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

Originally posted by Lillydale

CO2 under the right circumstances, ie PRESSURE, becomes an explosive

Right.

It needs to be contained. Uncontained, it is not explosive. If you throw dry ice into a water puddle, nothing happens.

An explosive does not need containment. C-4,RDX, etc, will explode in open air. They are not dependent on being contained.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Lillydale

Dry ice and water become and explosive. Contents under pressure are explosive, they have explosive properties and therefore are explosives.

No.

The melting dry ice increases the pressure inside the bottle until the bottle ruptures suddenly. Dry ice and water are not explosives.

You're missing the obvious that rational people realize.

The material inside the pressure vessel is irrelevant under this case. The fact that the vessel ruptures suddenly, which results in a rapid release of energy that is perceived by us with our ears as what we would classify as an explosion, most definitely is.

You are trying sooooooooooooooo hard to argue semantics about what is and is not an EXPLOSION. That is not what is in question here. We are talking about what is and is not an explosion or how explosions work. This is not about types of explosions or any other aspect of explosions. This is about the definition of the word "EXPLOSIVE." That is it. It is that simple. Why do you want it to be so complicated? Does being "right" really mean more to you than the truth? An explosive is anything that can explode. That is it. Get over it by now. I am begging you. Get past it. Unless you can prove the English Language is wrong...you need to let go.

Originally posted by Lillydale

An explosive is anything that can explode.

Correct.

en.wikipedia.org...

An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases.

en.wikipedia.org...

An explosive material, also called an explosive, is a substance that contains a great amount of stored energy that can produce an explosion, a sudden expansion of the material after initiation, usually accompanied by the production of light, heat, and pressure.



Dry ice melts slowly when the crazy kid drops it into the bottle. This is a slow release of energy, not "a sudden expansion of the material after initiation".

The sudden release of energy depends on the rupture of the containment vessel.

Do you understand the difference?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Dry ice melts slowly when the crazy kid drops it into the bottle. This is a slow release of energy, not "a sudden expansion of the material after initiation".

The sudden expansion (explosion) is when the vessel ruptures.

The sudden release of energy depends on the rupture of the containment vessel.

Which by definition makes it an explosive.

Look, you are correct in saying that dry ice, water and a plastic bottle alone are not condidered explosives. But, combine them in the manner that the kid did and they do by definition become an explosive.

Do you understand yet?

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Nutter]

Originally posted by Nutter


Look, you are correct in saying that dry ice, water and a plastic bottle alone are not condidered explosives. But, combine them in the manner that the kid did and they do by definition become explosive.

No.

They do not "become explosive".

The interaction of the 3 RESULT in an effect that we would consider to be an explosion.

Remember what the definition is:

A rapid release of energy.......

There is no rapid release of energy from the melting dry ice. The slow release of pressure is contained by the bottle. The bottle ruptures suddenly.

The bottle releases the energy rapidly.

There is a difference.

And it all goes to prove that, and you both agree, that there are many sources of explosions.

reply to post by dereks

Once again you are all twisted up,

I’ am?

it is the media and the government that show the "truthers" looking dishonest,

LOL in your desperate attempt to smear everyone who does not believe in the OS lies it has already been proven the media are the one telling the lies, yet you continual to ignore it.

"truthers" looking dishonest

LOL, what is there a dress code to ware, that make someone look dishonest? What makes someone LOOK dishonest?

like in this example, the media has shown Willem Rodriguez to have changed what he said to make the story sound better, but he forgot that he told the media 2 different stories!

You keep repeating this same old nonsense page after page, after page, after page, totally ignoring the OP and the videos.

Oh, now it is that Willem Rodriguez forgot? When are you going to stop telling stories?

You have no proof Willem Rodriguez told two completely different stories. You do not know if the media is “responsible for editing out or making changes” without Rodriguez knowing about. Although Rodriguez states they have been making changes to his story, “manipulating, and undermining” everything to make him look bad.

It couldn’t be the Truth could it, the media never tells lies, especially when they have already taken a side, the OS side that is.

So, dereks answer this question for me, just yes or no will be fine.

Does "truthers"tell lies?

yes they does, all the time, as seen in this thread

As seen in this tread? Meaning exactly what?

Are you talking about the media?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
No.

They do not "become explosive".

No? You even say they do below.

The interaction of the 3 RESULT in an effect that we would consider to be an explosion.

Remember what the definition is:

A rapid release of energy.......

I'm the one who quoted the definition. I know what it is and what it means.

There is no rapid release of energy from the melting dry ice.

Correct. But remember the other part of the definition?

to burst, fly into pieces, or break up violently with a loud report, as a boiler from excessive pressure of steam.

dictionary.reference.com...

That makes dry ice in water in a bottle an explosive. Like it or not.

The slow release of pressure is contained by the bottle. The bottle ruptures suddenly.

The bottle releases the energy rapidly.

There is a difference.

There is no difference when it comes to the definition of the word.

And it all goes to prove that, and you both agree, that there are many sources of explosions.

No. What it all goes to prove is that you guys will go at great lengths and twist reality just to argue with "truthers". It gets a bit rediculous really.

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Nutter]

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Nothing you have presented holds any water because we all heard William Rodriguez state the media has cut out, and edited what he has said repeatedly.

The funny part is, even when you find the videos of him shot at "truther" events it is easy to see that he cannot keep his story straight. I suppose the truther events are full of the MSM editing him too?

It still amazes me that there are people who have been on ATS this long and are still ignorant to the facts that the mainstream media has taken a side, the OS side, and by golly they are not going to let some Truthers make a fool out of them.

Question for you, answer only yes or no:

Does the media, tell lies?

Originally posted by Nutter



That makes dry ice in water in a bottle an explosive. Like it or not.

No.

The combo results in an explosion.

None are explosives.

An explosive - on their own - release energy rapidly. They are not dependent on being contained, like in the video. C-4, RDX, etc are explosives. Gas, propane, etc, CAN be explosive under the correct condition - rapid burning, etc.

An explosion IS the sudden release of energy. It can come from many sources. An overpressurized air tank can explode, but air is not an explosive. A volcano can explode, but magma,rock, and earth are not explosives.

reply to post by Joey Canoli




I'll make this simple Joey.

An explosion is a rapid release of energy. Either caused by the chemical itself releasing the energy or the container releasing the stored energy from a much slower build up.

Both are considered an explosion.

An explosive is anything that causes an explosion.

Therefore, dry ice in water, trapped in a bottle is considered an explosive.

Originally posted by Nutter

An explosion is a rapid release of energy. Either caused by the chemical itself releasing the energy or the container releasing the stored energy from a much slower build up.

Both are considered an explosion.

Correct!

An explosive is anything that causes an explosion.

So the elements of a volcano are explosive? NO!!!

An explosive, when set off correctly, will cause an explosion.

Therefore, dry ice in water, trapped in a bottle is considered an explosive.

NO!!

The interaction of the 3 RESULT in an explosion.

Originally posted by impressme
You did not pay attention what I said earlier, I know people who were there and know William Rodriguez and they all said he is telling the truth and he is very credible.

So when was he telling the truth? 2001 or 2007? Which one did he tell lies in? He must have lied in one, as the stories are so different!

There were many people with William Rodriguez that were in the basement when it blew up, and they back up his story one hundred percent.

So now the basement blew up - that means he was lying in 2001!
Care to name and show the statements of the "many people" who were with him?

So now it comes down to who’s witness are telling the truth.

Well, we have shown William Rodriguez is not telling the truth in 2001 or 2007...

The only people who are making claims that William Rodriguez is a lair are people who were never at the WTC, don’t you agree.

Not at all, his own statements have condemned him as a liar, in either 2001 or 2007...

More and more the "truther" movement and "truthers" are shown to be noothing but a lie!

reply to post by impressme

Does the media, tell lies?

No, you are not going to deflect this. Videos, from truther web sites, show that William Rodriguez has been changing his story as the years go on. You can blame the media all you want to, but it does not change the fact that he has changed his story several times.

Originally posted by impressme
are still ignorant to the facts that the mainstream media has taken a side, the OS side,

Why should the media take the side of the "truthers", who constantly tell lies? Also there is zero evidence for all the "truther" conspiracy theories, like:

beam weapons from space, mini nukes being used, tonnes of invisible explosives being used in the WTC's, invisible ninjas laying the tonnes of invisible explosives, pod carrying aircraft, remote controlled aircraft involving thousands of USAF members, shape changing lizards, UFO's watching the towers come down etc etc. So you think the media should be supporting those silly conspiracy theories?

reply to post by dereks


show us the video,

show us the lies your accusing him of.

bring it to the table, instead of leaving your opinion.

Originally posted by ugie1028
show us the video,
show us the lies your accusing him of.
bring it to the table, instead of leaving your opinion.

It has been posted here several times, try reading the thread... of course some people will just ignore the links, or "miss them"....

[edit on 16/1/10 by dereks]

reply to post by dereks


I just skimmed through the thread again to see if i had missed anything.

nothing was presented or sourced. It was just opinion. it started off about Rodriguez, and his statements, and then it went to his hold on the English language, and expression. Then it went to an explosive explanation thread for 3 pages, and now back to you guys smearing him again saying he is a liar.

Where is the video, where Rodriguez had lied?

reply to post by ugie1028


Well, if I were you , I would quit skimming and read. Because on pages 6&7 are a couple of videos and a transcript or two showing that he had changed his story.

Or are you going to not accept the video of a truther meeting broadcast on C-Span?

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

No, you are not going to deflect this. Videos, from truther web sites, show that William Rodriguez has been changing his story as the years go on. You can blame the media all you want to, but it does not change the fact that he has changed his story several times.

Question for you, answer only yes or no:

Does the media, tell lies?

LOL, you cant admit the truth can you? Answer the question?

reply to post by dereks

Why should the media take the side of the "truthers", who constantly tell lies? Also there is zero evidence for all the "truther" conspiracy theories, like:

So, all Truthers tell lies?