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

Originally posted by ugie1028

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

SO why are you asking me about what other people have said?

I have no insight into what their info is.

Originally posted by Nutter

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?

Did I say it happens every time?

Or that it can happen?

Answer honestly.

Originally posted by Nutter

C-4 also has to be pressurized.

You need to reread your source there Ace. It doesn't back up what you just stated.

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

No.

The total device is considered to be a mechanical explosive.

Water is not an explosive. that's lunacy.

reply to post by Joey Canoli

because that's what the topic is currently at, what was said, who said it, and if it has validity.

you guys are going over the definition of explosions, and explosive, which in turn is derailing the thread from the main focal point of witnesses that stated there were loud explosions.

either stay on topic, or don't post in this thread.

that goes for everyone too. even a mod came in here to try and keep this thread on topic.

we wouldn't want to see anyone here get post banned, dont we? would be quite the embarrassment.

Originally posted by Lillydale

Did I prove many things could be exploding or am I wrong.

You're correct.

Many things could be exploding.

Again, thx!!

Originally posted by ugie1028

the main focal point of witnesses that stated there were loud explosions.

You betcha.

And the discussion has turned into just WHAT they heard.

As in, WHAT was exploding?

There are many possibilities. None involve cutter charges. In fact, no truther has done the research to show that cutter charges would be believeable.

This is NOT surprising.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


yea, then it was dragged into what the definition of explosive is. and it has been going on for 5 pages now.

what will re-defining the definition provide when in the end trying to figure out what these explosions were?

dancing around the definition of explosion will not change these peoples stories. i see this as an attempt to derail this thread.

Originally posted by ugie1028

what will re-defining the definition provide when in the end trying to figure out what these explosions were?

Nothing.

dancing around the definition of explosion will not change these peoples stories. i see this as an attempt to derail this thread.

So quit bringing it up then.

Instead, address the real issue.

1-Are there benign sources for these explosions or not?

2- After you've done the research I outlined several posts ago to Sean, is an errant cutter charge going off believeable? Why were none captured on film? Why weren't windows shattered all over the place when they went off? Why were there virtually no reports of barotrauma, if these were cutter charges?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Nutter

C-4 also has to be pressurized.

You need to reread your source there Ace. It doesn't back up what you just stated.

Yes, it does. A blasting cap must be used to set off C-4 as an explosive. Guess what a blasting cap does........puts C-4 under pressure.

Detonation can only be initiated by a combination of extreme heat and a shock wave, as when a detonator inserted into it is fired. C-4 cannot be detonated by a gunshot or by dropping it onto a hard surface, or even blowing it up

Guess what a shock wave is.....

Across a shock there is always an extremely rapid rise in pressure

en.wikipedia.org...

Wow, a shock wave is needed to detonate C-4 and a shock wave is pressure. So, therefore C-4 needs to be pressurized.

No.

The total device is considered to be a mechanical explosive.

Water is not an explosive. that's lunacy.

And you are arguing the same point as I am just to argue with me.

Originally posted by ugie1028
you guys are going over the definition of explosions, and explosive, which in turn is derailing the thread from the main focal point of witnesses that stated there were loud explosions.

If the thread is about witnesses hearing explosions and we are going over the definition of explosions, how is that off topic?

Originally posted by Nutter

If the thread is about witnesses hearing explosions and we are going over the definition of explosions, how is that off topic?

Respect the OP's wishes.

Now, address the real issues that I outlined to him.

Will you?

reply to post by Joey Canoli


I agree with you that there are hundreds of things that can be considered explosives. As I have been saying.

This whole argument started when I asked for an example of something that explodes that is not an explosive.

So far, none have been given. Although plenty of tries have been attempted.

The whole point was to show you guys that you are confusing the English language but expect a native Spanish speaker to be 100% accurate with his words.

And yes, changing from "rumble" to "boom, the ceiling fell" is just:

1. Changing the word "rumble" to "boom" or "explosion"

and

2. Giving more detail to his story.

NONE of which is considered lying.

reply to post by Nutter


Then you havent bothered to do enough research on the man. Enjoy the sand.

Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by Joey Canoli

 

I agree with you that there are hundreds of things that can be considered explosives. As I have been saying.

This whole argument started when I asked for an example of something that explodes that is not an explosive.

So far, none have been given. Although plenty of tries have been attempted.

The whole point was to show you guys that you are confusing the English language but expect a native Spanish speaker to be 100% accurate with his words.

And yes, changing from "rumble" to "boom, the ceiling fell" is just:

1. Changing the word "rumble" to "boom" or "explosion"

and

2. Giving more detail to his story.

NONE of which is considered lying.

Nutter

Changing from rumble to boom might not be considered unreasonable if it wasn't for all the other stuff.

Why didn't he mention the walls cracking, the ceiling falling in and the sprinklers going on on 9/11 ?

In particular, why didn't he realise the rumble/boom was before the plane strike until long after the event and how did he ever know considering he was in a windowless basement ?

reply to post by Alfie1


Alfie,

It's amazing the amount of "fog of war" you guys are willing to give everyone until they go against the grain.

Originally posted by Alfie1
Nutter

Changing from rumble to boom might not be considered unreasonable if it wasn't for all the other stuff.

Why didn't he mention the walls cracking, the ceiling falling in and the sprinklers going on on 9/11 ?

In particular, why didn't he realise the rumble/boom was before the plane strike until long after the event and how did he ever know considering he was in a windowless basement ?

Totally! Great point! It is just like, why did DR not mention that the plane being shot down did not happen or that what shot the plane down did not exist or that he was supposed to lie and not say it was shot down and on and on. People sure do say crazy stuff when they lie.

Originally posted by Lillydale
People sure do say crazy stuff when they lie.

You only have to look at William Rodriguez and the way he lied, changing his story from 2001 to 2007!!

[edit on 17/1/10 by dereks]

Originally posted by Nutter

I agree with you that there are hundreds of things that can be considered explosives.

So then his testimony does not mean that there was anything fishy.

Correct?

So why does anyone care?

The only way that truthers would care about what he says is if they're trying to use it as an indication that explosives capable of being used in soem CD were present.

Some will of course say something along the line of, "we need a new investigation to determine what these were."

No. All we need to show is that there are benign explanations for these "booms". If truthers think there's more to it, then they need to male a case.

They're too chicken butt though to do that. Or too lazy. Or do't care enough to do anything more than whine and cry on a conspiracy forum.

It'll never happen.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

They're too chicken butt though to do that. Or too lazy. Or do't care enough to do anything more than whine and cry on a conspiracy forum.

It'll never happen.

What are we talking about here .
3 buildings down , 3000 people killed . Air travel changed forever.
2 wars with US soldiers dieing. over 1 trillion spent on wars with no end in
sight. US liberties taken away forever.

Your right Joey , your too smart for us.

Truthers are the chicken butts.

reply to post by Sean48


What liberty have you lost? I keep seeing people complain that they have lost rights...but no one will ever detail what they think they have lost.