Firemen Explosion Testimony

page: 10
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 




To be fair, I don't think that's his point. He wants the situation to remain as confused as possible so that he can claim that nobody knows what happened and that therefore some kind of conspiracy remains on the table, or at least within the realm of possibilities.

I'm confused...
9/11 was not a conspiracy?
It was a bunch of spontaneous coincidences?
Nobody actually planned it?
It just happened by itself?




posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 




It's not a particularly intellectually honest standpoint, and it's the opposite of searching for some kind of factual truth, but it isn't actually a claim that there were bombs.

Honesty must mean something very different on your planet.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Cassius666
Good point the 9/11 deniers often cite the explosions were caused by the fires, although they cant tell what they explode or why firefighters would be surprised at explosions in burning buildings.

But the fact that the explosions took place in the abscence of fires is pretty damning I did not think of that.
edit on 26-4-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


So, just because we offer alternate and more probable causes of heard explosions in such a massive fire, you dismiss it because we cannot tell you exactly what caused? Oh boy......


Really? Explosions happened in absence of fires? You mean when they described the collapse of the Tower as they were in the lobby area? Yeah I'd call that being like an explosion. But hey, why use rational thought, when EXPLOSIVES sound so much sexier.


Thats the thing, no more probable causes of explosions than explosives have been provided.

I am curious what would be a more porbable cause of multiple explosion in the abscence of fire on the way up to the impact zone? Gas lines? The WTC did not have any. The water supply system, the AC System, the electrical grid? Fire in the lobby area? We have video of the lobby area in at least one of the tower, no fire to be seen there. In fact there isnt picture or video where fire can be seen anywhere than in the impact zone.

The Firefighters were obviously startled and surprised at the explosions. If they were a normal occurrence during a fire, you would think the firefighters would be equipped to deal with them. But it were the firefighters themselves who spoke of bombs in the building. I think they should know what ammount of eploedy to expect in a burning building.
edit on 26-4-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Cassius666
Good point the 9/11 deniers often cite the explosions were caused by the fires, although they cant tell what they explode or why firefighters would be surprised at explosions in burning buildings.

But the fact that the explosions took place in the abscence of fires is pretty damning I did not think of that.
edit on 26-4-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


So, just because we offer alternate and more probable causes of heard explosions in such a massive fire, you dismiss it because we cannot tell you exactly what caused? Oh boy......


Really? Explosions happened in absence of fires? You mean when they described the collapse of the Tower as they were in the lobby area? Yeah I'd call that being like an explosion. But hey, why use rational thought, when EXPLOSIVES sound so much sexier.


Who should care how you would describe the collapse of the Tower?

Actually... I would care only if you were in the tower during the collapse.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Cassius666
Good point the 9/11 deniers often cite the explosions were caused by the fires, although they cant tell what they explode or why firefighters would be surprised at explosions in burning buildings.

But the fact that the explosions took place in the abscence of fires is pretty damning I did not think of that.
edit on 26-4-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


So, just because we offer alternate and more probable causes of heard explosions in such a massive fire, you dismiss it because we cannot tell you exactly what caused? Oh boy......


Really? Explosions happened in absence of fires? You mean when they described the collapse of the Tower as they were in the lobby area? Yeah I'd call that being like an explosion. But hey, why use rational thought, when EXPLOSIVES sound so much sexier.


Thats the thing, no more probable causes of explosions than explosives have been provided.

I am curious what would be a more porbable cause of multiple explosion in the abscence of fire on the way up to the impact zone? Gas lines? The WTC did not have any. The water supply system, the AC System, the electrical grid? Fire in the lobby area? We have video of the lobby area in at least one of the tower, no fire to be seen there. In fact there isnt picture or video where fire can be seen anywhere than in the impact zone.

The Firefighters were obviously startled and surprised at the explosions. If they were a normal occurrence during a fire, you would think the firefighters would be equipped to deal with them. But it were the firefighters themselves who spoke of bombs in the building. I think they should know what ammount of eploedy to expect in a burning building.
edit on 26-4-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


Irrelevant!

Deny ignorance!

LOL

You know I told myself yesterday that I would not argue with them anymore... it’s like talking to a vending machine... they don’t understand the language I speak...

But it's just too much fun!

Irrelevant !! deny ignorance !!
lol

Correction;
I will not allow ignorance to continue.
edit on 26-4-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1


I'm confused...


I meant conspiracy in the sense of conspiracy theory. In the sense of "inside job" in some variant or another. You're attempting to make fairly simple investigation complex so that you can reserve the right to imagine some kind of hidden 'conspiracy' behind it. Why you would do this I don't know.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1


I'm confused...


I meant conspiracy in the sense of conspiracy theory. In the sense of "inside job" in some variant or another. You're attempting to make fairly simple investigation complex so that you can reserve the right to imagine some kind of hidden 'conspiracy' behind it. Why you would do this I don't know.


fairly simple investigation?

