9/11 Survivors, and Daniel Sanjata Speak w/ WAC engage JC residents Q&A *Updated*

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
If, im living in another country, I am going to learn the language and become fluent in it. But thats me, I wouldnt move to another country and expect them to change to suit me.

Because you are sure you will have the access to such education? You know that for a fact? You are certain that after twenty years, you will have it down? You keep showing us over and over that you have not mastered English yet. How long have you lived in an English speaking country?

Irregardless, that has nothing to do with the fact that William Rodriguez has drastically changed his story since 2001....and knowledge of the English language has nothing to do with that.

irregardless Irregardless is NOT A WORD. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You keep proving the point. The man's SECOND language is English. You are calling him a liar because he cannot speak it perfectly. You do not know the meaning of the word "explosive." You do not understand verb/noun agreements. You just used "irregardless." You have proven that you cannot use your FIRST language perfectly. Does that make you a liar or not?

You cannot accuse this man of being a liar based on his poor choice of words that are almost synonims anyway and then expect us to put any belief in anything you say when you are so incorrect with you English.

Please tell me how many years you have lived in and English speaking country so we can toss this language argument out once and for all.

THANKS!

reply to post by Lillydale

Do not twist one thing with another to use poor logic to discredit b by comparing it to a.

But...but...but...Gaaagh!

That's what we see certain "truthers" in these threads do all of the time!!!

In fact, you yourself did it just in the last two posts???!!!

You've attempted to belittle, and deflect, merely by suggesting that because a chemical battery, or an aerosol can could explode (under certain conditions) that they are, therefore (in your world view, at least) capable of being classed in the category of being an "explosive".

While, in only a technical sense is this considered to be correct, your obfuscation is noted, at least in regards to this discussion, and what's been implied (by "truthers") concerning the recollection of Mr. Rodriquez.

The obvious attempts to muddle this up notwithstanding, isn't it obvious what the point is?

(1): Rodriquez (for instance) says, now, that he thought he heard "explosions";

(2): Others have mentioned as well;

(3) It is repeated by the "truthers" who then shout "Aha!!! Since these witnesses heard explosions, there must have been explosives. That would mean explosive devices. That would mean planned demolition."
Etc, etc, etc.

(4) That leap, by the "truthers", is where they go wrong, and forever and ever clap their hands over their ears and say "Blah, blah, blah, I'm not listening to reason anymore. I know what the witnesses said, so therefore I know that there were bombs." (see, those generic explosions, and explosives, suddenly become 'bombs' --- in the sense that they were designed as bombs. I say that, lest you try to argue that an aerosol can is also a bomb, because I expect you will).

I would think that most reasonable, logical thinkers could see this as obvious.

Many, many electrons are wasted on this, semantics being trotted out left and right, and for what?

If anyone wishes to say a battery is an explosive, an aerosol can is an explosive, a transformer an explosive, then continue to say that a pound of C4 is an explosive and try to equate all of them in the same category, then it is intentional deflection and ludicrous to believe that normal, sane adults would accept it.

In the context, here, the term "explosive" is obviously meant to convey an item that is designed for an express purpose, to "explode" as part of its function, whether a high-energy device (one that detonates), or a low-energy device (one that deflagrates).

Mentioning that other, normally quiescent materials and devices might be mistaken for a "planted bomb" device, when they explode from exposure to extreme conditions, is perfectly valid to explain the misconceptions at work here.

Secondary explosive noises, heard in or around the WTC, that do NOT comport with typically seen planned CD squibs firing, or preliminary charges going off, that anyone can view online nowadays in actual CD events, would bve recognized in ANY OTHER SITUATION for what they were --- normal, everyday items exploding because of conditions. NOT pre-planted intentionally triggered explosive devices, built and designed for that specific function.

reply to post by weedwhacker


WOW. Just look at the hard time we are having with the words explosion, explosive and bomb. And English is our first language.

But, yet you guys want Rodriguez who is a Spanish speaking person to know the exact words and definitions of his second language? When we even can't get it straight?

reply to post by Nutter


Actually, it's only those who wish to parse and parse and parse, and nitpick (which is what i HAD to take great pains to point out, for the benefit of the person I responded to...else this merry-go-round continued).

Reasonable, sane and normal adults don't need to act like they're in a courtroom all of the time, "spinning" every nuance......

Originally posted by weedwhacker

But...but...but...Gaaagh!

That's what we see certain "truthers" in these threads do all of the time!!!

In fact, you yourself did it just in the last two posts???!!!

You've attempted to belittle, and deflect, merely by suggesting that because a chemical battery, or an aerosol can could explode (under certain conditions) that they are, therefore (in your world view, at least) capable of being classed in the category of being an "explosive".

