What you fail to exhibit is even a glimmer of logic.

You seem to be claiming that it would take so many tons of explosives to demolish the WTC towers, than tons would be left over in an unexploded state.

This for skyscrapers which you also claim collapsed without the need of even a single New Year's squib.

Your 'arguments' - such as they are - refute themselves.

proudfootz wrote:What you fail to exhibit is even a glimmer of logic.

You seem to be claiming that it would take so many tons of explosives to demolish the WTC towers, than tons would be left over in an unexploded state.

Nope. Never said any such thing. Never said that there would be "tons" left over - you made that up all by yourself. But there WOULD be material left - unexploded charges, det cord, wiring, initiators, radio triggers, etc, etc - none of which has been found. I do not have an estimate for the precise quantities - but it would be greater than "none."

This for skyscrapers which you also claim collapsed without the need of even a single New Year's squib.

Yes, because I utterly refute the presence of any sort of controlled demolition of the WTC. The lack of any found evidence of explosive residue or failures is evidence that none ever existed.

Because it wasn't controlled demo - it was aircraft impact damage and subsequent uncontrolled fires which triggered the WTC collapses - nothing more, nothing less.

Your 'arguments' - such as they are - refute themselves.

Nonsense.

Weaver wrote:

proudfootz wrote:What you fail to exhibit is even a glimmer of logic.

You seem to be claiming that it would take so many tons of explosives to demolish the WTC towers, than tons would be left over in an unexploded state.

Nope. Never said any such thing.

In a discussion about the evidence that 'should' have been found by people working on the rubble pile you said this:

Weaver wrote:You're focusing on wires. How about the tons of explosives?

You may have inadvertently left out that these hypothetical 'tons of explosives' which you imagine would be required would have been exploded, and perhaps a little bit difficult for laymen who are looking for survivors to identify.

Never said that there would be "tons" left over - you made that up all by yourself.

You perhaps should have written 'residue from explosives' instead.

But there WOULD be material left - unexploded charges, det cord, wiring, initiators, radio triggers, etc, etc - none of which has been found. I do not have an estimate for the precise quantities - but it would be greater than "none."

I look forward to the link to the list of all items retrieved from the rubble pile.

As it is, it seems the NIST is on record that they didn't look for any of the things on your list.

You may discover it's relatively easy not to find things you never search for.

This for skyscrapers which you also claim collapsed without the need of even a single New Year's squib.

Yes, because I utterly refute the presence of any sort of controlled demolition of the WTC. The lack of any found evidence of explosive residue or failures is evidence that none ever existed.

Again, another logic fail. You seem to be claiming that a demolition of the WTC towers would require 'tons of explosives'.

It is a claim straight from your posterior.

Because it wasn't controlled demo - it was aircraft impact damage and subsequent uncontrolled fires which triggered the WTC collapses - nothing more, nothing less.

We know that is what you claim.

So how is it that these structures, ready to collapse according to your experience with skyscraper fires, all of a sudden would require 'tons of explosives'?

One claim of yours seems to refute the other claim.

IRL you can't have it both ways.

Your 'arguments' - such as they are - refute themselves.

Nonsense.

Yes, it would appear your claims are nonsense.

Yes, it would have taken tons of explosives to do a controlled demo of the WTC.

No, I do not claim that there would have been tons of explosives residue - but there would have been some. In a search, recovery, and clean-up effort where items as small as fingers and passports and wallets were found, nothing indicating explosives was ever located.

Yes, the WTC could have fallen from the aircraft impacts and resulting fires - they did.

No, explosives were not used. nor was thermite - it would have been impossible to emplace the necessary quantities without detection, it would have been impossible to protect them from the aircraft impacts and resulting fires, and they would have left residue which would have been discovered.

Is that all clear enough that you can avoid fucking twisting and misrepresenting it?

Do you have any FUCKING EVIDENCE to refute my assertions? Or do you just have more trolling, as you've been doing for years now?

Weaver wrote:Yes, it would have taken tons of explosives to do a controlled demo of the WTC.

No, I do not claim that there would have been tons of explosives residue - but there would have been some. In a search, recovery, and clean-up effort where items as small as fingers and passports and wallets were found, nothing indicating explosives was ever located.

Yes, the WTC could have fallen from the aircraft impacts and resulting fires - they did.

