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

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999


we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin. We went crazy, we started screaming, we told him to get out. We took everybody out of the office outside to the loading dock area


William Rodriguez 2001


It is clear to me that he is using the word "rumble" when describing the plane impact and subsequent explosion.

But, I guess according to you, since he didn't describe it as an explosion, then the plane didn't explode.




posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I could also point out you seem to be getting your verbs and nouns confused in regards to the word explosive. But then again, that would do no good either.


Please point out ANYTHING that explodes that is not an explosive. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Plane and subsequent explosion.....which with your own words demolish Roddy's claim he heard explosions prior to the impact.

Now try reading his current account of the ceiling falling on him...and try to find where in his original account he said that. What "grammatical" errors caused that?



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


A battery will explode in the presence of heat/fire...and its not considered an explosive.

My favorite, a can of "Off" will explode if dropped in a fire....and its not considered an explosive.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Nutter
 


A battery will explode in the presence of heat/fire...and its not considered an explosive.


A battery in the presence of heat/fire is considered an explosive. Try again.


When a battery is recharged at an excessive rate, an explosive gas mixture of hydrogen and oxygen may be produced faster than it can escape from within the walls of the battery, leading to pressure build-up and the possibility of the battery case bursting.


en.wikipedia.org...(electricity)


My favorite, a can of "Off" will explode if dropped in a fire....and its not considered an explosive.


Off consists of Butane, Propane, Isobutane, and Ethanol. All considered explosives.

whatsinproducts.com...

An explosion can only be caused by an explosive.

By your logic, C-4 isn't considered an explosive since it contains binder agents and plasticizers which aren't explosive.

But, the main point is that it consists of explosives. The same as a can of "Off".

[edit on 15-1-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
A battery will explode in the presence of heat/fire...and its not considered an explosive.

My favorite, a can of "Off" will explode if dropped in a fire....and its not considered an explosive.


Also, at my last job, the electrical transformer in the building across the street from us overheated during a heat wave and exploded. I don't mean a firecracker POP or a puff of smoke, either. I'm talking a rip roaring KABOOM that shook my building and set the building aross the street on fire. I am a personal eyewitness to this so I don't give a flip what those damned fool conspiracy web sites say. Electrical transformers do explode when they overheat, and loudly.

Thus, when eyewitnesses claim "they heard explosions" after a plane collision that dumped thousands of gallons of burning aviation fuel all over the place, in a building which we KNOW had electrical transformers, it seems silly to me that people have to concoct all these bizarro world "controlled demolitions" and "superthermite" stories when the buildings were chock full of objects that go KABOOM under the right conditions, as it was.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


That's funny how it is actually the mineral oil (an explosive) used to cool the transformer that explodes.


The most common way that this can happen is during a lightning strike. There are automatic shutoffs within the transformer when too much power reaches it. They turn off within 60 milliseconds of having detected an energy spike; unfortunately, this is about 5 times too slow to do any good. The extra electricity heats up and melts the circuit. The circuits are made to be heat resistant and are kept cool by several gallons of refined mineral oil in a closed chamber. Despite this, the circuit becomes red hot and fails in a shower of electrical sparks, superheating and igniting the mineral oil. The mineral oil combusts explosively, causing a loud bang and sending metal shrapnel that was once the transformer scything everywhere.


www.ehow.com...

So far you guys are zero for 3 in finding something that explodes while not being an explosive.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 




its funny watching these guys trying to debunk 100's of peoples claims of explosions. Looks like they are trying to find any reason to discredit this man.

what about bush saying he saw the first plane hit the tower? how many times has he retracted his statements? how many times has he lied? yet he would be more credible than anyone else?

nit picking at Rodriguez's lack of English speaking skills, show that they are only here to try and debunk everything and anything that leads any credence to 911 being an inside job.

keep it up nutter.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 





its funny watching these guys trying to debunk 100's of peoples claims of explosions. Looks like they are trying to find any reason to discredit this man.


No, the funny part is watching truthers who cannot grasp the concept that hearing an explosion, does not meant they heard a bomb. Or to see them claim that all those members of FDNY think there were bombs, when those same firefighters will tell you flat out that there were not any bombs.


