don't you think a firefighter would be able to tell the difference? That's what they are trained for.

No, thats not what they are trained for. Can you tell the difference between a stick of dynamite exploding and a compressed air tank exploding? They pretty much sound alike.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

don't you think a firefighter would be able to tell the difference? That's what they are trained for.

No, thats not what they are trained for. Can you tell the difference between a stick of dynamite exploding and a compressed air tank exploding? They pretty much sound alike.

So what your trying to say is all these first responders meant to say "loud noise"?

Wow surprisingly enough not one mentions "loud noise". Even reporters on the scene on that day also said they had heard secondary devices going off in the building.

Everyone must be mistaken... I'm afraid to say, they indeed did hear "explosions" and did not mistake it for falling debri or compressed air tanks for that matter.

Especially when you have witness's hearing explosions in the basement of the Tower seconds before a plane had hit.

Why didn't the people who were interviewed by the 9/11 Commission report in relation to the explosions they heard did they not include it in the report?

BeZerK

[edit on 1-7-2007 by BeZerk]

[edit on 1-7-2007 by BeZerk]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Gas lines, first aid oxygen tanks, several dozen other things that subjected to heat and pressure will go "BOOM" Doesnt mean they are bombs, hell even some fire extingushers can explode if subjected to enough heat and not have their valves opened. All will sound like explosions, and none of them will be bombs.

But, shouldn't we have found out if they were bombs? Just to be sure? Isn't that what a real investigation should have done?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Gas lines, first aid oxygen tanks, several dozen other things that subjected to heat and pressure will go "BOOM" Doesnt mean they are bombs, hell even some fire extingushers can explode if subjected to enough heat and not have their valves opened. All will sound like explosions, and none of them will be bombs.

But, shouldn't we have found out if they were bombs? Just to be sure? Isn't that what a real investigation should have done?

Of course they should of investigated and researched in depth if there were any explosive material on the steel beams recovered but from the NIST report they did not test for explosive residue as they stated in the own report.

BeZerK

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
p.s. the lt. b becker seems to be edited...everynow and then there's a "--" and then it continues...but it seems like somethings missing....

This is their way of notating how the actual conversation took place. These interviews were done verbally and later put into text form. What you're reading is how they were actually talking, dashes indicating pauses or being cut off.

I don't understand why you guys are arguing about how something sounds, I think your side tracking yourselves.

Are you suggesting that some blown out transformers, a few gas tanks, and a fire extinguisher are going to be blown in succession and cause a controlled demolition style pull?

If they weren't bombs, as some suggest, then are you suggesting that they are powerful enough to bring down a building?

Originally posted by bsbray11
This is their way of notating how the actual conversation took place. These interviews were done verbally and later put into text form. What you're reading is how they were actually talking, dashes indicating pauses or being cut off.

that's what i thought at first...and some of them make sense that they paused there....but others really feel like it was edited...the entire paragraph makes no sense without it....