No, explosives were not used. nor was thermite - it would have been impossible to emplace the necessary quantities without detection, it would have been impossible to protect them from the aircraft impacts and resulting fires, and they would have left residue which would have been discovered.

Is that all clear enough that you can avoid fucking twisting and misrepresenting it?

Do you have any FUCKING EVIDENCE to refute my assertions? Or do you just have more trolling, as you've been doing for years now?

What is your FUCKING EVIDENCE tons of explosives would be required to help collapse a building which according to you was so weak it collapsed without explosives?

What is your FUCKING EVIDENCE that people who are not looking for residues from explosives would necessarily find them?

Your assertions are that - mere assertions.

All your finger jabbing doesn't elevate them into truths.



BTW - love the shout out to the visa of Satam al-Suqami that just happened to flutter out of the cockpit of an exploding jetliner and found blocks away by an anonymous passerby. Hilarious!

proudfootz wrote:

Weaver wrote:Yes, it would have taken tons of explosives to do a controlled demo of the WTC.

No, I do not claim that there would have been tons of explosives residue - but there would have been some. In a search, recovery, and clean-up effort where items as small as fingers and passports and wallets were found, nothing indicating explosives was ever located.

Yes, the WTC could have fallen from the aircraft impacts and resulting fires - they did.

No, explosives were not used. nor was thermite - it would have been impossible to emplace the necessary quantities without detection, it would have been impossible to protect them from the aircraft impacts and resulting fires, and they would have left residue which would have been discovered.

Is that all clear enough that you can avoid fucking twisting and misrepresenting it?

Do you have any FUCKING EVIDENCE to refute my assertions? Or do you just have more trolling, as you've been doing for years now?

What is your FUCKING EVIDENCE tons of explosives would be required to help collapse a building which according to you was so weak it collapsed without explosives?

Again with the misrepresentations.

I never claimed that the WTC was weak. I never claimed explosives were needed to drop them after the airplane impact damage and subsequent fires.

Claiming that explosives were required comes from your fellow conspiracy theorists. I think the entire idea is ludicrous.

What is your FUCKING EVIDENCE that people who are not looking for residues from explosives would necessarily find them?

Your assertions are that - mere assertions.

All your finger jabbing doesn't elevate them into truths.



BTW - love the shout out to the visa of Satam al-Suqami that just happened to flutter out of the cockpit of an exploding jetliner and found blocks away by an anonymous passerby. Hilarious!

So, now that you're done JAQing off and engaging in argument from incredulity, what do YOU think happened with the WTC? Why, specifically, do YOU think they collapsed, and what makes you think this is more likely than the "official" explanation of aircraft impact damage combined with subsequent unchecked fires?

Weaver wrote:Yes, it would have taken tons of explosives to do a controlled demo of the WTC.

No, I do not claim that there would have been tons of explosives residue - but there would have been some. In a search, recovery, and clean-up effort where items as small as fingers and passports and wallets were found, nothing indicating explosives was ever located.

Yes, the WTC could have fallen from the aircraft impacts and resulting fires - they did.

No, explosives were not used. nor was thermite - it would have been impossible to emplace the necessary quantities without detection, it would have been impossible to protect them from the aircraft impacts and resulting fires, and they would have left residue which would have been discovered.

Is that all clear enough that you can avoid fucking twisting and misrepresenting it?

Do you have any FUCKING EVIDENCE to refute my assertions? Or do you just have more trolling, as you've been doing for years now?

Trolling? Look who is talking, Mr. 18000 bullshit posts.
I hope they pay you well.

Newstein wrote:

Weaver wrote:Yes, it would have taken tons of explosives to do a controlled demo of the WTC.

No, I do not claim that there would have been tons of explosives residue - but there would have been some. In a search, recovery, and clean-up effort where items as small as fingers and passports and wallets were found, nothing indicating explosives was ever located.

Yes, the WTC could have fallen from the aircraft impacts and resulting fires - they did.

No, explosives were not used. nor was thermite - it would have been impossible to emplace the necessary quantities without detection, it would have been impossible to protect them from the aircraft impacts and resulting fires, and they would have left residue which would have been discovered.

Is that all clear enough that you can avoid fucking twisting and misrepresenting it?

Do you have any FUCKING EVIDENCE to refute my assertions? Or do you just have more trolling, as you've been doing for years now?

Trolling? Look who is talking, Mr. 18000 bullshit posts.
I hope they pay you well.

