PDA

View Full Version : Picture of cars burning at the base of the WTC?

lapman
7th May 2008, 03:50 PM
Someone posted a picture of some cars that were burning at the base of one of the towers after the imacts, but before any of the collapses. I've searched both on here and google and I can't find it. Some help please. :D

TYIA
Tweeter
7th May 2008, 04:08 PM
Heres a video.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qraALi7Flnc
*note* leftysergent gets spanked in the comment section lmao
Alt+F4
7th May 2008, 04:13 PM
There was a female first responder who reported being covered in jet fuel as she seeked shelter. Anyone remember where I read this? Might it have been in the New York Times accounts?
kookbreaker
7th May 2008, 04:27 PM
Lefty's post is from 4 months ago. And its a funny definition of 'spanked'. The person just whines about there being no video of it (following the troofer rule of 'if it ain't on youtube it didn't happen'). I guess they didn't extrapolate from videos of the second tower being hit.
lapman
7th May 2008, 05:47 PM
Heres a video.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qraALi7Flnc
*note* leftysergent gets spanked in the comment section lmao
Thank you.
Tweeter
7th May 2008, 05:53 PM
Youre welcome, lapman.
theprestige
7th May 2008, 06:11 PM
Lefty's post is from 4 months ago. And its a funny definition of 'spanked'. The person just whines about there being no video of it (following the troofer rule of 'if it ain't on youtube it didn't happen'). I guess they didn't extrapolate from videos of the second tower being hit.
Why extrapolate? Wouldn't it be better to have actual evidence and be reasonably certain?

Wouldn't it be better, strictly speaking, for lefty to have said something like "it probably happened similarly to the other tower as depicted here: [source of appropriately similar evidence]"?

We are sceptics, right? When people say "this is how it happened", we expect them to mean exactly that, and not "this is probably how it happened, based on reasonably similar situations", right?

And while I fully agree that an absence of evidence on YouTube is not evidence of absence, I think there's only so far you can usefully get with the rote dismissal of truthers who ask for video footage. Given the widespread popularity of YouTube, based on its obvious utility and ease of use, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for video footage of major events where it's reasonable to expect that video footage might exist, either on YouTube, or Google video, or something similar.