Firemen Explosion Testimony

page: 11
12
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatcoat

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??

Look, what happened on 9/11 is fairly simple to understand. Ask TrickoftheShade, he will tell you.

When the sound travels at the speed of light it makes WD40 cans in the closet explode.
Stop trying to complicate this fairly simple investigation.

Everything else is irrelevant.

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




posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:13 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?


The fact that they haven't is pretty conclusive. Indeed it's one of the other reasons why hardly anybody gives any credit to the notion of a demo at WTC 7. The firemen who were there are almost to man convinced that it fell because of the fire. Indeed they even predicted that it would on the day.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   


Transformer Explosion Rocks Flatiron District, Shattering Windows

Here




The explosion blew out some windows in nearby buildings just before 2:30 p.m., and some buildings are being evacuated because of high carbon monoxide readings.





"Massive explosion heard on 17th and 6th Ave. Hearing a manhole cover exploded. Smells like gas & tons of fire/emergency vehicles responding."


Now did someone CD the manhole? Is this some new conspiracy from the NYFD?



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

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.

Suits MY agenda?

Irrelevant!



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Thats the thing, no more probable causes of explosions than explosives have been provided.


Seriously??? I almost spat my drink all over the screen when I read this. What the hell have we been doing earlier? Oh no, I'm not going to go and do your homework for you. Go back a few pages and see just what we have been talking about with regards to sources of explosions being heard. I'm sorry but when I see this level of ignorance, it just.........





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.



How do we know there werent fires located there? Also, how do they know the sounds didnt come from the fire zones? What if they were describing the structure failing slowly? The sounds can traverse the structure as well. Unless they said exactl where they were, we cannot say what was there.




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)


Explosions always startle me. Even during a fireworks display or the 4th of July, even though I expect to hear it, I still jump and it still startles me. Do explosions happen in fires? Yes. All the time. I heard four explosions during a garage fire. Startled me and the bystanders that were trying to get the attention of the apartment folks to evac their home since the garage was so close and it was 2AM. We warned the firefighters about the explosions too. They kept their distance until the fire was under control.

As for firefighters saying they heard "bombs" in the building, well, let us see the frame of mind for them: It is now obvious a terrorist attack. Until then, the last attack involved a massive bomb in the WTC basement. Here, a 767 was used as a flying bomb to attack the WTC. Things are burning, failing, exploding, and they assume there maybe explosives being used too by the terrorists. That is just common sense. It is a terrorist attack so it is safe to assume (AT THE TIME) that there may be bombs used in conjection. After all, can you recall the last time before 9/11 of a plane hitting a large structure like the WTC? Soo how can one know exactly what is going on in such an event?



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


You're clearly just trolling now.

Bye.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
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.


Oh Man! Now I’m confused again...

So it's not DW40 in the closet that exploded?

Now it's transformers?

How am I supposed deny ignorance if you keep changing the story?
edit on 26-4-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by maxella1
 


You're clearly just trolling now.

Bye.


have a good day



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
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.


So an electrical short on the 90th floor causes the ground floor transformers to explode? Bypassing all the transformer floors inbetween with all their associated over-current devices? Drop-outs, surge-diverters, HRC fuses etc. all designed specifically to prevent this kind of catastrophic overload? Forgive me if I find that to be stretching it a little.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatcoat

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??


What they described was the WTC collapsing on top of them. Didnt you notice the dust on them? They were inside when it came down. And they survived.

I do not kow how they would plant bombs all over the lobby without anyone noticing.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

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.


interesting. but how is all that relevant?



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent



Transformer Explosion Rocks Flatiron District, Shattering Windows

Here




The explosion blew out some windows in nearby buildings just before 2:30 p.m., and some buildings are being evacuated because of high carbon monoxide readings.





"Massive explosion heard on 17th and 6th Ave. Hearing a manhole cover exploded. Smells like gas & tons of fire/emergency vehicles responding."


Now did someone CD the manhole? Is this some new conspiracy from the NYFD?


WOW Manhole conspiracy?

and it's FDNY by the way..
just saying...



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 





So an electrical short on the 90th floor causes the ground floor transformers to explode? Bypassing all the transformer floors inbetween with all their associated over-current devices?

As far as I'm finding there were an additional 2 transformers on the 7th floor. There is no mention of any on transformers on any other floor. So that leads me to believe the power for the upper floors came from the transformers on the 5th and possibly 7th floors.

AS to the over current devices: Since transformers explode all over the country on a regular basis, I guess the breakers do not function in all cases or are not as reliable as you might expect.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Flatcoat
 





So an electrical short on the 90th floor causes the ground floor transformers to explode? Bypassing all the transformer floors inbetween with all their associated over-current devices?

