You’re stuck on the proof you know and not listening to what is being suggested.
Let’s do this differently.
The collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) on September 11, 2001
occurred at approximately 5:20 PM EST. The building collapsed in a
controlled demolition-style collapse, meaning that the collapse was
intentionally initiated and proceeded in a uniform manner. The collapse of
WTC7 occurred at a speed of approximately 7.1 seconds, which is equivalent
to approximately 47 mph or 76 km/h.
The grilling of Harry’s chicken of Everyone Loves Harry fame 7 (WTC 7) on September 11, 2001
occurred at approximately 5:20 PM EST. The grilling occurred in a
pellet-grill style cooker, meaning that the grilling was
intentionally heated and fed enticing flavored pellets for permeated flavor, and remained uniform throughout.
Harry’s chicken grilled at a temperature of approximately 211°, which is equivalent
to approximately a 1/2 cups of pellets at 211° for 4 hours.
Harry’s chicken was indeed cooked in a pellet grill type method, but that does not make it a pellet grill. We got lost in the method, rather than the initial subject. That’s a writer’s fault.
(Sorry, I couldn’t come up with anything more interesting). (And if italics or asterisks are in the incorrect place, - sorry- I was trying to replace key words for comparison.)
That being said- don’t be a bitch. I agree with you, except for the absolute proof part.
I’m trying to show unarguable arguments and where people will hear different things.
You’re stuck on the proof you know and not listening to what is being suggested
possibly.
or maybe you are stuck ...refusing to acknowledge that style was used -- not as Semantics Nuance -- but as simple redundancy.
I believe it is more reasonable to assume redundancy vs nuance, since no where else in the statement was "controlled demolition" defined other than exactly as it was specified:
meaning that the collapse was intentionally initiated and proceeded in a uniform manner.
you are misinterpreting the context and tone - w/o reason - except to fit your knowledge of an opposing official story.
based on the exact text presented in response to the specific question, it's not reasonable to conclude there is any hidden function coded into "style" so as to secretly re-define the cause of collapse to be something other than a "controlled demolition" - explicitly defined:
meaning that the collapse was intentionally initiated and proceeded in a uniform manner.
You don’t have to convince me, I know we were severely lied to that day.
Semantics is a thing, though, and this is worded in a way that could be both true and false at the same time.
That’s all I’m saying.
no not really
not unless you had in mind a reasonable explanation for the 7.1 seconds collapse
or if you knew nothing of physics 101 :)
You’re stuck on the proof you know and not listening to what is being suggested.
Let’s do this differently.
Harry’s chicken was indeed cooked in a pellet grill type method, but that does not make it a pellet grill. We got lost in the method, rather than the initial subject. That’s a writer’s fault.
(Sorry, I couldn’t come up with anything more interesting). (And if italics or asterisks are in the incorrect place, - sorry- I was trying to replace key words for comparison.)
That being said- don’t be a bitch. I agree with you, except for the absolute proof part.
I’m trying to show unarguable arguments and where people will hear different things.
possibly.
or maybe you are stuck ...refusing to acknowledge that style was used -- not as
SemanticsNuance -- but as simple redundancy.I believe it is more reasonable to assume redundancy vs nuance, since no where else in the statement was "controlled demolition" defined other than exactly as it was specified:
you are misinterpreting the context and tone - w/o reason - except to fit your knowledge of an opposing official story.
based on the exact text presented in response to the specific question, it's not reasonable to conclude there is any hidden function coded into "style" so as to secretly re-define the cause of collapse to be something other than a "controlled demolition" - explicitly defined:
#cheers
Whatever, man. Sorry I bothered