Firemen Explosion Testimony

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

I believe the second lot and not the first. Because I think that firemen have expertise in building collapse and not in explosives. In short they are likely to mistake things for "secondary explosions" but they are unlikely to make an error with the symptoms exhibited by a building in danger of collapse.

Just to clarify,
Are you stating this as your personal opinion or are you trying to convince me that this it true?

reply to post by maxella1


So what do you think? Can you think of another reason someone could have heard explosions that morning other than explosives? Anything come to mind?

reply to post by hooper


I totally agree with you, but your boy GenRadek thinks that when firemen talk about secondary explosives is meaningless.

Them just saying "secondary explosions" is meaningless. Really, it is.

i disagree because they weren't just saying it, they also experienced it.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

So what do you think? Can you think of another reason someone could have heard explosions that morning other than explosives? Anything come to mind?

Sure I can. I wasn’t in the building with them.
It doesn’t mater what I think. The firefighters know what they lived trough, and I believe them.

reply to post by maxella1

Sure I can. I wasn’t in the building with them.
It doesn’t mater what I think. The firefighters know what they lived trough, and I believe them

Do they? I explained the term "secondary explosions" in terms of terrorist tactics. Is that what they were talking about? How does someone on the scene know what exploded or made a loud sudden sound? Do you know what they meant by the use of those words?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

Sure I can. I wasn’t in the building with them.
It doesn’t mater what I think. The firefighters know what they lived trough, and I believe them

Do they? I explained the term "secondary explosions" in terms of terrorist tactics. Is that what they were talking about? How does someone on the scene know what exploded or made a loud sudden sound? Do you know what they meant by the use of those words?

LOL

Of cause I don't know what they meant, that's the whole point.
But they didn't say that something exploded, instead they said “definitely secondary explosions”.
To me that sounds pretty specific. In their own words, I believe them, since this is what they do for a living... you know structure fires and all.

reply to post by maxella1

In their own words, I believe them....

That's the question - what is it that you believe? What do you believe they meant when they said waht they said?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

In their own words, I believe them....

That's the question - what is it that you believe? What do you believe they meant when they said waht they said?

I think that they meant what they said, and they said what they meant

reply to post by maxella1

I think that they meant what they said, and they said what they meant

And that is? What is it they meant by "secondary explosions"? What does it mean to you?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

I think that they meant what they said, and they said what they meant

And that is? What is it they meant by "secondary explosions"? What does it mean to you?

To me it means anything including explosives.
I know that FDNY training include explosives and terror attacks. So I trust their expertise. They don't call firecrackers secondary explosions. They know what they were talking about, unless you can show me where they explained what they meant... It's secondary explosives as far as I'm concerned.

reply to post by maxella1

To me it means anything including explosives.

OK

I know that FDNY training include explosives and terror attacks. So I trust their expertise.

Now wait. Since when are FDNY fireman experts in explosives and terror attacks? I am sure they have some training, but experts? There's a big difference.

They don't call firecrackers secondary explosions.

Aren't firecrackers explosives? That's rhetorical, yes they are classified as explosives. So now you're qualifying your "anything". Any other exclusionary conditions?

They know what they were talking about, unless you can show me where they explained what they meant... It's secondary explosives as far as I'm concerned.

Why? Have you consider all the other possibilities?

reply to post by hooper

Look, I don’t know what your mission is.

FDNY train their firemen to respond to terrorist attacks. They did before 9/11 and they do now.
I have no idea about what exploded in the tower when they were in it. I take what they say, as they say it.
And they said secondary explosions, looking at how the buildings went down, and other survivors describe all kinds of explosions, and i compare it to the official story. And since the official explanation for me personally sounds like a bunch of BS, and every time I get one answer it creates more questions, in my mind explosives have a very good possibility to be the cause of the collapses.

You don't have to agree with me. It's just very annoying when you start imagining what these firefighters actually meant like they are a bunch of clowns.
I don’t believe you.. that simple.

reply to post by maxella1

Look, I don’t know what your mission is.

To seek out new life forms and boldly go.......

FDNY train their firemen to respond to terrorist attacks. They did before 9/11 and they do now.

You sure? "Terrorist attack" is a pretty broad category. Could be any number of things.

I have no idea about what exploded in the tower when they were in it.

No idea? None? You must have some ideas.

I take what they say, as they say it.

No you don't. You say you have no idea what they mean.

And they said secondary explosions, looking at how the buildings went down, and other survivors describe all kinds of explosions, and i compare it to the official story. And since the official explanation for me personally sounds like a bunch of BS, and every time I get one answer it creates more questions, in my mind explosives have a very good possibility to be the cause of the collapses.

Just out of curiosity - what is the "official story" and where did you get it from? And since you've already admitted that you have "no idea" about what the explosion was then how can you dismiss what you think is the "official story". Sounds like what you mean is that you are ready to believe anything as long as it conforms to some conspiracy narrative wherein nefarious forces within the US government stage the events of 9/11/2001.

