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.

#cheers

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.

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.

#cheers

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 tone - w/o reason - except to fit your knowledge of an opposing official story.

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.

#cheers

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 tone - w/o reason - except to fit your knowledge of an opposing official story.

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.

#cheers

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 tone - w/o reason - except to fit your knowledge of an opposing official story.

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 what is explicitly defined:

meaning that the collapse was intentionally initiated and proceeded in a uniform manner.

#cheers

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 tone - w/o reason - except to fit your knowledge of an opposing official story.

it's not reasonable to conclude there is a "hidden meaning" coded into "style" so as to secretly define "controlled demolition" to mean something other than what is explicitly defined:

meaning that the collapse was intentionally initiated and proceeded in a uniform manner.

#cheers

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 tone - w/o reason - except to fit your knowledge of an opposing official story.

it's not reasonable to conclude there is a "hidden meaning" coded into "style" so as to mean something other than what is explicitly defined:

meaning that the collapse was intentionally initiated and proceeded in a uniform manner.

#cheers