As far as I'm finding there were an additional 2 transformers on the 7th floor. There is no mention of any on transformers on any other floor. So that leads me to believe the power for the upper floors came from the transformers on the 5th and possibly 7th floors.

AS to the over current devices: Since transformers explode all over the country on a regular basis, I guess the breakers do not function in all cases or are not as reliable as you might expect.


Yes, but in the majority of cases it's caused by internal failure. Faulty insulation on the windings or impurities in the oil. External failures are generally caused by a direct short on the transformer bus actually bypassing the security i.e. tree branches etc.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 



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.

OK just to make sure that ignorance will not continue, I need to ask this.

In this video the firemen are saying that it was “definitely secondary explosions”, and you explained it pretty well that they have no idea what they are talking about.

But if they come out and say that it was “definitely secondary explosions caused by explosives” than they would be lying, correct?

Because they would have obviously be killed by the explosions, right?

You should make it as clear as possible because I’m sure there will be crazy conspiracy theorists who will believe them. You know what I mean?

Make no mistake I will not allow ignorance to continue just like you..
This needs to be addressed before we start seeing the crazies running around screaming “explosives, conspiracy, reptilians” you know what I’m talking about.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 





Yes, but in the majority of cases it's caused by internal failure. Faulty insulation on the windings or impurities in the oil. External failures are generally caused by a direct short on the transformer bus actually bypassing the security i.e. tree branches etc.

I think an aluminum aircraft would make a fine substitute for a tree branch. Wouldn't you?



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
The fact that they haven't is pretty conclusive. Indeed it's one of the other reasons why hardly anybody gives any credit to the notion of a demo at WTC 7. The firemen who were there are almost to man convinced that it fell because of the fire. Indeed they even predicted that it would on the day.


Not only that, the Naudet brothers were two French journalists who went to make a documentary about NYC firefighters and wound up making a documentary on firefighters dealing with the 9/11 attack. In their film it specifically shows what the conditions of the lobby was (no explosions) as well as eyewitness accounts they cause describing happened before they arrived (fireballs coming from the elevator), so you'd think there would be more eyewitness accounts to explosions that just the one or two the truthers are quoting. It's pretty clear these eyewitness accounts are being mutated by those damned fool conspiracy websites, in a deliberate progression of massaging fireballs into fire explosions into explosions into explosives into controlled demolitions into sinister secret plots to take over the world

This of course can only mean one thing- Everyone must believe everything Alex Jones says without question and the Naudet brothers are really disinformation agents. Of course.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
The fact that they haven't is pretty conclusive. Indeed it's one of the other reasons why hardly anybody gives any credit to the notion of a demo at WTC 7. The firemen who were there are almost to man convinced that it fell because of the fire. Indeed they even predicted that it would on the day.


Not only that, the Naudet brothers were two French journalists who went to make a documentary about NYC firefighters and wound up making a documentary on firefighters dealing with the 9/11 attack. In their film it specifically shows what the conditions of the lobby was (no explosions) as well as eyewitness accounts they cause describing happened before they arrived (fireballs coming from the elevator), so you'd think there would be more eyewitness accounts to explosions that just the one or two the truthers are quoting. It's pretty clear these eyewitness accounts are being mutated by those damned fool conspiracy websites, in a deliberate progression of massaging fireballs into fire explosions into explosions into explosives into controlled demolitions into sinister secret plots to take over the world

This of course can only mean one thing- Everyone must believe everything Alex Jones says without question and the Naudet brothers are really disinformation agents. Of course.


We were just talking about you. How you doing?

I don't mean to sound ignorant, but why are the Naudet brothers relevant? They are not even American?



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Flatcoat
 





Yes, but in the majority of cases it's caused by internal failure. Faulty insulation on the windings or impurities in the oil. External failures are generally caused by a direct short on the transformer bus actually bypassing the security i.e. tree branches etc.

I think an aluminum aircraft would make a fine substitute for a tree branch. Wouldn't you?


True, but it would have to actually hit the transformer itself.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 04:16 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!


Spraycans on the stairway? And again there was no fire. Iam sorry but that is grasping at straws.

edit on 26-4-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



Originally posted by maxella1

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)


I am afraid them exist on both sites of the aisle. And thats the problem, people picking sides, it clouds judgement.

On the other side you can be the jury between 2 lawyers making their case throwing all they can get in support of their case at you. Just do not expect the prosecution to admit the innocence of the defendant or the defense to admit the guilt of his client. You will have to decide for yourself.
edit on 26-4-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-4-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join