LOL. Why is the dictionary so hard for you to read? The definition has been given. "Having the ability to explode" was one of the given definitions. Either you do not get how dictionaries work or you just refuse to look.

YOU ARE WRONG -LOOK IT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Therefore, I twisted NOTHING. You all want to discredit a man for not speaking perfect English. You are even STILL arguing about what is and is not an explosive. Please go back to the definition I believe NUTTER supplied for you all to you read and apparently ignore.

While, in only a technical sense is this considered to be correct, your obfuscation is noted, at least in regards to this discussion, and what's been implied (by "truthers") concerning the recollection of Mr. Rodriquez.

Technical sense?????? That is the same things as "you are correct, Lilly." Technical meaning in the sense of the English language and what the words means.

You are all debating the fact that this man should have enough grasp of the English language after 20 years in order to pick the exact appropriate words. Why should he? You just admitted I was right that you are all wrong about what the word means but you still had to weasel it into some kind of "Well sure, explosives are explosives but not explosives. Well, then if you ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE cannot get the word correct, even after someone posted the definition for you then there is no reason that a Spanish speaking person could not use the word "rumble" only to learn he meant "explosion."

You know, kind of like how you all said "those are not explosives" when after being corrected you then had to say 'well ok, technically those are explosions.

The obvious attempts to muddle this up notwithstanding, isn't it obvious what the point is?

(1): Rodriquez (for instance) says, now, that he thought he heard "explosions";

(2): Others have mentioned as well;

(3) It is repeated by the "truthers" who then shout "Aha!!! Since these witnesses heard explosions, there must have been explosives. That would mean explosive devices. That would mean planned demolition."
Etc, etc, etc.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm....nope. Hearing explosions means that we know that there were explosions.

Hearing the fired department claim there are secondary devices makes us think that there just may have been secondary devices.

The incredible ways in which those buildings collapsed leads us to believe it was a CD.

Stop leaping because eventually no one will be there to pull you up as you miss your landing each time. You are trying to paint "truthers" with a brush that does not exist and you cannot prove that it does. What would be the motivation there?

Are you interested in the truth? If so then you would not be making things up about how the so called "truth movement" actually does perceive this. You also have to stop weaseling about "technically" and admit once in a while that you are wrong.

I am very obnoxious around here and even I have admitted to being wrong. Ego much?

(4) That leap, by the "truthers", is where they go wrong, and forever and ever clap their hands over their ears and say "Blah, blah, blah, I'm not listening to reason anymore. I know what the witnesses said, so therefore I know that there were bombs." (see, those generic explosions, and explosives, suddenly become 'bombs' --- in the sense that they were designed as bombs. I say that, lest you try to argue that an aerosol can is also a bomb, because I expect you will).

So you make an imaginary leap based on NOTHING and it leads you to conclusion number 4 - that truthers make fantastic leaps. You must be kidding.

I would think that most reasonable, logical thinkers could see this as obvious.

I guess that would depend on what you mean by "this" since the definition of words seems to be rather malleable with you.

Many, many electrons are wasted on this, semantics being trotted out left and right, and for what?

I know. Semantic arguments are such a waste of time. Imagine the idiots that would expend that kind of mental energy on such a stupid semantic issue like um...oh...I dunno...a Spanish speaking person changing rumble to boom. Really makes us laugh at those idiots, eh?

If anyone wishes to say a battery is an explosive, an aerosol can is an explosive, a transformer an explosive, then continue to say that a pound of C4 is an explosive and try to equate all of them in the same category, then it is intentional deflection and ludicrous to believe that normal, sane adults would accept it.

Who tried to put those things in the same category? Please show us the post you are referring to where anyone said that an aerosol can was in the same category as C4. You would not just make it up that someone made that comparison, now would you? I await the quote.

In the context, here, the term "explosive" is obviously meant to convey an item that is designed for an express purpose, to "explode" as part of its function, whether a high-energy device (one that detonates), or a low-energy device (one that deflagrates).

Says who? Please point me in the direction of the "Context Setter." I guess I missed that. I that we were speaking in the context of someone's ability to express themselves utilizing the English language. I totally thought this was all about the context of this man supposedly changing his story because he used two different words. That would mean we are discussing words. When did you instruct us as to which context to use?

I speak in my own context and I will thank you to no express the idea that you can direct that. Read my words within my posts and take them for what the mean in that context. You use your own, sport. OK?

Thank you thought for performing an amazing feat all in one post. After post after post of your buddy trying to claim the word just does not mean what it actually does...you step in and do the following

1-deny explosive simply means anything that is capable of exploding.
2-tried to claim that explosive did mean explosive but only "technically.
3-admit that anything that explodes may be an explosive but in the context that you were reading - and we were supposed to psychically conform to - we were discussing a specific kind of explosive.

