|
Post by echnaton on Aug 13, 2005 21:57:58 GMT -4
Dang, bigfoot's drinking from the dog dish out back, gotta run... Dave ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by teotwin on Oct 3, 2005 11:23:46 GMT -4
hi everyone, love your work bit of a bump, but this is along the same kind of lines... NY imam quits over 9/11 remarks news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4304172.stm "I've heard professionals say that nowhere ever in history did a steel building come down with fire alone," he is quoted as saying. good god
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 3, 2005 12:48:42 GMT -4
How about with fire and an airliner?
|
|
|
Post by teotwin on Oct 3, 2005 19:59:23 GMT -4
oh please dont think that i believe he had a point! the article caught my eye mostly on the grounds of 'of any person in any job in NYC, he had to say that?' then again i don't recall any steel-framed skyscraper being brought down by either, so i cannot accept your example [ct]your mind is fogged by education and knowledge[/ct]
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 4, 2005 9:32:47 GMT -4
oh please dont think that i believe he had a point!
And please don't think I thought you believed he had a point. :-)
[ct]your mind is fogged by education and knowledge[/ct]
Some days more than others.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 5, 2005 3:28:48 GMT -4
Read the article. I see no problem with what he said - WTC 7 was only subjected to fire, not plane impact, so his quote is still valid in that regard. The quote from Mayor Bloomberg's spokesman caught my attention...
"The remarks were offensive and the mayor is satisfied that the chaplain has resigned," he said.
I fail to see how his comments were "offensive" in any way. He believes the perpetrators of the crime were not the official "19 hijackers", but possibly other parties. That is not meant to "offend" anybody - and shouldn't be taken with that intent. Furthermore, who is he "offending" with his remarks, anyway? The Mayor's spokesman makes no mention of that, either. Since when is someone questioning the government account of something a no-no?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 5, 2005 10:04:09 GMT -4
Read the article. I see no problem with what he said - WTC 7 was only subjected to fire, not plane impact, so his quote is still valid in that regard.
But he's not talking about WTC 7.
Furthermore, who is he "offending" with his remarks, anyway? The Mayor's spokesman makes no mention of that, either.
Nit-pick. It appears to me that the FDNY is offended. The imam in question was the Muslim chaplain for the FDNY.
Since when is someone questioning the government account of something a no-no?
Since when has it been a yes-yes to question something that is already fairly-well established, having nothing to offer in its place except disbelief?
And since Mr. Habib is not just a regular private citizen, but an employee of the government, with special duties involving a segment of government employees hardest hit by 9/11, I think the playing field is a bit different than you imagine. I do not see that Habib's opinion is being silenced. It is merely incompatible with his desire to work for the city of New York in a compassionate capacity.
|
|
|
Post by teotwin on Oct 5, 2005 20:19:19 GMT -4
Agreed! The statement (as we have it) I've heard professionals say that nowhere ever in history did a steel building come down with fire alone" would not be offensive (or at the very least inappropriately contentious) if it could be backed up by something that didn't sound like it had come from his favourite conspiracy bulletin board. You can hear 'demolition charges' just echoing faintly in the background...
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Oct 5, 2005 22:49:38 GMT -4
Not WTC 7 but the towers, so he is indeed incorrect in ascribing the destruction of the buildings in question to fire alone.
He was the Chaplain to FDNY and his statements simply bring new pain to the survivors of the FDNY members who lost their lives. This makes his employment in that position completely untenable.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 5, 2005 22:55:49 GMT -4
IIRC it wasn't subject to either. There were some fires but they were reletively small.
What it was subject to was a few tons of debris falling on it.
|
|