are a zealot.

That is the difference in mentality between us and why further discussion is pointless.

You've simply positioned and exposed yourself as the antagonist and are determined to aggressively pursue this role even if you are forced to completely flip your own argument in the process.



reply posted on 23-1-2009 @ 02:31 PM by cogburn
reply to post by Seymour Butz


It's not aluminum. It's steel. Page 3 shows the material components for the enclosure.


Powder coated 14-gauge (minimum) galvanealed steel panels
Bolted panel construction using Caterpillar grade 8 fasteners
Steel deck plate on floor
Three (3) lockable, gasketed personnel doors
Steps, OSHA rated, one (1) for each personnel door, three (3) total.
Two (2) access panels provided for bus bars and discharge
plenum access
Eight (8) 100 Watt incandescent lights with globes and guards.
Switches at each door (3 total)
Three (3) duplex GFI receptacles, one by each personnel door.
Removable lift provisions


Emphasis mine.

EDIT: trying to fix link


[edit on 23-1-2009 by cogburn]

[edit on 23-1-2009 by cogburn]


reply posted on 23-1-2009 @ 06:01 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by cogburn


Your assumptions and speculation do not refute the fact that the north side evidence proves the trailer was not hit by the plane OR the fact that the NTSB data and dimensions of a 757 are irreconcilable with the damage as well.

You have not even addressed as single point made in the OP let alone refuted it.


reply posted on 23-1-2009 @ 06:18 PM by cogburn
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

You stated that the damage to the generator was not caused by an aircraft.

I showed there is nothing in those pictures that in any way indicates anything that contradicts the story of an aircraft causing the damage.

The assertion that NoC proves a fly-off is false, as I've said multiple times.

A true statement would be "NoC is contradictory to the damage pattern as presented".

Evidence could then be presented that provides evidence as to how the damage pattern was created, highlighting the exact nature of the contradiction.

What in those photos is in contradiction to the "official" story?


reply posted on 23-1-2009 @ 06:21 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
What caused the rear gouge?


original photo source

It couldn't have been the flap track of a 757 wing as suggested by many impact proponents that's for sure!



Not even if you lower the plane to be too low to match the bent corner.


These are scale models.


reply posted on 24-1-2009 @ 01:33 PM by Seymour Butz
Originally posted by cogburn

It's not aluminum. It's steel. Page 3 shows the material components for the enclosure.



I don't think it's a CAT generator though, for a couple of reasons.

1-In Craig's first post, he has this photo:

i40.photobucket.com...

You've also posted a similar photos. They show louvres on the left side extending to the floor. The CAT sheet you posted doesn't show that. Neither do the photos in his 3rd post of the "3516B" - it has louvres like that on the RIGHT side. If it was a CAT, it would have been one of these, and NOT a 3516B :

www.cat.com...

or maybe :

www.cat.com...

Which has louvres that come CLOSE to the floor of the trailer, but not quite, so I don't think that's it.

It looks like CAT and Cummins takes old shipping containers and modifies them with doors, sound insulation, etc to make them into enclosures.

2- in Craig's first post, he has a close up of the area where the engine hit, and it has a small square port there. None of these photos or drawings of the CAT show that.

Anyways, I have no idea what it is.

I did find this however :

www.dieselserviceandsupply.com...

Click on the photo of the interior, and it's clearly aluminum.

And this:

www.generatorjoe.net...

Where they make custom enclosures - from aluminum.

But who knows...



reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 01:03 AM by cogburn
reply to post by Leo Strauss


Specifically? No.



This image was shot within minutes of the impact and shows fires still raging inside the trailer. This is obviously indicative of some sort of flammable material existing inside the trailer long after the explosion, as the images presented in the OP were taken after this one and the fire is still present. The trailer certainly wasn't empty. The assumption is that it is the diesel fuel required by the generator that is burning off. No other explanation has been offered as to what is fueling that fire.

It also shows an excellent perspective of the facade damage in relation to the position of the trailer.

If one believes that the explosion was some sort of munitions detonation that originated in the trailer, it would have had to have been sufficient to burn the entire facade of the building up to the rear of the air tower. If there was a munition, luckily it wasn't powerful enough to kill Sean Boger... who was in the air tower and witnessed the impact.

If anyone would like to suggest such a munition that resolves all of the above facts I'd be open to entertain it.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by cogburn]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 15 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 9 days ago with 13 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 16 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags
Remains of 9/11 victim identified
  Posted 1 days ago with 5 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 15 days ago with 4 member flags