Posted: Jul 14, 2013 9:40 pm
Weaver wrote:Does your model feature tube-in-tube construction like the WTC? No.
I admitted that from the very beginning and I put Ryan Mackey at the beginning of my video and the mathematical model that he talks about is not a tube-in-tube design either.
Does your model feature outer supports which are bypassed during the collapse, like happened in the WTC? No.
That is just another way of saying what you said above, it is not a tube-in-tube.
Does your model have ANY BEARING WHATSOEVER ON THE GODDAMN WTC? No.
Now you you are just going blah, blah, blah.
Stop talking about your stupid model as if it matters at all - it doesn't. And nobody is obligated to provide a better model - if you insist on models to challenge the NIST report and the scientific consensus, build one yourself.
Yeah, right! You can't make a model that can collapse so you can just go blah, blah, blah.
This comes down to AUTHORITY not showing it has the brains to justify its AUTHORITY. Believe what the schools say because they are AUTHORITY. But wait, how many schools have actually not said a damn thing about 9/11 since 9/11? Bazant has been at MIT but does he speak for the school? What has anybody from Caltech said? Purdue produced that "scientific" video of the north tower but they admitted that it is only a simulation of the top 20 stories so actually it says NOTHING about collapse.
What schools actually have any PUBLIC position on the events in New York on 9/11?
[110487]
psik