Eddie believes in 911 inside job?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

as per merriam webster
1: to treat as made up of many discrete units
2: to reduce to minute particles or to a fine spray

but you know...if it isn't perfectly exact for some people...it's a complete brain malfunction altogether.

*note to self* always include an incredibly descriptive series pictures for those who need 100% identification with a concept or all hell breaks loose on an intellectual level.

aye-carumba...

the sheer anality of it all....

frightening...

dg1979us

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

concrete reduced to fine particles or spray... whatever you say..

yeah....dictionary.com good site.

give er a rip sometime....don;t forget the www

It wasnt reduced to fine particles or spray. Examples of atomized spray would be things coming out of an aerosol can, not dust or concrete falling apart.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

dg1979us wrote:

It wasnt reduced to fine particles or spray. Examples of atomized spray would be things coming out of an aerosol can, not dust or concrete falling apart.

Yet...the entire concept still eludes you of what I am saying?

uhh....in the realms of humanity...how?

Or are you just out for a being the winner of a 100% anal competition?

..you already won it a few posts ago...

dg1979us

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Yet...the entire concept still eludes you of what I am saying?

uhh....in the realms of humanity...how?

Or are you just out for a being the winner of a 100% anal competition?

..you already won it a few posts ago...

No, the concept I get, never said otherwise. The word isnt accurate though. ANd to be honest, if not for your childish way of debating with elementary insults, I wouldnt have felt the need to call you on it. But, if you are going to be an ass, expect the same in return.

And yes, Im %100 anal. I forgot I was arguing with myself and you werent partaking in his debate at all. Must be my inability to understand English again, which you so eloquantly pointed out earlier. Good day.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

dg1979us wrote:

No, the concept I get, never said otherwise. The word isnt accurate though. ANd to be honest, if not for your childish way of debating with elementary insults, I wouldnt have felt the need to call you on it. But, if you are going to be an ass, expect the same in return.

And yes, Im %100 anal. I forgot I was arguing with myself and you werent partaking in his debate at all. Must be my inability to understand English again, which you so eloquantly pointed out earlier. Good day.

I don't get along well with superficial anal types.

sorry... It's just how I ride.

what I said made sense to those who want to understand. Bottom line.

dg1979us

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I don't get along well with superficial anal types.

sorry... It's just how I ride.

what I said made sense to those who want to understand. Bottom line.

Well I would hardly consider the correct usage and meaning of a word as superficial, but regardless, nice to know.

But to be honest, what you said impacted your argument. If the building truly atomized, then yes, obviously there was something more than just a plane hitting it. But that isnt what happened and if anyone is going to have an honest debate with you, or anyone, then such discrepancies need to be called out. That way the debate doesnt turn into a debate about inaccurate information, in which neither side gains any worthwhile knowledge. So sorry that I feel the need to make a debate and discussion as factually correct and accurate as possible. But thats just how I ride. Im sure there are plenty of people who will let you peddle your bullshit too them, and will take it as face value. So all isnt lost.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

dg1979us wrote:

Well I would hardly consider the correct usage and meaning of a word as superficial, but regardless, nice to know.

But to be honest, what you said impacted your argument. If the building truly atomized, then yes, obviously there was something more than just a plane hitting it. But that isnt what happened and if anyone is going to have an honest debate with you, or anyone, then such discrepancies need to be called out. That way the debate doesnt turn into a debate about inaccurate information, in which neither side gains any worthwhile knowledge. So sorry that I feel the need to make a debate and discussion as factually correct and accurate as possible. But thats just how I ride.

Atomized....vaporized...Turned to dust...poof... whatever.... It's really just splitting hairs now is't it?

Of course it is.

Follow the path of least resistance. It's not straight down through the center of the
buildings at free fall speed. That is the path of greatest resistance.

You get that part right?

nobody

dg1979us wrote:

But to be honest, what you said impacted your argument. If the building truly atomized, then yes, obviously there was something more than just a plane hitting it. But that isnt what happened and if anyone is going to have an honest debate with you, or anyone, then such discrepancies need to be called out. That way the debate doesnt turn into a debate about inaccurate information, in which neither side gains any worthwhile knowledge. So sorry that I feel the need to make a debate and discussion as factually correct and accurate as possible. But thats just how I ride. Im sure there are plenty of people who will let you peddle your bullshit too, and will take it as face value. So all isnt lost.

I wish I could say things like that...kudos!
sometimes...details matter...especially if they are central to one's argument...

m.

dg1979us

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Atomized....vaporized...Turned to dust...poof... whatever.... It's really just splitting hairs now is't it?

Of course it is.

Follow the path of least resistance. It's not straight down through the center of the
buildings at free fall speed. That is the path of greatest resistance.

You get that part right?

Yes. The only part I argued with you about was the use of the word atomize, which was wrong. Again, its no big deal, but it does change the meaning of your argument, so it should be brought up. You have debated with me, as much as I have you with in regards to this. So dont play the "anal" game with me. Regardless, I have things to do, so good day.

nobody

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

at free fall speed
You get that part right?

that is also a little detail that you keep getting wrong...
it didn't fall at free fall speed...
but that's probably because I always take the path of least resistance...

m.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

dg1979us wrote:

Yes. The only part I argued with you about was the use of the word atomize, which was wrong. Again, its no big deal, but it does change the meaning of your argument, so it should be brought up. You have debated with me, as much as I have you with in regards to this. So dont play the "anal" game with me. Regardless, I have things to do, so good day.

