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

reply to post by groingrinder


please excuse my shabby camera skills, but when you don't have any kind of fund-age, you have to use what you got! this is the best i can do myself, and from what i am aware of this isn't a money making business, and its all voluntary. meaning we cannot hire a professional camera crew.

i am sorry if i didn't meet up with your Professional expectations. Sean is right, you should be happy a member (ME) went out to one of these to give you guys an inside look.

Can we stay on topic now? its not about definition of explosion, it is about the validity of William's statements, and what he has claimed the media has done to his statements on TV years ago.

(This is to everyone posting on this thread, and not directed towards grinder)

STAY ON TOPIC!

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

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.

Thats a nice spin on exposions, but you are forgetting one Tiny detail.

For all these things that you say made these explosions, WHAT started them
to explode.

There are all kinds of explosions reported on all different floors.

Floors that were no where near the plane crashes, what set them off.

Things don't Just explode.

reply to post by Sean48


exactly. there were reports of explosions away from the plane impact. how can something explode when that supposed area was not affected yet by the plane impact, and that includes jet fuel. if jet fuel made it down the elevator shaft, then how come the lobby wasn't an inferno? where would that black smoke be? oh yea, there was none in the lobby.

Originally posted by Sean48

Things don't Just explode.

Not according to Lillydale.

According to her, anything that can cause an explosion is an explosive. She never answered my question about high pressure water exploding a soda bottle, so I'm guessing that she's too embarassed to continue, for in order to remain consistent, she'd have to advocate WATER as an "explosive agent".

You know about explosives, right? I believe cutter charges use RDX. You can research cutter charges to your heart's content, and then cross reference to these claims of explosions. Then go and get the size of the core columns here:

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

to match the floors that these claims come from.

Now tell us how much RDX would have to be used in a single, supposedly errant charge going off.

Tell us if it's believeable.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


As I said , CD explosives , thermite and cutter charges are a grey area for me.

I have no idea how to bring a building down, stealth or front and center.

I would be talking out my rear if I said I did.

reply to post by Sean48


You can research it if you choose. It will take some work though.

As it stands, explosions have an alternate explanation. It does not involve any cutter charges going off. In fact, it is not believeable.

Originally posted by ugie1028

how can something explode when that supposed area was not affected yet by the plane impact, and that includes jet fuel.

You have no basis for this statement.

You also could do the research that I outlined.

Will you make the attempt?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli


You have no basis for this statement.

You also could do the research that I outlined.

Will you make the attempt?

There are countless reports from eye witnesses and Firemen , Naming
floors that had explosions on them.

There is a ton of Basis for this.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli


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.

While you think that you might be pulling off some amazing little bit of deception here, you put your cart before the horse. I NEVER CLAIMED WHAT THOSE EXPLOSIONS WERE.

I never once claimed that the sounds of explosions were any other than explosions. I really hope you do not get hurt falling off your high horse while trying to pat yourself on the back for achieving the miraculous feat of getting me to admit something I have been more than vocal about and willing to admit myself?

You crack me up. I hope you get a star for that to. Next you can use your magic skills to get me to admit I am a female and that I am on the internet.

p.s. Do not ever say "we" did anything when anyone that can read can just look and see that you are on a team all by yourself. You and your friend really did try to change the definition of the word and refused to look it up. I guess you have finally cracked a book and that is why it is now really just a genius plot. LOL. Luckily for me, people can read and see the truth. When they get to this post spinning it, they can laugh as hard as me and then put you on ignore.

There is not point in discussing the TRUTH behind 9/11 with anyone that either
1-refuses to just look at what a word actually means

or

2-willingly admits they were purposely playing stupid for deceptive reasons (which is exactly what you just did in your response.)

Either way, you go with that. I will stick to facts and truth and just do my best to let people that admit they lie in order to prove a point fall by the wayside. At least you have company.

[edit on 1/17/10 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by Sean48


There are countless reports from eye witnesses and Firemen , Naming
floors that had explosions on them.

There is a ton of Basis for this.

I'm not addressing the explosions. Yes there are reports. I'm fine with that.

I'm addressing his incredulity - "how can this happen.......?"

There's zero need to prove how it can happen. If he believes that these explosions are cutter charges, then he, or you, need to do the research into it, and prove that they can be silent enough to NOT be captured on numerous videos. There are none that captured these.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


so your ignoring the 100+ witnesses of hearing explosions, not to mention news reporters on scene hearing explosions, and attributing them to cars outside the building, but placing pieces together, from witnesses inside the building, (such as rodriguez) say that they came from within the building. IF IT WAS JET FUEL, that caused the explosions, then where IS THE BLACK SMOKE which was present at the plane impact?

other plane crashed have shown that there is black smoke coming from the jet fuel, but that smoke was not present in the lobby, yet there was an explosion, and debunkers saying it was from the elevator shaft and jet fuel... which is hard to take in because there were lack of fires in the lobby, and no black smoke. I say YOU do some research, and bring it to the table, instead of saying I should.

