i'm not the one that has stated that the WTC 1 and 2 buildings had a certain "designed in" safety factor when no such factor has ever been published.
WTC Collapses
- Thread starter scott3x
- Start date
- Status
Ryan Mackey allegedly works at NASA too and he certainly writes a fair amount about 9/11. Or are you saying that the fact that Tony -supports- the notion of controlled demolition taking down the WTC buildings instead of the official story's 'planes and fires' should be the reason that he should have cause for concern?
What that question has to do with Tony's question, I have no idea...
Look, when it comes to arguments, I generally employ 2 strategies; ignore it for whatever reason (perhaps I don't think the poster is worth my time) or deal with it. Protesting the fact that it hasn't been published just isn't something I'm all that keen on.
Anyway, will you atleast admit that you simply don't understand his argument?
cleverly constructed illogical fallacy rhetoric, tis all.
"avoiding the evidence which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that explosives/incendiaries weren’t needed to bring these buildings down"
LOL, you wish to pretend that NIST has proven or disproven something with your obfuscatory rhetoric.
the facts are that the buildings came down in a certain fasion not compatable with NISTs hypothesis, evidence for explosive incendaries has been found, and NIST has buried and obfuscated facts contradictory to its thesis. these are the facts that your rhetoric avoids.
strawman.
i was pointing out the fact that no figures have been published AND tony calculates one without the expertise to do so.
it's that simple.
if this is the way NASA does business then is it any wonder "challenger" exploded?
why would that be a reason to "worry"?
NASA are not the Taliban are they? they're the good guys, right?
they don't exhibit the characteristics of a controlled demolition either.
(waits for the word unusual)
tony knows why, dontcha tony. unless of course tony isn't his real name.
When people cut corners they tend to do it for specific reasons, their own criminal gains usually. This means writing up false receipts or identifying stronger materials than that were used for perhaps cheapness. I know this because I have a background in the welding and fabrications industry, my Family has a history in construction and I was a CAD operator that dealt with structural designs for constructions. Not necessarily the magnitude of a 110 story building but other assorted building projects.
I have seen people "make do" during construction, taking "Cut I-girders" and stick weld them together. Obviously this is a Health and Safety no-no. While a weld itself can be stronger than the metal is normally, the heating of metal around the weld tends to be weakened structurally, allowing twisting. The building in question for that reason (and a reason in regards to the lack of fire exits) currently can't have it's upper two stories occupied.
It's known that Construction companies and their unions were often Organised Crime related. I'll let you do your own detective work on that, it shouldn't take much to find "something".
Last edited:
Tony does have the expertise.
Tony has published his calculations.
Anyone is free to review and correct or discuss those calculations because they are freely available to all.
No one has challenged the accuracy of Tony's calculations.
I have only seen unfounded personal attacks on Tony as a response, which only strengthens Tony's argument.
not in engineering high rise buildings.
correct.
not here, as of yet they haven't.
where have i personally attacked tony? show me the post.
on the other hand tony posts that i'm a "silly bastard" in post 943.
now homie, who's attacking who here?
they play 'good cop, bad cop'. i was called a pathological liar by headspin and have not lied about anything in this thread.
How much expertise does it take to know that every level of a skyscraper must support the combined weights of all levels above?
So why isn't everyone demanding to know the TONS of STEEL on every level?
Doesn't it take more energy to heat more steel? So isn't that information relevant to analyzing the fire? How much steel can get how hot in less than TWO HOURS?
Talking about expertise in a problem this simple when people aren't DEMANDING the obviously relevant but simple information is ridiculous. People that want to BELIEVE stupid bullshit have to make it seem much more complicated than it is.
psik
Last edited:
you claimed to be a licensed engineer at the age of 19, you then later state you were licensed at the age of 23. you have also claimed to have been trained in criminal law, social science expert, experience in iron working, personally witnessed steel beams exactly like the wtc beams snapping, breaking and bending, worked with large turbines the size of houses that sound exactly like explosives, worked as a manager of incinerator plant, trained as a a police forensics expert.
Quite the genius, but you offer no knowledge to the discussion, just spamming links to stupid songs.
your arguments have only consisted of "i used to work as a *** so you are wrong", interspersed with ad hom and abuse.
you trained as a police forensics expert?
And you have called me a pathological liar. This is a blatant personal attack with no merit. I have feelings too.
- Status