Please explain exactly how the use of the word "Atomization" , and how it changes the meaning of my argument in the context I have provided .

I could still use some clarification apparently?

thanks.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

nobody wrote:

that is also a little detail that you keep getting wrong...
it didn't fall at free fall speed...
but that's probably because I always take the path of least resistance...

m.

Ok, how much longer than free fall? Several hours or never would be typical of steel frame buildings.

dg1979us

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Please explain exactly how the use of the word "Atomization" , and how it changes the meaning of my argument in the context I have provided .

I could still use some clarification apparently?

thanks.

Quite frankly because it didnt atomise. If anything atomised in the situation, it was the planes, not the buildings. If the building truly did atomise, then it was clearly more than even a controlled demolition. It would be more more on the lines of a nuclear bomb going off in it. But again, that didnt happen. Watch the planes when they hit the buildings and basically disappear. That is what would be considered atomization. The building didnt do that. The building just crumbled and dust and smoke flew from it. But that isnt atomization.

Flannel Shirt

People said Hamilton hit balls to the fucking moon the other night. That didnt REALLY happen, but we get the jist of what was meant. Arguing over semantics is stupid. Fun, but stupid.


the building crumbled, really fast. faster than it should have according to some. it appeared as if it turned to dust.

can we move on? this has become a roadblock.

dg1979us

Flannel Shirt wrote:

People said Hamilton hit balls to the fucking moon the other night. That didnt REALLY happen, but we get the jist of what was meant. Arguing over semantics is stupid. Fun, but stupid.


the building crumbled, really fast. faster than it should have according to some. it appeared as if it turned to dust.

can we move on? this has become a roadblock.

We can move on, but when a word changes the argument then it isnt arguing semantics. I see nothing wrong with respecting the proper meaning of a word, particularly when it changes the mean of what is being said.

Saying Hamilton hit balls to the moon is a figure of speech not meant to be taken literally. Maybe he didnt mean for people to take the word atomize literally, but it seemed like he did to me. But words and their meanings do matter in a discussion, Im sorry, but they do.

g under p

nobody wrote:

you better go and check the pentagon videos that you allege have never been released...while they have been released for quite a while now...

see that's the difference between facts and opinions...

opinion->no videos
fact-> yes videos (of course you will state it is everything but a plane flying in there, but that is up to you)

I was just here to disprove the claim/opinion that there are no videos because the government is holding them back...->turns out to be FALSE..

now you can decide what you like to believe...

m

I think you should go study really. Now pay attention, I live here in this DC Metropolis area and since you may not know the layout of this Northern VA area I'll scope you a bit more. The videos I'm refering too is not that idiotic Pentagon so called crash in which you can't tell a damn thing, I'm talking about the high rises, gas stations and other local businesses whom had video cameras aimed in the direction of the Pentagon.

They could have given clear detail of whatever hit the Pentagon. For whatever reason the FBI and other government officials seized those tapes and they've held unto them ever since.

Now that's the videos I'm refering too, now please go and study no need to waste time here and get a failing grade.

Peace

nobody

g under p wrote:

I think you should go study really. Now pay attention, I live here in this DC Metropolis area and since you may not know the layout of this Northern VA area I'll scope you a bit more. The videos I'm refering too is not that idiotic Pentagon so called crash in which you can't tell a damn thing, I'm talking about the high rises, gas stations and other local businesses whom had video cameras aimed in the direction of the Pentagon.

They could have given clear detail of whatever hit the Pentagon. For whatever reason the FBI and other government officials seized those tapes and they've held unto them ever since.

Now that's the videos I'm refering too, now please go and study no need to waste time here and get a failing grade.

Peace

now I know that you meant some of the videos haven't been released...not all...
and don't worry...I won't fail...:)

m.

g under p

nobody wrote:

now I know that you meant some of the videos haven't been released...not all...
and don't worry...I won't fail...:)

m.

Great.....then why post that you may need to go study?

Peace

Flannel Shirt

dg1979us wrote:

We can move on, but when a word changes the argument then it isnt arguing semantics. I see nothing wrong with respecting the proper meaning of a word, particularly when it changes the mean of what is being said.

Saying Hamilton hit balls to the moon is a figure of speech not meant to be taken literally. Maybe he didnt mean for people to take the word atomize literally, but it seemed like he did to me. But words and their meanings do matter in a discussion, Im sorry, but they do.

maybe dude did mean it literally. i thought he was using atomizing as a figure of speech as well. the buildings did turn to dust to the naked eye so to speak and crumbled unto themselves. it looked like they were made of sand and it just gave way.

he did say
"Atomized....vaporized...Turned to dust...poof... whatever.... It's really just splitting hairs now is't it?

Of course it is.

Follow the path of least resistance. It's not straight down through the center of the
buildings at free fall speed. That is the path of greatest resistance.

You get that part right?"

nobody

g under p wrote:

Great.....then why post that you may need to go study?

Peace

because it is more fruitful...you know...I don't only study for grades...
but it got too late anyway and I'm preparing to go to bed...in case you are interested...

good night...
m.