Need to post some videos? well, im pretty sure you would dodge that post as best as you can, and divert, and try to derail the thread like your buddies have been doing.

Google Video Link

www.liveleak.com...

Google Video Link

firefighters heard explosions, you can even hear explosions in the video.

here is one i uploaded a few weeks ago, just in case google decided to take it down.

Part one:
media.abovetopsecret.com...
Part two:
media.abovetopsecret.com...

even the woman in the video said she heard a LOUD BOOM.

so these people have been lying?

[edit on 1/17/2010 by ugie1028]

Originally posted by Lillydale

I NEVER CLAIMED WHAT THOSE EXPLOSIONS WERE.

Never said you did.

You've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to me that there are many sources for explosions available in the towers.

This is what I've said for years now.

Thanks for having my back on this.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Sean48

Things don't Just explode.

Not according to Lillydale.

Ah...now you are going to pretend to put words in my mouth?

Just quote me once claiming that anything would just explode.

According to her, anything that can cause an explosion is an explosive.

Because it is. Did you get that dictionary yet? I thought you had, guess I was wrong. Look up the definition of explosive and tell me it does not say what I said it did. Otherwise, end of discussion.

She never answered my question about high pressure water exploding a soda bottle, so I'm guessing that she's too embarassed to continue, for in order to remain consistent, she'd have to advocate WATER as an "explosive agent".

I never saw your question. Perhaps it got lost in you admitting you were playing games to try and trick me into admitting things I already stated. I am sure it was a gem though.

Look up the definition of EXPLOSIVE. Get back to me after you have posted it here so you can see why you are wrong. If you cannot do that, you must be afraid that I just might be proven right, AS I WAS WHEN THE DEFINITION WAS POSTED THE FIRST TIME.

Do not reply to me about this until you get a dictionary and can post the definition.

This is easy. EXPLOSIVE has an ENGLISH set of definitions. Just post them, tell me how there is no way I could possible be right, and move on. Or just ignore me altogether because I would really rather spend my time on someone who would just crack a book and see if they are even right instead of just arguing about it for pages and pages and pages.

No dictionary definition and we know you are hiding behind something. Either do that or get back on topic. If you want to put words in my mouth, DO NOT.

Originally posted by ugie1028

IF IT WAS JET FUEL,

Where did I say that jet fuel caused all the explosions?

Lillydale has proven that there are MANY possible sources of explosions. None need to involve cutter charges.

If you believe they are, do the research.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Never said you did.

You've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to me that there are many sources for explosions available in the towers.

This is what I've said for years now.

Thanks for having my back on this.

Gosh, I am not sure how I did that since I just quoted you AGAIN claiming I am wrong about that.

Which is it? Did I prove many things could be exploding or am I wrong. You are using both in order to win two different arguments. Do you think I do not see you using my name in response to other people? What a joke. That ignore button is getting HUGE.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


did i even say (joey canoli said x jet-fuel was the cause) i said debunkers of this had suggested.

do you even read what is posted?

just a question.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
And in the case of C-4, RDX, etc?

C-4 also has to be pressurized.

C-4 burns slowly when it is ignited with a flame rather than detonated with a primary explosive, so soldiers during the Vietnam War era would sometimes use small amounts of C-4 as fuel for heating rations while on long patrols. Burning C-4 produces poisonous fumes and should be avoided (see below). While many soldiers used C-4 safely in this manner, there are anecdotes about soldiers trying to put out the fire by stamping on it — causing it to detonate. These are untrue as a blasting cap is required for detonation.

en.wikipedia.org...(explosive)

So, according to you C-4 isn't considered an explosive because it has to be under certain criterion to explode.

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

This is the same principle as a firecracker. But, I guess gunpowder isn't considered an explosive since it burns in free air but explodes when placed into a container?

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?

In this instance pressurized water that bursts the container rapidly is considered an explosive.

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
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

I see where you are comming from but isn't this site's motto "Deny Ignorance"?

So, you just want us to "agree to disagree" about someone's ignorance on a subject?

Originally posted by Lillydale

Either do that or get back on topic.

The topic is what the witnesses heard.

You've agreed that there are many possible sources for explosions. None are defined by either of us.

There is zero physical evidence of cutter charges. There is research that is needed to be done in order to show that cutter charges can be silent enough to go unrecorded. This has not been done by truthers.

This is NOT surprising.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Propane in open air can also explode. No containment is necessary.

So, my outdoor barbeque explodes every time I use it?