Of course the TSBD would not want to pay the Hertz electric bill. But that adds absolutely no support to your implication that the sign had an independent power source. Talk about an assumption. Hertz could have contracted to pay the TSBD owner whatever the estimated monthly electrical cost of the sign. Look this is easy.
Sure, now you just have to come up with some
evidence for that. Do you have any?
Whether the sign had an independent link to power or received its power via the same source as the TSBD, the power to both would have gone off if there was an external power outage to that location. I believe that is exactly what Tom concluded. Like the power going off to a city block. Can you compute that fact?
Who in the world do you think claimed there was an
external power outage to that location, like the power going off to a city block?
Now if we are narrowing things down to someone pulling a circuit switch inside the building, then of course it would be possible to cut the power to specific parts of the building without turning the sign off.
Thank you. Was that so hard?
In that situation, we are left to look to the specific facts to reach a conclusion. For example, if the claim is that the power was cut to specific elevators, we have multiple examples of those same elevators being in operation in the same time frame.
Only if you concoct a "time frame" that encompasses whatever non-specific times somebody claimed to have used an elevator. I'm not sure how that demonstrates that the power was on when Mooney and Adams tried to use them. That doesn't fit in with your world view so you're just making unsubstantiated excuses to disregard it. Which is what you do with all conflicting evidence in this case. What's new?