Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
Ok from the top again:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
you have contended the government conspiracy theory is the "correct conspiracy theory", that those buildings collapsed from the intense heat from the fire even though silverstien admitted to blowing it up.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Thats right i am making the claim they blew it all to hell in a controlled demolition, if you wish to speak to that or constest it and call it all lies like lucky does great but put your data where keyboard is. As you can see i supplied you with several extremely qualified witnesses, several videos with bombs going off on them, silverstien admiting they blew the fucker up.
quote:
ORIGINAL: luckydog1
That is a lie, you can feel free to provide evidence where Silverstein admitted to blowing it up. This is the real test for you real. This isnt about interpretation or extrapolation. You are making a claim, which is a lie. Please, give evidence where Silverstein admitted this. Or admit you are simply telling bold faced lies.
quote:
ORIGINAL: luckydog1
Silverstien admitted no such thing in your video. Do you have a problem comprehending the english language. He was refering to the fire crews. You did not supply a single credible witness. You are simply lying.
The question is why. What do you get out of lying about this stuff?
In reply to real
Well here is a Grammar and Linguistics Professor. If you are foolish enough to show her your stuff and argue the point further I will be happy to give you her email address on the other side.
quote:
Sorry. I get your meaning now. And you're right, and the word "And" is part of the linguistic flag here:
pull it = demolish the building
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it (to demolish the building).' And they made that decision to pull (to demolish) and then we watched the building collapse."
Linguistic evidence
If we assume that pull it means to pull (the plug on) the operation, to stop the operation, then the second pull doesn't fit grammatically, because it would have to carry the same meaning. It'd have to be "....they made the decision to pull out ...", a different verb altogether.
The problem here, or rather the apparent problem, is the phrase pull it. It's ambiguous, that is, it has two potential meanings:
1) to end an operation, to pull out of an operation
2) to demolish a building
If the idiom pull it means to pull out of an operation, then its base verb form to pull should follow semantically. That is, in order to keep the same meaning, which is evident by the speaker's use of the conjunction "And" which connects the two sentences, to pull would have to be to pull out.
In short, you are correct. Good eye! Pull in pull it and to pull means to demolish, not to pull out.
To pull is short for pull it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: luckydog1
Because Real has proven that he is lying about this stuff. I do not, "accuse anyone with whom you (I) disagree of lieing". I have pointed out a few other specific lies told by people, but Real and this 911 stuff is the only subject I react in such a manner. For example, Real says(in this thread) that, " Silverstein admitted to blowing it up." That is a lie. We have the video of him saying it.. Real knows it, it is not a mistake, misinformation or intrepreting. Its a lie. Its not defamation if it is the truth. If Real said," on video Silverstien says somehting, that if you ignore the sentance before, have low comprehension skills, and assume he is using technicall demolition terms for some reason, you can sort of twist it into him admitting something". I would not call him a liar, though I would have other choice words.
references:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein_pullit.html
Live video statement from pbs:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1340351950774479027
And now you claim:
quote:
ORIGINAL: luckydog1
Dang Real you are still upset about being shown up that time. Get over it. You made the claim that Silverstien directly admitted ordering the demolition. He didn't. I notice you did not include that part in your snyopsis of the discussion, no surprise that you would choose such a tactic. That is you telling a lie about his words. You interpret his words to mean that. You are free to do so if you like, and anyone who wants to can agree with you. But to lie about what he said is just lame, anyone can check.
And I never called Alumbrado a liar.
There now I included it, same slight of hand shit different day. In fact it wouldnt surprise me if some people would a claim that what you just said above was lie.
I was implicitly clear.
You just enjoy your delusion.
People are being kind to you when they only go so far as pointing out that you cannot comprehend what you read.
FYI you inferred he was lying.
Not that a dictionary has ever done any good:
dis·hon·est (d s- n st)play_w("D0269700")adj.
1. Disposed to lie, cheat, defraud, or deceive.2. Resulting from or marked by a lack of honesty.
Synonyms: dishonest, lying2, untruthful, deceitful, mendacious
These adjectives mean lacking honesty or truthfulness.
I hope you use this opportunity to improve your reading/listening comprehension skills.
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
RE: Freedom -from- religion? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread