Posted on 03/30/2024 8:50:42 AM PDT by reasonisfaith
You mean the part where he points out the whole bridge collapsed all at once, instead of just around the point of impact?
Demonstrating there were other, separate sections that broke from other causes?
You think government is always good, all the time.
When you wake up, you’ll find out that government is often involved in criminal activity, including acts of sabotage against their own people.
Come on now; where did I ever claim to do such a thing? All I pointed out was that the mere claim to "oppose liars" and "love the truth" does not necessarily mean the person making the claim actually opposes liars, or loves the truth.
You mean the part where he points out the whole bridge collapsed all at once, instead of just around the point of impact? Demonstrating there were other, separate sections that broke from other causes?
Let's start at 25:10, where he finds it unusual that the bridge pylon was not utterly destroyed, and that if it had done so (he argues), the ruined bridge would have fallen towards the bridge support instead of downward in the middle of the spans as ended up happening: this betrays a lack of understanding of basic physics, because the spans aren't supported by anything; once the trusses were knocked beyond their stress threshold by the initial monumental impact (as the force waves reverberated throughout the entire structure — by virtue of its design and in light of just how much mass the cargo ship had — in a very short period of time), they would have fallen to where support was most lacking: namely, the spaces between the supports, and between the endpoints of the bridge. He speaks about the bridge 'not falling as one would expect' given that bridge support still remained after the time of impact. In my view, this only demonstrates his own lack of knowledge (and an inability to recognize said lack of knowledge, at that), because given the nature of the available evidence and the nature of the impact, the Francis Scott Key bridge fell in a completely normal fashion after a collision of that magnitude from a vector perpendicular to the bridge trusses.
But I digress: at 26:38, he circles two points that he claims 'look like explosions', which any one looking at the raw video can tell those are sparks coming from electrical wires (that have an active load going through them) that were severed as a result of the bridge collapsing around them. I don't see how he can honestly claim that these are explosions (even to the point of calling them 'fires' at 28:11 and 28:21; those are bursts of electrical sparks, not fires!), unless he has zero idea of what explosions are supposed to look like.
Then he concludes, in all his ignorance, that "this is clearly an attack" at 28:28, which only solidifies to me how little his opinion on this particular topic is worth.
As such, I have no desire to hear him pontificate on anything else.
So your entire argument is against the claim that there could have been explosions distant from the point of impact.
But the opposing argument is not dependent on such a claim.
The opposing argument states the ship’s electronic controls were sabotaged by the terrorists, and that the ship alone took down the bridge.
reasonisfaith wrote: “You think government is always good, all the time.”
Absolutely not. But believing in BS conspiracy theories only distracts one from watching for government misdeeds.
When you speak against conspiracy theories, you speak against law enforcement.
The most common conspiracy theorists are your local sheriff, police and all other law enforcement.
Pursuit of the conspirators is their job.
The only ones who wish to cover up conspiracies are the conspirators themselves, or those who work for them. Some knowingly, some unknowingly.
You have an odd screen name for someone who applies absolutely no reason or rationale thought when you fall for this kind of wild, idiotic, speculative nonsense.
But you posted “rationale thought” when you should have made it “rational thought.” Maybe your thinking is as careless as your spelling.
Go to about minute 24 on this video, and you might be able to understand the logic of what they’re saying.
https://rumble.com/v4nav4z-32924-sg-sits-down-w-bill-quinn-insist-on-truth-show.html
APL Qingdao Loses Propulsion While Departing the Port of New York/New Jersey
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.