Weaver wrote:Tons of explosives would be needed for a controlled demolition of a building which did not suffer fatal structural damage from the aircraft impacts and subsequent unchecked fires - the core claim of conspiracy theorists, who deny that the plane impacts and fires could have dropped the building.
Well, that is a bone of contention - was the damage 'fatal'? You claim it was. And that local collapses in the impact zones caused the 'global collapse'. Presumably only gravity was required after the local collapses.
A few columns cut, a few trusses fail. That's it.
You are being serially dishonest - as is your wont, as expressed in years of your trolling posts.
Why is it every time your lack of critical thinking is exposed you resort to wild accusations of trolling?
Plus some faux outrage. Oh, and reckless accusations of lying.
This seems to be your standard technique of trying to wriggle out of your self-contradictions honed by your many more years of trolling threads like these.
The plane impacts and the fires dropped the buildings. That and that alone.
Here you go again - tons of explosives not needed to drop the buildings...
Controlled demo WOULD require tons of explosives and ancillary equipment...
Followed immediately by the claim that tons of explosives would be required.
If you sincerely believe both of these mutually contradictory ideas, you are indeed clueless.
Keep going with your lying, circular reasoning - keep going with your claims that you're consistent - keep going with your bullshit trolling and with your pretending that I'm wrong. You do dishonor only to yourself.
You are an embarrassment.