Comment: Uhhh

(See in situ)

In post: .
In reply to comment: Dustified (see in situ)

Uhhh

Since there are only tiny 'frag'ments of the WTC left, I like the military term 'fragged' as a perfect descriptor of the way the buildings, office equipment, and bodies just disintegrated.

I'm sorry, how are you defining tiny? Because from the current usage, you obviously have no idea what the word means.

Dustified is specifically a term used by the woman who is claiming that energy weapons were used on the towers, if I remember right. Anyone to further explain this? Do you agree that focused energy weapons were used? If so, is this a more valid explanation than thermite? Do you believe thermite was used or energy weapons?

Every floor of the WTC was more fortified than the floor above preventing the 'pancake effect' that the trusters/trolls arguments hinge on.

Really? I'd love to see the evidence for this. I love the word fortified used here btw, because it goes with your theme of using absolutely ridiculous verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. How much more fortified was each layer from the others exactly? How was this enough to prevent pancaking. Is your argument that pancaking would've occurred without this extra "fortification" that you've described?

Come back and try to worm your way out of this one...

Honestly, things like this are my favorite. "Oh look, I've shifted the burden of proof to you for a thing that actually happened!" This is the equivalent of saying, "Airplanes are WAY heavier than air, so obviously they must be kept aloft using magical alien levitation technology." The planes hit the towers, they came down due to the damage from the strike and the subsequent fires. The burden of "proof" is still on you to provide for a valid theory as to why they fell. Saying, "It could be anything except the planes!" is absurd if you're expecting to be taken seriously.

Eric Hoffer