04-08-2013, 05:35 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-08-2013, 02:11 AM by Jeffrey Orling.)
I am on my boat and so it's hard to do this now. I suspect one needs to understand what Tony attempts to prove and what are his premises. I think for starters he makes some assumptions about what did or did not happen.... and goes on from there. He ignores some evidence undermines his premises.
Bazant is not the issue and his work was theoretical not based on evidence or data from 9/11. The most reliable data is to be found at the 9/11freeforum by femr2, achimspok, Tom and the site admin OWE. Their data is ignored and so from my prespective TS's work is fantasy which tries to pass as rigorous analysis. It's essentially GIGO. Tony refuses to use the best data for the movement of the parts of the building.
Bazant is not the issue and his work was theoretical not based on evidence or data from 9/11. The most reliable data is to be found at the 9/11freeforum by femr2, achimspok, Tom and the site admin OWE. Their data is ignored and so from my prespective TS's work is fantasy which tries to pass as rigorous analysis. It's essentially GIGO. Tony refuses to use the best data for the movement of the parts of the building.