Believe it or not, freemasonry forum posting pays very little. Kinda like being a telemarketer in India.

Weaver wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

Weaver wrote:Yes, it would have taken tons of explosives to do a controlled demo of the WTC.

No, I do not claim that there would have been tons of explosives residue - but there would have been some. In a search, recovery, and clean-up effort where items as small as fingers and passports and wallets were found, nothing indicating explosives was ever located.

Yes, the WTC could have fallen from the aircraft impacts and resulting fires - they did.

No, explosives were not used. nor was thermite - it would have been impossible to emplace the necessary quantities without detection, it would have been impossible to protect them from the aircraft impacts and resulting fires, and they would have left residue which would have been discovered.

Is that all clear enough that you can avoid fucking twisting and misrepresenting it?

Do you have any FUCKING EVIDENCE to refute my assertions? Or do you just have more trolling, as you've been doing for years now?

What is your FUCKING EVIDENCE tons of explosives would be required to help collapse a building which according to you was so weak it collapsed without explosives?

Again with the misrepresentations.

I never claimed that the WTC was weak. I never claimed explosives were needed to drop them after the airplane impact damage and subsequent fires.

So you withdraw the claim that 'tons of explosives' were necessary?

Good. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

Claiming that explosives were required comes from your fellow conspiracy theorists. I think the entire idea is ludicrous.

So ho exactly is 'engaging in argument from incredulity'? Looks like you are, doesn't it?

What is your FUCKING EVIDENCE that people who are not looking for residues from explosives would necessarily find them?

Your assertions are that - mere assertions.

All your finger jabbing doesn't elevate them into truths.



BTW - love the shout out to the visa of Satam al-Suqami that just happened to flutter out of the cockpit of an exploding jetliner and found blocks away by an anonymous passerby. Hilarious!

So, now that you're done JAQing off and engaging in argument from incredulity, what do YOU think happened with the WTC? Why, specifically, do YOU think they collapsed, and what makes you think this is more likely than the "official" explanation of aircraft impact damage combined with subsequent unchecked fires?

I see, now you're the one who's Just Asking Questions. Nice!

I just dropped in to point out how your two apparent claims contradicted one another.

Now that you've retracted one of them (after some bluster and argument from CAPS LOCK) you can continue with your puerile jokes about masturbation.

proudfootz wrote:

Weaver wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

Weaver wrote:Yes, it would have taken tons of explosives to do a controlled demo of the WTC.

No, I do not claim that there would have been tons of explosives residue - but there would have been some. In a search, recovery, and clean-up effort where items as small as fingers and passports and wallets were found, nothing indicating explosives was ever located.

Yes, the WTC could have fallen from the aircraft impacts and resulting fires - they did.

No, explosives were not used. nor was thermite - it would have been impossible to emplace the necessary quantities without detection, it would have been impossible to protect them from the aircraft impacts and resulting fires, and they would have left residue which would have been discovered.

Is that all clear enough that you can avoid fucking twisting and misrepresenting it?

Do you have any FUCKING EVIDENCE to refute my assertions? Or do you just have more trolling, as you've been doing for years now?

What is your FUCKING EVIDENCE tons of explosives would be required to help collapse a building which according to you was so weak it collapsed without explosives?

Again with the misrepresentations.

I never claimed that the WTC was weak. I never claimed explosives were needed to drop them after the airplane impact damage and subsequent fires.

So you withdraw the claim that 'tons of explosives' were necessary?

Good. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

Since I never made the claim, I cannot withdraw it.

Now, if you'd been paying attention, and not simply looking to quote out of context and mislead, you'd have long since realized that what I actually DID say was that tons of explosives would have been needed to do a controlled demolition. But there was no controlled demo, because the structural damage was done by the impacts and the fires.

Do try to keep up.

Claiming that explosives were required comes from your fellow conspiracy theorists. I think the entire idea is ludicrous.

So ho exactly is 'engaging in argument from incredulity'? Looks like you are, doesn't it?

What is your FUCKING EVIDENCE that people who are not looking for residues from explosives would necessarily find them?

Your assertions are that - mere assertions.

All your finger jabbing doesn't elevate them into truths.



BTW - love the shout out to the visa of Satam al-Suqami that just happened to flutter out of the cockpit of an exploding jetliner and found blocks away by an anonymous passerby. Hilarious!