You don't have to agree with me.

I can't agree or disagree unless you make some claim. Right now the only thing you are certain of is that the "official story" isn't right.

It's just very annoying when you start imagining what these firefighters actually meant like they are a bunch of clowns.

Like a bunch of clowns? Where are you getting that from? Or are you just trying to create some pretext where you can ignore those things that you don't want to hear?

I don’t believe you.. that simple.

What is it that you don't believe?

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by hooper

 

FDNY train their firemen to respond to terrorist attacks. They did before 9/11 and they do now.
I have no idea about what exploded in the tower when they were in it. I take what they say, as they say it.
And they said secondary explosions, looking at how the buildings went down, and other survivors describe all kinds of explosions, and i compare it to the official story. And since the official explanation for me personally sounds like a bunch of BS, and every time I get one answer it creates more questions, in my mind explosives have a very good possibility to be the cause of the collapses.

Yes, they are trained to respond to disasters, attacks, accidents, etc. They are first responders. However, that does not mean they are trained to distinguish the sounds of explosions and differentiate between loud sounds. That just isnt in the training manual. They do not sit in a classroom and are played different sounds of explosions and told: This is what C4 sounds like; this is what RDX sounds like; this is what a natual gas explosion sounds like; this is what a large heavy steel beam snapping sounds like; this is what a ...............

Once again, "Secondary explosiosns" can mean ANYTHING in this picture. Is it secondary to the main "explosion" when the plane impacted and exploded in the WTC? Or are there just loud reports, bangs, booms, thuds that are common in MASSIVE fires being reported as secondary explosions? Were there explosions? Yes. Were they all explosive device caused? NO! Were any caused by bombs? Nope. No evidence for it, other than, "I heard an explosion." And in the real world, hearing an explosion during a massive fire, is nothing new. Like I said, I once heard four loud explosions during a garage fire a year ago. I didnt go and say, OH NO!! BOMBS!!!! Just, crap is exploding in the fire.

Sorry but hinging your entire argument that the entire OS is BS because people heard explosions and buildings fell, while ignoring the actual data, facts, and information compiled by actual professionals that explain what happened, is darn near embracing ignorance. You are only making up new "questions" in your head based on erroneous assumptions and incomplete accounts, facts, etc. Your are making up things to explain other made up things

You don't have to agree with me. It's just very annoying when you start imagining what these firefighters actually meant like they are a bunch of clowns.
I don’t believe you.. that simple.

No one is saying firefighters are clowns. We are not imagining what the FF said. We know what they said. However, unlike you and so many truthers, we actually understand what they said, and what context it is in, and the reasons why they said what they did. Saying, "They heard secondary explosions, therefore it is 110% proof positive explosives were used," is incorrect and ignorant. I know what context they are speaking in, and I know how people say things when they are exposed to an event they have never been in before.

reply to post by hooper

You sure? "Terrorist attack" is a pretty broad category. Could be any number of things.

Yes could be any number of things and one of them is explosives.

No idea? None? You must have some ideas.

Well, it could have been firework explosion, a pipe-bomb, C-4, pressurized canister exploding, gasoline/fuel fumes exploding.

But when I search videos all I found is firemen say “definitely secondary explosions”, and other survivors also describe explosions far below the floors on fire.

I can't find anybody that said it was fireworks, or a pipe-bomb, or C-4, or pressurized canister, or gasoline/fuel fumes exploding. I'd love to see anybody talking about them.
Post a link, I’ll appreciate it very much..

No you don't. You say you have no idea what they mean.

Yes, and that's why I don't want to start making things up to explain something that only they can.
Plus these are professional firefighters, and since this is what they do for a living, I don’t think they are confusing secondary explosions with firecrackers.

Just out of curiosity - what is the "official story" and where did you get it from? And since you've already admitted that you have "no idea" about what the explosion was then how can you dismiss what you think is the "official story". Sounds like what you mean is that you are ready to believe anything as long as it conforms to some conspiracy narrative wherein nefarious forces within the US government stage the events of 9/11/2001.

As far as I know the official story is that 19 people hijacked 4 jets, crashed 2 into WTC 1, and 2, crashed the third jet into the pentagon, and one jet crashed in Pennsylvania.
In NY three buildings collapsed due to extreme heat and structural damage. And officially there were no evidence of explosives, and no one died in or around WTC 7. I got this story from NIST, 9/11 commission report, and you. Am I wrong?

I can't agree or disagree unless you make some claim. Right now the only thing you are certain of is that the "official story" isn't right.

