It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 10
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
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.


Tee hee hee.

AN explosive is a noun.

Your attempt at justication is really super cute. It really is. Please stick to topics you are already wrong in all on your own. Jumping into a new on to try and make it make sense in some other way is just silly. If you are confused, go back and read. I am not sure who "most of us" are as this was a conversations with the one person who was referring to what is and what is not AN EXPLOSIVE. NOUN all the way. If you are still confused, please read Canoli's SEVERAL justifications of why one noun is not another noun.

Go back to the conversations you were failing at before because you are not helping this one by simply pretending one man is now a group of people and what he meant (because you say so) is not what each and every one of his posts proves is not the case.

Next time, talk to Joey and stop him from going on and on about how it is a noun, just not the noun that the dictionary or I or one other poster seem to think it is.

One of the saddest new trends among OSers is this new gang mentality. Each time one of you falls on your own mistakes, another one comes along and tries to pretend they can change time and that no one can read back to see the truth. Why are the moves getting so underhanded and desperate lately?

Let Joey be wrong about what Joey is wrong about. You have enough on your plate.

Edit to add that by the way, it does not make a difference whether you meant the adjective or the noun. Anything that explodes is explosive and is therefore and explosive.

Do any of you need a dictionary? I really just want the English language to be understood between English speaking people. If the only people here that know it are me and one other guy...we are in trouble. You all want the truth. Wait until tomorrow and ask your English teacher how English words are used in accordance with their given definitions. Come back and argue when either of you have actually checked into this. Maybe start a thread where it might be back on topic again. It seems to be wandering WAY OFF.

[edit on 1/17/10 by Lillydale]




posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


It can be used as both a noun and as an adjective, so my question was entirely justified. And since it was MY post that started this, I can jump in any time I want to.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
 


It can be used as both a noun and as an adjective, so my question was entirely justified. And since it was MY post that started this, I can jump in any time I want to.


...and you are still wrong. See my new addition to the post above. I never said it could be neither. I said I was addressing one person who used it as a noun. You said "most of us" meant it as an adjective. I asked who most of you were. You have no answer. Jump in all you like, I am still responding to the person that thinks that as a noun, it does not mean what it actually does.

Not only did I never deny that it can be both, I forgot to point out the first time how little that mattered. Are you trying to see who can show even MORE ignorance of how English works?

According to the dictionary of our language...

if it can explode...
it is EXPLOSIVE....
this it is an EXPLOSIVE.

Pick either one and jump in all you like. There is no shortage of ignorance and now outright lies but what can a few more hurt?



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


I feel really bad for you tonight. I guess it will be Monday before you see a teacher. You have been given a dictionary definition that just flat out proved my point. Since then, you and Joey have just argued. Have you offered anything from a grammar book or expert? No. Have you offered a dictionary that refutes the first one? No. Have you offered anything that proves you are right other than what you think?

NO.

Sorry but this topic is old, repetitive, and not really what this thread is about. I would love to see a new thread just about this. Until you can actually show something other than your opinion to back up the fact that the word does not mean exactly what the dictionary says it means...you are just wrong. You are the worst kind of wrong. You shout in the face of evidence against you just how right you are simply because you think so.

You may best me at some point but when it comes to the English language and how it works, you have much to learn.

Please refrain from responding until you have a quote and a source just as you have been given.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 





You said "most of us" meant it as an adjective.


No, I said most of us meant it as a noun.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The planes carried an estimated 8000 gallons of aviation fuel when it impacted the structures.


Well lets look at some common sense and facts.

1. A large portion of the fuel was burned off in the intial explosion on impact.

2. The fuel would have had to get through the debris, furniture and carpiting to make it to the one elevator shaft and make it all the way to the sub basments.

So again i ask, if you are going to claim the fuel made to the sub basements please show a amount of fuel it would have taken.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Anything that explodes is explosive and is therefore an(d) explosive.



You've convinced me.

There were many explosives in the towers. They were all over the place. This is where these reports of explosions come from. There are many sources since virtually anything can be explosive, according to you. Including dry ice and water.

And no one has any physical evidence, nor witness statements of seeing devices that had the ability to serve as any part of a CD fairy tale.

Thank you for taking our side in this issue.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Sorry but this topic is old, repetitive, and not really what this thread is about.



The thread is about what many of the first responders heard.

You have stated emphatically that anything that can explode is an explosive.

You've painted yourself into a corner now, and I think you're just now beginning to see that. You have no where to go but agree with us that reports of explosions are to be discarded since there are so many sources.

And since it is realized by any rational person that when I refer to "explosives", in the context of CD of the towers, it is logical to assume that "explosives" refer to an explosive that would be useful in the CD fairy tale.

