> On Behalf Of Dave Land
> And it's not just that people described the plane hitting the
> tower as "an explosion", it's the reports -- many of them at
> the time they happened -- of "there goes another explosion".
> There are radio recordings of lots of firefighters reported
> "secondary explosions"
> throughout the building at various times, and footage of
> reporters reacting to explosions way after the both planes had
hit.
I don't think I was clear enough earlier. I was actually referring
to these reports of secondary explosions not the initial explosion
from the airplane hit.
Again, there probably were lots of things happening that could be
described in the chaos of the moment as explosions. But that
doesn't mean they were caused by bombs preset in the building. I'm
not sure that I buy the argument that the average firefighter is
trained to know the difference between an explosion caused by a bomb
and by other things. I'm sure they are trained to know about the
"normal" fire-related explosions and such. But nothing about the
WTC attacks was normal. It was all outside of their experiences and
training. The scale of the damage and the chaos was beyond anything
I'm sure most, if not all, of them had ever seen. I don't put a lot
of creedence in the words someone blurted out over a radio in that
situation. As I said in another post, I could imagine someone
blurting out the first thing that came to mind ("that sounded like a
bomb") but then internalizing the next part ("no, probably 'caused
by blah-blah-blah").
- jmh
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