Really?
Jets used as weapons, skyscrapers collapse, 3000 people dead... simple?


Irrelevant!
I will not allow ignorance to continue.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 





you know the only way to resolve the question is to ask that fireman so why don't you ask him?

What are you going to do if the firemen come out and say it was in fact explosives that they were talking about?



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 





The Firefighters were obviously startled and surprised at the explosions. If they were a normal occurrence during a fire, you would think the firefighters would be equipped to deal with them.


This would startle me.



Think of how many spray cans there are in an office complex. Remember back in those days blow off/dust off cans had explosive propellant in them.
I'll bet WD40 would make a huge explosion. What's worse is if the temperature inside a storage cabinet (metal) gets high enought to force the cans to leak and fill the cabinet with gas. Once the flame gets in BOOM!



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Cassius666
 





The Firefighters were obviously startled and surprised at the explosions. If they were a normal occurrence during a fire, you would think the firefighters would be equipped to deal with them.


This would startle me.



Think of how many spray cans there are in an office complex. Remember back in those days blow off/dust off cans had explosive propellant in them.
I'll bet WD40 would make a huge explosion. What's worse is if the temperature inside a storage cabinet (metal) gets high enought to force the cans to leak and fill the cabinet with gas. Once the flame gets in BOOM!

They can explode spontaneously without fire?
I'm startled just thinking about it...
Who do you think shot the spray cans in WTC?
edit on 26-4-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 




They can explode spontaneously without fire?
I'm startled just thinking about it...
Who do you think shot the spray cans in WTC?

Clearly you are not think logically about the explosions.
Didn't you ever get to play with fire as a teen? We would throw anything we thought would react into the fire. Empty cans would make a poof. But full ones made a big fireball.

You need to experience playing with fire. You will come away with a different outlook.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by maxella1
 




They can explode spontaneously without fire?
I'm startled just thinking about it...
Who do you think shot the spray cans in WTC?

Clearly you are not think logically about the explosions.
Didn't you ever get to play with fire as a teen? We would throw anything we thought would react into the fire. Empty cans would make a poof. But full ones made a big fireball.

You need to experience playing with fire. You will come away with a different outlook.

what fire are you talking about?



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


The random explosions heard after the impact.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by maxella1
 


The random explosions heard after the impact.

OK lets try again.... What fire caused the explosions in the area where these firefighters were?



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Sounds travel.

Look I'm not going to knitt pick with you on this. You are arguing with the whole world. You won't win.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by maxella1
 


Sounds travel.

Look I'm not going to knitt pick with you on this. You are arguing with the whole world. You won't win.




Irrelevant!

I will not allow ignorance to continue!



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by maxella1
 


Sounds travel.

Look I'm not going to knitt pick with you on this. You are arguing with the whole world. You won't win.


Sorry, I'm having trouble following your logic here. The firefighters were in the lobby. The impact zone was 90 floors above them. Yet, somehow the lobby exploded. You're saying sound did it??



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by hooper
 





you know the only way to resolve the question is to ask that fireman so why don't you ask him?

What are you going to do if the firemen come out and say it was in fact explosives that they were talking about?


But how would they know? Unless they actually saw explosive devices attached to the structure, and witnessed them exploding (without being killed mind you) they cannot say, nor can anyone say it was definately "explosive devices" exploding. Also, if they were anywhere near such explosives to make a positive identification, they would not be here today. Explosives have a nasty habit of maiming and killing people that are standing nearby.

As such, there never has been any positive proof or evidence or explosives being used. NONE. Hearing explosions is not the same as finding actual evidence such as blast damage, blast deaths or injuries, explosive remaints, visible signs of explosives. None. Unless an investigator discovered parts of explosive devices, debris with obvious visual evidence of explosives, or even footage of explsions going off., one cannot hinge an entire conspiracy based solely on people hearing something go boom, and saying it sounded like something. In a court of law, that is inadmissable as evidence. In fact, it would be laughed right out.

Can you stop muddying the waters with this nonsense, since like it was mentioned before, its obvious you want confusion kept so that you can continue to keep a conspiracy on the table. That is not honest.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1


I'm confused...


I meant conspiracy in the sense of conspiracy theory. In the sense of "inside job" in some variant or another. You're attempting to make fairly simple investigation complex so that you can reserve the right to imagine some kind of hidden 'conspiracy' behind it. Why you would do this I don't know.


fairly simple investigation?

Really?
Jets used as weapons, skyscrapers collapse, 3000 people dead... simple?


Irrelevant!
I will not allow ignorance to continue.


I'm talking about the specific enquiry being explored here. Which is fairly simple. You are set on making it complicated because that suits your agenda. It isn't.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 





The firefighters were in the lobby. The impact zone was 90 floors above them. Yet, somehow the lobby exploded. You're saying sound did it??

There were 10 power transformers at ground level. There were another 12 on the 5th floor.
When a big metal object severs large power cables going between floors you can expect them to explode.
Google transformer explosion. Look at the pictures.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum