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

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

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?

William Rodriguez state the media has cut out, and edited what he has said repeatedly.

Your videos are deceptive at best. The media are the proven lairs and you know that, yet you ignore it as always.

reply to post by impressme


LOL, I think that if William Rodriguez told you the moon was green cheese, you would believe that too.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

LOL, I think that if William Rodriguez told you the moon was green cheese, you would believe that too.

Why don’t you bring something to the table, instead of insulting everyone on here who does not support the OS.

As far as William Rodriguez most people believe him except people who are ignorant of the true facts. If you don’t believe in what William Rodriguez has to say, then show creditable proof, and move on.

This bickering back and forth, that I am right and you are wrong, without proven anything and taking stabs at each other is really getting ridiculous in here, don’t you agree?



[edit on 16-1-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme

If you don’t believe in what William Rodriguez has to say, then show creditable proof, and move on.

I have. I used his own words, uncut.

Originally posted by impressme
If you don’t believe in what William Rodriguez has to say, then show creditable proof, and move on.

But the point is, believe what? As what he says in 2001 is very different from what he says in 2007.... and he is the only one that could change what he said himself... so which one to believe?

reply to post by dereks


Dereks et al.

What do you say about Bush changing his story just 6 months later?

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

www.buzzflash.com...

But I guess this isn't as important as Rodriguez adding more details to his story from 2001 to 2007.



[edit on 16-1-2010 by Nutter]

reply to post by Nutter


If there was ever a case of comparing apples to oranges, your post would be it.

There is a vast difference in Rodriguez going from "hearing a rumble" to "BOOM the walls cracked and the ceiling fell on my head" and Bush no longer overly concerned about capturing Bin Laden after we had hamstrung Al Qada.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The sudden release of energy depends on the rupture of the containment vessel.

Do you understand the difference?

Really? Are you skipping? Did you read the definition of EXPLOSIVE in the ENGLISH DICTIONARY???????????

The sudden release of energy does depend on the rupture of the containment.

PROPANE WORKS THE SAME WAY, EINTSTEIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


It only explodes when it ruptures the container keeping it under pressure. Otherwise, it is just sitting there doing nothing. Yet it is an explosive.

GET A DICTIONARY.

Why does the container suddenly rupture? Because it wanted to or because there was an explosive agent expanding inside?

Thank you for both the great laugh as well as the opportunity to remind people over and over again that English has rules and words have definitions.

One day, someone will teach you how to utilize them to say something that is not so completely incorrect as to sound less than ignorant.

Good luck!

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
No.

They do not "become explosive".

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

I love the fact that 9/11 threads have so many diverse contributors. The only way to really learn would be to have opposition force you to re-think things. Because of that, I hate putting anyone on ignore. It seems counterproductive. I must ask, what grade are you in? It is important as I am starting to feel I must put you on ignore; not only for your repeated ignorance and mis-truths but your ardent dedication to pushing them as hard as you can with nothing to substantiate. People offer real links and quotes to make their point. You used wikipedia which is written by the same people that do not understand when to you "I" and when to you use "me." You did not even use it correctly but that is another thread altogether.

As I forgive someone such as Impressme's language since it is not their native tounge...I should really extend the same courtesy to the undereducated. If you would not mind sharing your highest level of education, we can rethink things. Until the, get some tutoring in your "English."

Thanks for all your derailing contributions to this thread. They really seem to highlight exactly what many of us are usually trying to point out anyway.

Hugs and kisses. - Lilly

Originally posted by Lillydale

The sudden release of energy does depend on the rupture of the containment.

And in the case of C-4, RDX, etc?

It does not, correct?

Why does the container suddenly rupture? Because it wanted to or because there was an explosive agent expanding inside?

Because the pressure inside exceeds the vessel's pressure rating.

This does not require an explosive agent.

Here's a question for you, to see where your understanding lies.

Take the soda bottle example, and instead of having dry ice, have water only, but pressurize it with a water pump until the bottle explodes.

Is water now an explosive agent?

Originally posted by Lillydale

Thanks for all your derailing contributions to this thread. They really seem to highlight exactly what many of us are usually trying to point out anyway.

There's no derailing at all. This discussion is very relative to what the numerous reports of explosions were all about.

So far, we have 2 truthers admitting that explosions can be caused by water and dry ice.

This opens all types of alternative explanations for explosions. Anyhting is fair game after this admission.