Yes in my opinion the OS is wrong, because no matter how hard I try to believe it, it still is on the same level as space lasers . I have questions, and I don't accept personal opinions of people who was not there, so I don't believe you that firefighters, and survivors actually mean something other than what they actually say on video, while being on scene. I would need to hear it from eye witnesses to believe it.

Like a bunch of clowns? Where are you getting that from? Or are you just trying to create some pretext where you can ignore those things that you don't want to hear?

Let them talk for themselves, and stop making things up. You make them sound like they don't know what they are talking about, it's insulting.

What is it that you don't believe?

A single word that you type.

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

I believe the second lot and not the first. Because I think that firemen have expertise in building collapse and not in explosives. In short they are likely to mistake things for "secondary explosions" but they are unlikely to make an error with the symptoms exhibited by a building in danger of collapse.

Just to clarify,
Are you stating this as your personal opinion or are you trying to convince me that this it true?

I'm not sure of the difference, really. This is a discussion forum and during the process of talking about this issue I'm informing you of my opinion and the reasons I've reached this conclusion. You can take from it what you will.

In turn I suppose you could clarify why you think firemen would have more expertise in explosives than burning buildings? I doubt the average fireman encounters many bombs in his working life. But he probably comes across quite a few fires.

reply to post by maxella1

As far as I know the official story is that 19 people hijacked 4 jets, crashed 2 into WTC 1, and 2, crashed the third jet into the pentagon, and one jet crashed in Pennsylvania.
In NY three buildings collapsed due to extreme heat and structural damage. And officially there were no evidence of explosives, and no one died in or around WTC 7. I got this story from NIST, 9/11 commission report, and you. Am I wrong?

So there is no official story as to what may have caused the explosions heard in around the World Trade Center complex on 9/11/2001, yet you think the official story is wrong. Interesting.

As for the remainder of the narrative you suggest that the possibility of hijacking commercial aircraft is as remote as laser beams from space. Can you defend that?

reply to post by GenRadek

Yes, they are trained to respond to disasters, attacks, accidents, etc. They are first responders. However, that does not mean they are trained to distinguish the sounds of explosions and differentiate between loud sounds. That just isnt in the training manual. They do not sit in a classroom and are played different sounds of explosions and told: This is what C4 sounds like; this is what RDX sounds like; this is what a natual gas explosion sounds like; this is what a large heavy steel beam snapping sounds like; this is what a ...............

And how do you know this?
What do they learn in the class rooms?

Like I said, I once heard four loud explosions during a garage fire a year ago. I didnt go and say, OH NO!! BOMBS!!!! Just, crap is exploding in the fire.

Was the garage as large as WTC ?
Did it completely collapse?
Did the firefighters say that they were surrounded by fire when the heard explosives?

Sorry but hinging your entire argument that the entire OS is BS because people heard explosions and buildings fell, while ignoring the actual data, facts, and information compiled by actual professionals that explain what happened, is darn near embracing ignorance. You are only making up new "questions" in your head based on erroneous assumptions and incomplete accounts, facts, etc. Your are making up things to explain other made up things

You are the one who makes things up. I take what they say and don't make anything up at all.
The official story is preposterous to the actual facts. I never said I know what happened, but you do.

No one is saying firefighters are clowns. We are not imagining what the FF said. We know what they said. However, unlike you and so many truthers, we actually understand what they said, and what context it is in, and the reasons why they said what they did. Saying, "They heard secondary explosions, therefore it is 110% proof positive explosives were used," is incorrect and ignorant. I know what context they are speaking in, and I know how people say things when they are exposed to an event they have never been in before.

They did not only say “i heard explosions”, they were there when it exploded, and they were not in the middle of the fire, but much below it.
The only ones who say they know what happened 110% is you.

reply to post by maxella1

You are the one who makes things up. I take what they say and don't make anything up at all.

Except:

Did the firefighters say that they were surrounded by fire when the heard explosives?

I am not aware of any firefighter saying they heard explosives.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

I believe the second lot and not the first. Because I think that firemen have expertise in building collapse and not in explosives. In short they are likely to mistake things for "secondary explosions" but they are unlikely to make an error with the symptoms exhibited by a building in danger of collapse.

Just to clarify,
Are you stating this as your personal opinion or are you trying to convince me that this it true?

I'm not sure of the difference, really. This is a discussion forum and during the process of talking about this issue I'm informing you of my opinion and the reasons I've reached this conclusion. You can take from it what you will.

In turn I suppose you could clarify why you think firemen would have more expertise in explosives than burning buildings? I doubt the average fireman encounters many bombs in his working life. But he probably comes across quite a few fires.

First NYC is a target for terrorism, the WTC was bombed before.
So they get trained on explosive, (what kind could be used, where it could be places, how to be aware to your surroundings, what is the potential damage caused by different type of explosives, what they look like, what king of smoke they produces, etc)
They also get trained on what kind of things could explode in a structure fire, and how to make sure the scene is safe, before going in.