Then there is nutter thinking that household chemicals are classified as explosvies.........



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Full Q&A from another cameraman.

Thought id post this, because i missed a few minutes of the Q&A when my camera's batteries died.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 





nit picking at Rodriguez's lack of English speaking skills


Not even close. It has nothing to do with his English speaking skills.

Him saying in 2001 that they heard a rumble, and him saying in 2007 that the ceiling fell on him, has nothing to do with his speaking skills....it has to do with him lying.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 





Oh, so everyone who spends 20 years in this country can automatically speak the language and know all of it's ins and outs?



If, im living in another country, I am going to learn the language and become fluent in it. But thats me, I wouldnt move to another country and expect them to change to suit me.

Irregardless, that has nothing to do with the fact that William Rodriguez has drastically changed his story since 2001....and knowledge of the English language has nothing to do with that.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

So far you guys are zero for 3 in finding something that explodes while not being an explosive.



All right, fair enough. If your position is that electrical transformers are in fact explosive devices, either designed as such or as an unintended side effect during failure, then I concede to your point, as I know from personal experience that electrical transformers go KABOOM under the right circumstances, regardless of whether it's from mineral oil, electrical arcing, or whatever. It still does not contradict MY position that the explosions witnesses heard were from inflammable objects that were known to already have been in the structures, rather from than any mythical explosive charges from intentional sabotage.

So, in the end, I suppose we're both right.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Then there is nutter thinking that household chemicals are classified as explosvies.........


Some household chemicals ARE classified as explosives.


Ammonium Nitrate in fertilizer.
Hydrogen Peroxide.


ex⋅plo⋅sive


noun 5. an explosive agent or substance, as dynamite.

ex·plo·sive (ĭk-splō'sĭv)
adj.
Relating to or having the nature of an explosion.

Tending to explode.

n.
A substance, especially a prepared chemical, that explodes or causes explosion.

Linguistics A plosive.


dictionary.reference.com...

Some common household chemicals are a substance that explodes or causes explosion. Hence explosive.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It still does not contradict MY position that the explosions witnesses heard were from inflammable objects that were known to already have been in the structures, rather from than any mythical explosive charges from intentional sabotage.


An explosion can only be caused by an explosive.

Nowhere have I stated anything about bomb.

Just that an explosion can only be caused by some type of explosive.

But, Swampfox just likes to argue with me, so he thinks that a chemical in a household product that can explode isn't considered an explosive.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by Nutter
 




its funny watching these guys trying to debunk 100's of peoples claims of explosions. Looks like they are trying to find any reason to discredit this man.

what about bush saying he saw the first plane hit the tower? how many times has he retracted his statements? how many times has he lied? yet he would be more credible than anyone else?

nit picking at Rodriguez's lack of English speaking skills, show that they are only here to try and debunk everything and anything that leads any credence to 911 being an inside job.

keep it up nutter.


What you and Nutter just do not seem to get is that Rodriguez, latterly, has said far more than he heard explosions on 9/11.

He said, on 9/11, he heard a "rumble, like moving furniture ." Of course that " rumble" could be distant explosions.

However, what he is saying now is that there was a massive explosion below him prior to the plane strike. This is a huge change from his 9/11 statement and he has not explained how, in his windowless basement, he knew anything was before the plane hit.

No-one is arguing that there weren't explosions on 9/11 so please address the real problem. the change to massive explosion below before plane impact.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
 


I could point out when he changed from saying furnitute movement type rumble to "thought a generator had exploded" but it wouldnt do any good.


No it would not. You are defending the OS and we all know that the people telling us that also "misspoke" quite a bit that day. As I have said, 2 black boxes found in 3 different places, UA93 was shot down, etc. Why should I believe that CHANGING story any more than this one?


I could also point out you seem to be getting your verbs and nouns confused in regards to the word explosive. But then again, that would do no good either.


LOL, please oh please do go on. Swampy, I DARE you to correct my English. Please do. Make sure you get it right though. What I see here is someone who refuses to admit that maybe they themeselves misspoke but instead of admit that, you are going to pretend I am wrong but not even attempt to show how.