So, now that you're done JAQing off and engaging in argument from incredulity, what do YOU think happened with the WTC? Why, specifically, do YOU think they collapsed, and what makes you think this is more likely than the "official" explanation of aircraft impact damage combined with subsequent unchecked fires?

I see, now you're the one who's Just Asking Questions. Nice!

I just dropped in to point out how your two apparent claims contradicted one another.

Now that you've retracted one of them (after some bluster and argument from CAPS LOCK) you can continue with your puerile jokes about masturbation.

No, my claims do not self-contradict. Only by deliberate misinterpretation can you make such an assessment. Keep trying, though, one of these days you might even convince yourself - and then who knows, maybe even another conspiracy theorist with their mind made up will agree with you! The results could be miniscule!

felltoearth wrote:

Newstein wrote:

Weaver wrote:Yes, it would have taken tons of explosives to do a controlled demo of the WTC.

No, I do not claim that there would have been tons of explosives residue - but there would have been some. In a search, recovery, and clean-up effort where items as small as fingers and passports and wallets were found, nothing indicating explosives was ever located.

Yes, the WTC could have fallen from the aircraft impacts and resulting fires - they did.

No, explosives were not used. nor was thermite - it would have been impossible to emplace the necessary quantities without detection, it would have been impossible to protect them from the aircraft impacts and resulting fires, and they would have left residue which would have been discovered.

Is that all clear enough that you can avoid fucking twisting and misrepresenting it?

Do you have any FUCKING EVIDENCE to refute my assertions? Or do you just have more trolling, as you've been doing for years now?

Trolling? Look who is talking, Mr. 18000 bullshit posts.
I hope they pay you well.

Believe it or not, freemasonry forum posting pays very little. Kinda like being a telemarketer in India.

This is true.

My brother is a Freemason. He has even held a State-level office. I asked him, and he assures me I couldn't get paid anything for posting on forums.

Well, I'm pretty sure that's what he said. He was laughing pretty hard, for a long time. But I generally understand him very well - we've been interacting with each other since before we were born.

Newstein wrote:
Trolling? Look who is talking, Mr. 18000 bullshit posts.
I hope they pay you well.

I've been accused of stalking(and not being good at it) but reading 18k posts of a forum member is just: wow

Maybe you should have also read the threads he posted in to understand what he posted.

Agi Hammerthief wrote:

Newstein wrote:
Trolling? Look who is talking, Mr. 18000 bullshit posts.
I hope they pay you well.

I've been accused of stalking(and not being good at it) but reading 18k posts of a forum member is just: wow

Maybe you should have also read the threads he posted in to understand what he posted.

Maybe he knows something about goats or making delicious spaghetti yes, but the posts i've read from him, like 99 perc are manipulation, ridicule, lies and treason.
I know that kind of people. I'm not an idiot. I'm very experienced with maçons

Weaver wrote:
My brother is a Freemason. He has even held a State-level office. I asked him, and he assures me I couldn't get paid anything for posting on forums.

Well, I'm pretty sure that's what he said. He was laughing pretty hard, for a long time. But I generally understand him very well - we've been interacting with each other since before we were born.

I admire your honesty. (this has to be your first post with some free will)
If your brother is one, pretty good chance you are one. However, after reading a few posts from you, I knew it almost certain.I have a Masondar. Works like a Gaydar.

Newstein wrote:

Agi Hammerthief wrote:

Newstein wrote:
Trolling? Look who is talking, Mr. 18000 bullshit posts.
I hope they pay you well.

I've been accused of stalking(and not being good at it) but reading 18k posts of a forum member is just: wow

Maybe you should have also read the threads he posted in to understand what he posted.

Maybe he knows something about goats or making delicious spaghetti yes, but the posts i've read from him, like 99 perc are manipulation, ridicule, lies and treason.
I know that kind of people. I'm not an idiot. I'm very experienced with maçons

Goats? What have I ever posted about goats?

As to treason - back that fucking accusation up with something factual or withdraw it formally, with an appropriate apology.

Newstein wrote:

Weaver wrote:
My brother is a Freemason. He has even held a State-level office. I asked him, and he assures me I couldn't get paid anything for posting on forums.

Well, I'm pretty sure that's what he said. He was laughing pretty hard, for a long time. But I generally understand him very well - we've been interacting with each other since before we were born.

I admire your honesty. (this has to be your first post with some free will)
If your brother is one, pretty good chance you are one. However, after reading a few posts from you, I knew it almost certain.I have a Masondar. Works like a Gaydar.

