|
To actually try to at least figure out if mro and the others are worth arguing with, can we try to go step by step here?
People explain questions of theirs, but instead of accepting the answers they just throw more questions...
So, lets start with the ambulance question. mro, do you understand why the wheelchair now and does this answer make sense?
Obviously, you can not argue with "there was no bomb, so there was no danger for the ambulance" since we are here to prove the point that there WAS bombs, so you can not use circular logic to prove something with an argument that only works if you are right in the first place, that's not proof.
So, to start, again. The wheelchair/ambulance question, do you accept the answer posted twice here that 1) there were ton of wheelchairs as with such events it normal and 2) sending in ambulances to the scene directly shortly after it happens is putting more people in danger which is counter productive to what you are trying to achieve, ie getting people out of the danger zone.
__________________
"Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
- Charlie Munger
|