Keep on argueing Lilly, you're making our point for us....



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


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.


Thank you I know I am priceless, However, it was proven the Mr Rodriguez's statement was edited by the media the proof is in the OP video.


He can cry all he wants to that the media is editing him, it doesnt make it true.


Oh I don’t think he is crying just look at the OP video.

Because, Willem Rodriguez's stated that the media edited out his statements “it does not” make him untrue.


But believe what you want to...


I will.


and keep sending him your money.


I have never sent Willem Rodriguez money.
Who told you I gave Willem Rodriguez money?



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Just explain how the media got its hands on the videos of him talking at truther conferences and edited them. OR how they managed to change his sworn affidavit from his attempt to sue the government.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Just explain how the media got its hands on the videos of him talking at truther conferences and edited them.


It was the media video


OR how they managed to change his sworn affidavit from his attempt to sue the government.


Sources please? Where is creditable proof to back your claim?





[edit on 17-1-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

And since it is realized by any rational person that when I refer to "explosives", in the context of CD of the towers, it is logical to assume that "explosives" refer to an explosive that would be useful in the CD fairy tale.


does this have an English translation?

What the hell are you saying?



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
If people are going to post videos representing the Truth movement, I wish they would hire competent camera and sound people who have at least put together a documentary or two. The production values on these videos are pure trash. I have no problem with the content, and it is important to get this sort of stuff out and in the public eye, but when you put out amateurish work, people do not respect your content. I could not watch these videos due to the bad sound and constant camera shifting and refocusing. Get your feces together people, this is the future of a nation, not amateur hour.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 02:04 AM
link   
"LOL, I think that if William Rodriguez told you the moon was green cheese, you would believe that too."

I'd believe him a lot more than people who are always spinning their arguments to suit their agenda. Unlike a number of other people, Rodriguez has no motivation to lie and fabricate details.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 


Wow, why so bitter

A member brought his cam to this meeting, and filmed it

We are Grateful to have this , and others

Hire a "crew" ? Are you serious?



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   
MOD NOTE: Please refrain from petty bickering or from even arguing semantics beyond clarification. Please REMAIN ON TOPIC.

It's easy to understand that one's intellectual passions might, at times, be aroused however we must all strive to maintain courtesy and decorum on ATS. At times this means that there might come a point in a conversation where we must simply "politely, agree to disagree" in lieu of new arguments or rebuttals. We might also consider that seeking the truth is a cooperative venture and not necessary adversarial.

benevolent tyrant
Forum Moderator



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
 





You said "most of us" meant it as an adjective.


No, I said most of us meant it as a noun.


LOL, awwe shucks. OK, you still did not mention who this "we" is. is the OS being pushed by a group that is represented by you?
Either way, noun/adjective - it still has an English definition. The difference is that Noun makes it easier to explain. You must be ignoring it on purpose by now because the only argument you have given so far is..."nu uh."

This is off topic and has gotten really old and really petty. I am asking you politely to stop arguing about this. If you really feel you need to push it, then you put your credibility up there with Canoli's where this all started - back when it was still somewhat relevant to the thread topic. If you want to be taken seriously from here on out, get some book on grammar or the English language and prove me wrong. I will let it go as soon as you offer an educated reason as to why I am.

That will be a factual argument that I can only concede to or accept your apology for. That is it. I will no longer engage in this pointless back and forth as you two are not trying but you succeeding in steering this right off topic. Perhaps that was the point?



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 





Rodriguez has no motivation to lie and fabricate details.


Then, it is up to you to explain why he has done so.

"I heard a rumble"

"BOOM the ceiling fell on me"

That isnt the media editing him, that is him LYING.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48


does this have an English translation?

What the hell are you saying?



That the explosions have many sources. Exactly what the rational among us have been saying for years. This includes truthers like Gregory Urich. take it up with him at his forum if you wish:

the911forum.freeforums.org...

One of his first threads there addressed this very point:

the911forum.freeforums.org...

As a side note, he's written an open letter to gage where he acknowledges the lack of evidence for exploive cutter cgarges in this paper, along with several other wrong points he's made:

www.cool-places.0catch.com...

"Surely, there were explosive sounds and flashes of light as there are too many
witnesses to deny this. Nonetheless, the only videos of the collapses with sound do
not have any explosive sounds."



ANyways, there is zero physical evidence of any kind of explosive, nor testimony of finding devices.

Therefore, Lillydale has been making our point for us. And doing a damn fine job of it too.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Perhaps that was the point?



The point of engaging you in this was to allow you to make our point for us.

That is, that the explosions reported in 9/11 survivior testimony - the subject of the thread - can be coming from virtually anything, according to you. None of which would be of any value in the fairy tale that truthers like.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join