Face it, you are wrong or you misspoke. Pick one or show me how I am wrong.

Yes, this is relevant too. If you want to call this man a liar because he may have used the wrong word than you must apply the same standard to you. Either you are a liar because you used the wrong word or...feel free to prove me wrong. I cannot wait!



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Nutter
 


A battery will explode in the presence of heat/fire...and its not considered an explosive.


WRONG.

A battery has the potential of exploding. It has explosive properties. That makes it an explosive BY DEFINITION. If you would like to use a different language than English, you are going to have to say so.


My favorite, a can of "Off" will explode if dropped in a fire....and its not considered an explosive.


Yes it is. That is why it says that it is highly combustible and under pressure on the label. That is because IT MIGHT EXPLODE. That makes it an explosive. I think you are confusing what you think you know and what is real. The English language has established rules and definitions for things already. Sorry to tell you because I can tell from experience that the actual meaning of words seems to be second to many people on ATS.

If it can explode, it is an explosive. That is what an explosive is. Something that can explode. Try reading that can of "Off" again and see if it does not have warnings on how to keep it from EXPLODING on it.

So......back on topic.

Are you a liar because you used the wrong word just like you claim Rodriguez is, or can you just admit you are wrong. It is one or the other. You are a liar and cannot be believed JUST LIKE RODRIGUEZ going by YOUR OWN STANDARDS. Or...stop trying to argue about what is and is not an explosive, look into it and apologize.

[edit on 1/15/10 by Lillydale]



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Also, at my last job, the electrical transformer in the building across the street from us overheated during a heat wave and exploded. I don't mean a firecracker POP or a puff of smoke, either. I'm talking a rip roaring KABOOM that shook my building and set the building aross the street on fire. I am a personal eyewitness to this so I don't give a flip what those damned fool conspiracy web sites say. Electrical transformers do explode when they overheat, and loudly.


...and that explosion would result from the fact that it had explosive proerties. Otherwise it would not have been able to explode. That is what makes something an explosive - having the ability to explode. Please help spread the ignorance. All you are doing is helping Swampfox make Rodriguez look even better since he "misspoke" in his SECOND language and you guys are struggling so hard with your FIRST language.



Thus, when eyewitnesses claim "they heard explosions" after a plane collision that dumped thousands of gallons of burning aviation fuel all over the place, in a building which we KNOW had electrical transformers, it seems silly to me that people have to concoct all these bizarro world "controlled demolitions" and "superthermite" stories when the buildings were chock full of objects that go KABOOM under the right conditions, as it was.


You are mixing things up. You cannot discredit claims of hearing explosions while acknowledging that there were explosions. Claiming they heard explosions is NOT the same as claiming CD or superthermite or anything else. Claiming to hear explosions just means that they claimed they heard explosions.

Do not twist one thing with another to use poor logic to discredit b by comparing it to a.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999


No, the funny part is watching truthers who cannot grasp the concept that hearing an explosion, does not meant they heard a bomb.


No.............NOT everyone claiming to hear explosions claimed they were bombs. They simply claimed EXPLOSIONS. There were explosions and you know that. Yet you are trying to discredit these people by trying to explain the explosions were not explosions because they did not involve explosives
. You then try to toss them all in with anyone that ever claimed there was a bomb. And who was it that was claiming there were bombs to begin with...?


Or to see them claim that all those members of FDNY think there were bombs, when those same firefighters will tell you flat out that there were not any bombs.


...oh right "Get back, we have a secondary device in the building." It was the FDNY that were first on record claiming to see secondary devices. But I am sure they have no idea what one looks like or what the word means.



Then there is nutter thinking that household chemicals are classified as explosvies.........




I cannot believe you are seriously pushing this. Get a dictionary!!!!!!

Stop trying to discredit a Spanish speaking man for the words he has used when you refuse to even look up and understand what an explosive is.

You mocking Nutter for actually being correct, is the funniest damn thing on the page. I am confident there will be more.





new topics
 
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join