None of which could in any way be expected to "cut" steel as part of some fairy tale CD......

Originally posted by Lillydale

PROPANE WORKS THE SAME WAY

Not necessarily.

The tank can rupture in a fire, absolutely. Again, this does not require an explosive agent inside of it. Air could do the same thing if heated. Also, if a cold tank is overpressurized with air, it could also explode.

Propane in open air can also explode. No containment is necessary.

Fuel-air bombs work without containment also.

Were you unaware of these simple facts?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

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

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

Aside from the fact that there are many explosive elements within a volcano...get a DICTIONARY.

The only way you will possibly be right is if you can show us how the English definition of "EXPLOSIVE" does not fit what I claim it does. Can you do that? You have yet to rely on anything other than wikipedia for your backup. Why is that? The dictionary would prove you wrong or right in an instant. In fact it already has but you ignored that. Please just post the English definition, show us we are wrong and just end this so we can decide once and for all if you are a real honest American in search of the truth, or just some troll here to derail and distract from real topics.

You have one really easy way to just prove you are right. I have mentioned it several times now. Just do that. Do you like games instead? Do you think this is more important that the real topics of 9/11? Is it because you already have another screen name from your last post ban and do not care if this one gets banned for so obviously trolling?

GET THE DICTIONARY AND SHOW US THE DEFINITION OF EXPLOSIVE. THAT WILL END THIS ONCE AND FOR ALL. Stop behaving like a troll and just put the truth up for everyone to see. (this does not include what you think, wish, decide on your own, or cull from wikipedia.)

reply to post by Lillydale


Do you want the noun definition or the adjective definition? Because I know that most of us were referring to the noun definition.

reply to post by dereks

But the point is, believe what? As what he says in 2001 is very different from what he says in 2007....

Yeah, thanks to the lying media.

and he is the only one that could change what he said himself...

No, the media changed what he said William Rodriguez states that in the OP video. Perhaps, if you had bother watching it you wouldn’t be posting your opinions.

so which one to believe?

LOL, believe in whatever floats your boat.

Originally posted by Lillydale

The only way you will possibly be right is if you can show us how the English definition of "EXPLOSIVE" does not fit what I claim it does.

Well that's the problem now, isn't it?

I can show you all the defintions there are, and as long as you "claim" otherwise, there's no way to prove it to you that you're wrong.

the truth is, you're only interested in playing petty semantics games, rather than addressing real questions, like the one I posed with the soda bottle and water pressure only.

Nor do you address the fact that by your own definition, there are many things that "you" would consider to be an explosive, yet wouldn't even begin to try and use those examples as anything that would be used in a CD fairy tale. Unless you're quite mad.

It's called evasion, and every rational person sees it.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

If you don’t believe in what William Rodriguez has to say, then show creditable proof, and move on.

I have. I used his own words, uncut.

No, they were cut by the media William Rodriguez states this, this is a fact. Perhaps if you would spend a few minuets and watch the OP videos, where William Rodriguez makes this statement.




[edit on 16-1-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by Lillydale

The only way you will possibly be right is if you can show us how the English definition of "EXPLOSIVE" does not fit what I claim it does.

I'll humor you some though.

www.encyclopedia.com...

EXPLOSIVE:

explosive substance that undergoes decomposition or combustion with great rapidity, evolving much heat and producing a large volume of gas. The reaction products fill a much greater volume than that occupied by the original material and exert an enormous pressure, which can be used for blasting and for propelling.

reply to post by impressme


You are priceless. Mr Rodriguez's statement that he made on 9/11/01...live...was not edited at all. Neither was the interview the next day.

He can cry all he wants to that the media is editing him, it doesnt make it true. But believe what you want to...and keep sending him your money.

Originally posted by REMISNE

You mean only in the North tower, the plane that hit the South tower went in throguh the side at a angle and did not cause damage to the stairwells.

Naturally I meant the north tower. I was posting about the participation of William Rodriguez, and he was the janitor of the north tower during the attack.

So tell me how much fuel would it have taken to get to the one elevator shaft and get down to the sub basements?

The planes carried an estimated 8000 gallons of aviation fuel when it impacted the structures. How much of it went down which elevator shaft, we;ll probably never know, but aviation fuel has the force to power the engines to make a 1,000 ton aircraft airborn so whatever the amount was, it was enough.