Firemen Explosion Testimony

reply to post by maxella1


Sorry, I would have been more helpful but I really did not know how to reply to a question as general as "where do you get your facts from"?

There you go making things up again...
this is what the question was...

I would love to read from your reading list... if you don't mind?

would you like me to post a list of books I read?

reply to post by maxella1


Yep, you're right, different question. Same response though. And no, I don't care about your reading list. Besides, anyone can compile a list of books on the internet. Doesn't prove anything.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

Yep, you're right, different question. Same response though. And no, I don't care about your reading list. Besides, anyone can compile a list of books on the internet. Doesn't prove anything.

I know it's easier to just insult and dismiss people asking questions.

reply to post by maxella1

I know it's easier to just insult and dismiss people asking questions.

I am not insulting - just direct. And how can you claim that you've been dismissed? If you had been dismissed you would have been ignored. I think the problem is the exact opposite - you got answers to your questions that you didn't like. Can't help that. Also, not every "question" deserves or can be answered.

So the truthers surrendered again . Oh well don't let facts get in the way of a good lawsuit

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

I know it's easier to just insult and dismiss people asking questions.

I am not insulting - just direct. And how can you claim that you've been dismissed? If you had been dismissed you would have been ignored. I think the problem is the exact opposite - you got answers to your questions that you didn't like. Can't help that. Also, not every "question" deserves or can be answered.

By answers you mean assumptions and imaginations?

And yes not every question can be answered like for example what the firemen and Barry Jennings was talking about. but that doesn't stop you from claiming you know the answers.
And that is exactly my position.

Originally posted by mikellmikell
So the truthers surrendered again . Oh well don't let facts get in the way of a good lawsuit

what are you talking about?

Originally posted by mikellmikell
So the truthers surrendered again . Oh well don't let facts get in the way of a good lawsuit

another example of urinating into this thread.

reply to post by maxella1

By answers you mean assumptions and imaginations?

Well, sometime they only available response to a question is an assumption or value judgement. That doesn't mean its not an appropriate answer as long as it is stated as such, or is put into a context that it so understood.

And yes not every question can be answered like for example what the firemen...

Actually, that one can be answered - but you need to ask those firemen.

....and Barry Jennings was talking about.

Well, Mr. Jennings is deceased, if I am not mistaken, so there is no other source for that question unless he left some writings or recordings dealing with the subject, which would be a question for his estate.

.....but that doesn't stop you from claiming you know the answers.

I don't claim to know the answers but that doesn't mean you can't know what is in the reasonable range of responses to a given question and what is not. For example, the question may be "how many apples does it take to make a 12" apple pie"? Well a reasonable range of answers would be 8 to 15. 16 could be reasonable as well, however, 6,000,000 is not. Neither is 0.

And that is exactly my position

So your position is any anwer is acceptable, ergo all answers are valid?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

By answers you mean assumptions and imaginations?

Well, sometime they only available response to a question is an assumption or value judgement. That doesn't mean its not an appropriate answer as long as it is stated as such, or is put into a context that it so understood.

And yes not every question can be answered like for example what the firemen...

Actually, that one can be answered - but you need to ask those firemen.

....and Barry Jennings was talking about.

Well, Mr. Jennings is deceased, if I am not mistaken, so there is no other source for that question unless he left some writings or recordings dealing with the subject, which would be a question for his estate.

.....but that doesn't stop you from claiming you know the answers.

I don't claim to know the answers but that doesn't mean you can't know what is in the reasonable range of responses to a given question and what is not. For example, the question may be "how many apples does it take to make a 12" apple pie"? Well a reasonable range of answers would be 8 to 15. 16 could be reasonable as well, however, 6,000,000 is not. Neither is 0.

And that is exactly my position

So your position is any anwer is acceptable, ergo all answers are valid?

My position is that it is still possible that what they were talking about is exactly what they were saying. And I want you to stop stating your assumptions as fact. FDNY firefighters know what secondary explosions sound like better than you, unless of cause you are one of those firefighters.

reply to post by maxella1

FDNY firefighters know what secondary explosions sound like better than you, unless of cause you are one of those firefighters.

Now wait a minute. Where are you getting that they knew they were secondary explosions because of the charateristics of their sound? Sounds like you are making an assumption there. If I call something "secondary" its a description of its place in an order, not a general description of its nature.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

FDNY firefighters know what secondary explosions sound like better than you, unless of cause you are one of those firefighters.

Now wait a minute. Where are you getting that they knew they were secondary explosions because of the charateristics of their sound? Sounds like you are making an assumption there. If I call something "secondary" its a description of its place in an order, not a general description of its nature.

They say it in their own words in that video.
What part of “definitely secondary explosions “ don’t you understand?

reply to post by maxella1

They say it in their own words in that video.
What part of “definitely secondary explosions “ don’t you understand?

The part where they say that due to the nature of the sound pattern and volume that was definetly a secondary explosion - no wait - they didn't say that - you assumed it.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

They say it in their own words in that video.
What part of “definitely secondary explosions “ don’t you understand?

The part where they say that due to the nature of the sound pattern and volume that was definetly a secondary explosion - no wait - they didn't say that - you assumed it.

LOL, is that all you got left?

reply to post by hooper

I assume that they are more qualified in the field of firefighting than you, unless you are one of them.
are you a firefighter Hooper?

reply to post by maxella1

I assume that they are more qualified in the field of firefighting than you, unless you are one of them.
are you a firefighter Hooper?

Why would you assume that?

You assume that they think they are secondary explosions because of the way they sound.

You assume no one can say they are wrong, even though you don't know why they are right.

Lots of assumptions.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

I assume that they are more qualified in the field of firefighting than you, unless you are one of them.
are you a firefighter Hooper?

Why would you assume that?

You assume that they think they are secondary explosions because of the way they sound.

You assume no one can say they are wrong, even though you don't know why they are right.

Lots of assumptions.

Finally you made me laugh today... this is why I love coming here.. Thanks !

I believe every word of what they are saying more than I believe you based on the assumption that you have no idea what you’re talking about.. I don't know what made them believe it was secondary explosions, but I assume they know what it sounds like better than you.
Two assumptions.
Prove me wrong... are you a firefighter? LOL

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

They say it in their own words in that video.
What part of “definitely secondary explosions “ don’t you understand?

The part where they say that due to the nature of the sound pattern and volume that was definetly a secondary explosion - no wait - they didn't say that - you assumed it.

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by GenRadek

 

The phrase "clutching at straws" is the first thing that comes to mind when reading your comments....

Couldn’t have say it better myself,

reply to post by hooper

Can't help that. Also, not every "question" deserves or can be answered. Can't help that. .

Hey I just got an idea... why don’t you get in touch with unaccounted for victims families and tell them what questions do not deserve answering? And let us know how it turns out for you?