Or you would just set the building on fire instead of using a fucking bomb in the street which wouldn't even be guaranteed to do what you want it to do.
Or you would just set the building on fire instead of using a fucking bomb in the street which wouldn't even be guaranteed to do what you want it to do.
False statement 1: Implying a fire would accomplish the same goal as a huge fucking bomb.
Why it's wrong:
Fire is easy to put out and hard to spread. Commercial buildings have fire doors on stairwells designed to slow the spread of fire through out a building. Buildings like that have advanced fire suppression systems often linked to control centers off site. You would have to break into the secured building an start fires in multiple locations carrying more gas than a single person can lift. You would never be able to start and spread a fire before suppression systems and local firefighters arrived to stop the blaze. On top of this the alleged target was in the basement or under the street. Fire tends to travel upwards not downwards like to a basement. The fiber optic cables were supposed to be below the RV and there were basement access hatches blown off right next to the RV bomb. Note fiber optics stop working the second the outer cable is damaged at all. Fiber optics are just glass strands and I am guessing a large explosion would crack and break all those strands via shock wave and such with ease. Basically fire would never do what that bomb did.
False statement 2: A bomb in the street wouldn't be guaranteed to do what you want it to do.
Why it's wrong:
This statement describes fire much better than a bomb. Bombs have exact yields, exact explosive forces, blast patterns, and can be controlled down to the slightest detail. Why do you think they use explosives to demolish buildings and call it "controlled demolitions"? Combat engineers in the military train for the exact ways to blow up infrastructure with the least amount of explosives as possible to get the exact result desired. They also train with different types of pre-made and improvised products to get the job done.
This reads like a highly trained person carried it out, possibly trained by the government. There was even an audio warning played that gave people enough time to evacuate the area but not enough time for the Bomb Squad to respond.
In closing you can't even re-read your simple post and pick out two different assertions you made so I will assume you are more smooth brain than I thought. Doubtful you understand anything I just typed but here I am wasting my time anyway....something I try to avoid. Please read a book and get smarter, you hurt my soul with your ignorance.
Or you would just set the building on fire instead of using a fucking bomb in the street which wouldn't even be guaranteed to do what you want it to do.
Wrong on both counts.
"Both" and I didn't even mention two things.
False statement 1: Implying a fire would accomplish the same goal as a huge fucking bomb.
Why it's wrong:
Fire is easy to put out and hard to spread. Commercial buildings have fire doors on stairwells designed to slow the spread of fire through out a building. Buildings like that have advanced fire suppression systems often linked to control centers off site. You would have to break into the secured building an start fires in multiple locations carrying more gas than a single person can lift. You would never be able to start and spread a fire before suppression systems and local firefighters arrived to stop the blaze. On top of this the alleged target was in the basement or under the street. Fire tends to travel upwards not downwards like to a basement. The fiber optic cables were supposed to be below the RV and there were basement access hatches blown off right next to the RV bomb. Note fiber optics stop working the second the outer cable is damaged at all. Fiber optics are just glass strands and I am guessing a large explosion would crack and break all those strands via shock wave and such with ease. Basically fire would never do what that bomb did.
False statement 2: A bomb in the street wouldn't be guaranteed to do what you want it to do.
Why it's wrong:
This statement describes fire much better than a bomb. Bombs have exact yields, exact explosive forces, blast patterns, and can be controlled down to the slightest detail. Why do you think they use explosives to demolish buildings and call it "controlled demolitions"? Combat engineers in the military train for the exact ways to blow up infrastructure with the least amount of explosives as possible to get the exact result desired. They also train with different types of pre-made and improvised products to get the job done.
This reads like a highly trained person carried it out, possibly trained by the government. There was even an audio warning played that gave people enough time to evacuate the area but not enough time for the Bomb Squad to respond.
In closing you can't even re-read your simple post and pick out two different assertions you made so I will assume you are more smooth brain than I thought. Doubtful you understand anything I just typed but here I am wasting my time anyway....something I try to avoid. Please read a book and get smarter, you hurt my soul with your ignorance.