Give me a 4 and I believe you will come full circle.

Mentioning that other, normally quiescent materials and devices might be mistaken for a "planted bomb" device, when they explode from exposure to extreme conditions, is perfectly valid to explain the misconceptions at work here.

Again, can you show us some quotes here? You spew all these fantasies and each and every time I ask you to back it up or post some kind evidence, you ignore me completely in your next post and just go on with more fantasies. That is two so far and I have challenged both. I am going to go ahead and bet you hide from them as you always do. You are simply here to say things like the above, poison the well, and just keep on talking without ever dealing with the facts handed to you afterward.

We are talking about explosions. People hearing explosions. The OSers pushed the semantics debate by first calming that the explosions were not explosions. Then they pushed it further by claiming that Rodriguez is lying because he used two different words to describe the same thing. Have you every head an explosion from inside the building you are in? They rumble.

People heard explosions. Things were exploding. You are adding this fantasy that people insist they are all a particular type of explosion. Get that TYPE of explosion.

Secondary explosive noises, heard in or around the WTC, that do NOT comport with typically seen planned CD squibs firing, or preliminary charges going off, that anyone can view online nowadays in actual CD events, would bve recognized in ANY OTHER SITUATION for what they were --- normal, everyday items exploding because of conditions. NOT pre-planted intentionally triggered explosive devices, built and designed for that specific function.

Oh good. I assume your proof of all of that will be posted shortly?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Nutter

 

Actually, it's only those who wish to parse and parse and parse, and nitpick (which is what i HAD to take great pains to point out, for the benefit of the person I responded to...else this merry-go-round continued).

Parse and parse and parse. Rumble/Explosion.

Nice glass house. Pretty stones too.

Reasonable, sane and normal adults don't need to act like they're in a courtroom all of the time, "spinning" every nuance......

Spinning the idea that a Spanish speaking man might say rumble only to have meant explosion?

Pot...kettle.

Sometimes you do pretty well and I have no argument with you. Sometimes you shut people up really well. This is a dissappointment as you are simply playing the merry go round game and just accusing me of everthing you are doing. The difference is that your arguement about what he said, falls apart based on my argument. Your arugment about semantics was ok when it bashed the "truther" ideas but when your same argument is used to point out that you are no more reliable than he is to use the right words (in fact, even less given your familiarity withe language compared to his) it is just a silly semantics distraction.

YUP! Thank you for agreeing that wasting time to argue that a Spanish speaking man could say "rumble" and actually mean "explosion" is a pointless semantics distraction.

But please, irregardless you all go on and complain he must be a liar for not knowing his English very well.

Originally posted by Nutter

Please point out ANYTHING that explodes that is not an explosive. Thanks.

Dry ice and water.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Very good Joey.

But, you fail to realize that the very definition of explode is "to expand with force and noise because of rapid chemical change or decomposition".

While the definition of explosive is "A substance, especially a prepared chemical, that explodes or causes explosion.".

So, by definitions of the words, carbon dioxide being pressurized in a plastic bottle does meet the criterion for being an explosive.



Are we still going to argue that a Spanish speaking man should have known the difference when you guys can't even get this correct?

p.s. No offense to Spanish speaking people. Just pointing out that the vocabulary of a second language is never as complete as the first.

Still waiting on a truther to explain how hearing furniture move and boom, the ceiling fell on me....are problems speaking English.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Still waiting on a truther to explain how hearing furniture move and boom, the ceiling fell on me....are problems speaking English.

It was a confusing day sir.

Heck, George Bush saw the first plane hit the building

24 hours before anyone did

see how things get muddled?

Or did George see it ?

reply to post by Lillydale


So Lilly, by that way of thinking, are you conceding that the "explosions" heard by so many were in fact NOT made by explosive devices (C4, TNT, SEMTEX, etc) or are you going to continue talking out of both sides of your mouth and say that since there were explosions heard, then that is excellent proof of secret explosive devices in the WTC exploding ON PURPOSE to bring down the WTC?

Because that is exactly what I and many others here reading your arguements and responses are getting from you and the others on the "explosions heard = explosive devices = controlled demo charges" bandwagon.

if you are going to continue using accounts that claim to have heard explosions or saw explosions, or felt something like and explosion, and by innuendo have that mean controlled demolitions or planted bombs, then that is exactly what you are trying to insinuate. You dont have to say "they planted bombs," or "there were demo charges in the WTC planted by (insert favorite alphabet govt group/society)" , but the way you use those accounts and words, by god, you are practically saying it.

if you keep saying that people heard explosions, and completely ignore the numerous alternate sources put forth by others which give more plausible reasons for heard explosions, then by de-facto you are insinuating explosive devices which were used in a nefarious manner to destroy the WTCs. Not only have you ignored the more rational reasons but actually mocked, and rediculed the explanations! Well then gee, I guess that means that you really do believe that there were BOMBS inside the WTC and nothing else. Nice try at attempting to twist your way free by just claiming that you only are repeating what the eyewitnesses said, and therefore have not personally claimed there were bombs.