My brother is one. I am not.

If you knew anything about me (or, at least, about a certain bit of information about me which is easily obtainable on this forum from a large number of my posts) and about the requirements to become a Mason, you would know that I am not one - and could not be one.

But, like most of the topics you spout off on (all?) you evidently, based on your posts here, know nothing at all about the subject.

Weaver wrote:If you knew anything about me (or, at least, about a certain bit of information about me which is easily obtainable on this forum from a large number of my posts) and about the requirements to become a Mason, you would know that I am not one - and could not be one.

A friend of mine who's a freemason wanted me to join but they wouldn't accept Gary Numan as my choice of a higher power.

felltoearth wrote:

Weaver wrote:If you knew anything about me (or, at least, about a certain bit of information about me which is easily obtainable on this forum from a large number of my posts) and about the requirements to become a Mason, you would know that I am not one - and could not be one.

A friend of mine who's a freemason wanted me to join but they wouldn't accept Gary Numan as my choice of a higher power.

My brother tried, a long while back, to convince me I could just say my higher power was "the god of science" (emphasis on small g).

I said no, I cannot be that dishonest with myself or to others.

Weaver wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

Weaver wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

What is your FUCKING EVIDENCE tons of explosives would be required to help collapse a building which according to you was so weak it collapsed without explosives?

Again with the misrepresentations.

I never claimed that the WTC was weak. I never claimed explosives were needed to drop them after the airplane impact damage and subsequent fires.

So you withdraw the claim that 'tons of explosives' were necessary?

Good. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

Since I never made the claim, I cannot withdraw it.

Now, if you'd been paying attention, and not simply looking to quote out of context and mislead, you'd have long since realized that what I actually DID say was that tons of explosives would have been needed to do a controlled demolition. But there was no controlled demo, because the structural damage was done by the impacts and the fires.

Do try to keep up.

I've already passed you several times on this circular course you're running.

I took nothing out of context. You are simply lying now.

I figured you'd backtrack. Tons of explosives would be needed to collapse the buildings. But they collapsed without tons of explosives. It's one or the other - can't be both.

You really set new lows in critical thinking.

Claiming that explosives were required comes from your fellow conspiracy theorists. I think the entire idea is ludicrous.

So ho exactly is 'engaging in argument from incredulity'? Looks like you are, doesn't it?

What is your FUCKING EVIDENCE that people who are not looking for residues from explosives would necessarily find them?

Your assertions are that - mere assertions.

All your finger jabbing doesn't elevate them into truths.



BTW - love the shout out to the visa of Satam al-Suqami that just happened to flutter out of the cockpit of an exploding jetliner and found blocks away by an anonymous passerby. Hilarious!

So, now that you're done JAQing off and engaging in argument from incredulity, what do YOU think happened with the WTC? Why, specifically, do YOU think they collapsed, and what makes you think this is more likely than the "official" explanation of aircraft impact damage combined with subsequent unchecked fires?

I see, now you're the one who's Just Asking Questions. Nice!

I just dropped in to point out how your two apparent claims contradicted one another.

Now that you've retracted one of them (after some bluster and argument from CAPS LOCK) you can continue with your puerile jokes about masturbation.

No, my claims do not self-contradict.

But they do - you're trying to argue two mutually contradictory things at the same time.

Only by deliberate misinterpretation can you make such an assessment.

Only by willful self-deception can you honestly believe two ideas that refute one another on the same issue.

Keep trying, though, one of these days you might even convince yourself - and then who knows, maybe even another conspiracy theorist with their mind made up will agree with you! The results could be miniscule!

It's pretty clear you've got your mind made up to continue making these absurd claims, knowing that anyone who has any sense can at best feel pity for your insistence on parading your belligerent ignorance.

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.

You are being serially dishonest - as is your wont, as expressed in years of your trolling posts.

The plane impacts and the fires dropped the buildings. That and that alone. No contradiction - because, as I always have, I refute utterly controlled demo.

Controlled demo WOULD require tons of explosives and ancillary equipment - but that would only be necessary for a clueless, denying conspiracy theorist who doesn't accept that the plane impacts and the fires dropped the buildings.

Keep going with your lying, circular reasoning - keep going with your claims that I'm inconsistent - keep going with your bullshit trolling and with your pretending that I'm wrong. You do dishonor only to yourself.