[edit on 1/15/2010 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Nutter

Please point out ANYTHING that explodes that is not an explosive. Thanks.

Dry ice and water.

The saddest thing about this is that it is actually relevant to the discussion since so many seem to be hinging things on whether or not a Spanish speaking many may have said "rumble" when describing an "explosion."

You would think by now one of you would have looked at the definition supplied. Obviously you did not. I would also expect a true debunker to at least turn to their dictionary when confronted with a word they do not quite understand. Dry ice and water become and explosive. Contents under pressure are explosive, they have explosive properties and therefore are explosives.

You are confusing class with item and arrogantly.

I think this thread has proven that it is perfectly acceptable to think he described an explosion as a "rumble" since all of the people trying to discredit him based solely on the use of words have each stepped up to the plate to defend their ignorance of their own native tongue.

Thanks for making the case for him.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Lillydale

 

So Lilly, by that way of thinking, are you conceding that the "explosions" heard by so many were in fact NOT made by explosive devices (C4, TNT, SEMTEX, etc) or are you going to continue talking out of both sides of your mouth and say that since there were explosions heard, then that is excellent proof of secret explosive devices in the WTC exploding ON PURPOSE to bring down the WTC?

Sigh. You all seem to suffer from this illness. You ASSUME TOO MUCH. You are assuming that I made any conclusions about anything. If you can quote me making any such statements, then I would be happy to entertain your argument. Otherwise, what we have here is a post full of your opinions of what I think based on what you decided I have said even though I never said any of it.

Why do you all have to resort to making things up in order to make your arguments? It is not even on topic. It is cute that you think you can make my argument look bad by refuting things I have not said.

There is a reason that I quote people when I refute them. That way there is no question as to what they actually said. You did not pull any quotes because you are just imagining things and then swatting at them. Set the straw down and pick up a few quotes and get back to me.

I think this thread needs to be retitled..."OS pushers lie on the rare occasion they understand an English sentence."

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Still waiting on a truther to explain how hearing furniture move and boom, the ceiling fell on me....are problems speaking English.

This is pretty simple. What is your first language?

He clearly stated it was "what sounded like furniture moving." You apparently read that he actually witnessed furniture moving and thought it was something else. That would be a problem with reading English and since reading a foreign language can be much easier than speaking it, I guess we know what to take from that.

Clear on that English thing? You need to READ. If anyone needs any help, just U2U me. Obviously there are many people here who do not understand English as well as say...Impressme. I would be happy to tutor them.

reply to post by Lillydale


And you still do not get it.


On 9/11/01, William Rodridguez stated they heard a rumble, like furniture moving, after which a burned gentleman came into the room.

In 2007, William Rodriguez stated that he heard a boom, that cracked the walls, caused the ceiling to fall on him and the sprinklers to activate.

I guess to your way of thinking, rumble somehow means, "BOOM, the walls cracked, the ceiling fell and the sprinklers activated"


I wonder why it took 5 years for him to remember the ceiling fallling on him..........


It isnt about his inability to articulate in English, its about him LYING.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

In 2007, William Rodriguez stated that he heard a boom, that cracked the walls, caused the ceiling to fall on him and the sprinklers to activate.

I guess to your way of thinking, rumble somehow means, "BOOM, the walls cracked, the ceiling fell and the sprinklers activated"

Got a source on that sir

Ive never seen that , that I can remember

Originally posted by Sean48
Got a source on that sir

Ive never seen that , that I can remember

en.wikipedia.org...

C-Span. 2007-08-17. www.c-spanarchives.org...

and you can clearly tell how he changed his story!

[edit on 15/1/10 by dereks]

reply to post by Sean48


William Rodriguez, CNN, 9/11/01

transcripts.cnn.com...

RODRIGUEZ: I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin.

William Rodriguez, Immanuel Presbyterian Church, Los Angeles, CA, Aug 17, 2007 as shown on CSpan

www.c-spanvideo.org...

His account of that day starts around minute 67.

This comes around minute 68

All of a sudden at 8:46… we hear 'BOOM!' An explosion so powerful and so loud that push us upward in the air coming from below! It was so powerful that all the walls cracked, the false ceiling fell on top of us, the sprinkler system got activated and everybody started screaming in horror: 'HELP! HELP! HELP

Story seems a bit different

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Why he has added to his story , only he can say , but it is a different revision.

reply to post by Sean48


Revision? Its a different story, one that isnt supported by his former coworkers.