Martin Sheen: 9/11 Questions 'Unanswered,' Building 7 'Very Suspicious'

[tomk52]

89. Just "wow"...

A "real discussion"??
ARE YOU JOKING??

In post #17, you asserted that:

The fact that Bažant's work itself has already been refuted twice in articles published by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics by James Gourley and Anders Bjorkman shows he's perception does not reflect reality. In fact, his Bažant's work was already called by one of his peers "the most shameful Closure in structural damage analysis history".

In post #56, I provided you with to my engineering background, which allows me to make PROFESSIONAL judgments on the qualities of arguments put forth in the field of Mechanical Engineering.

(An oversight of mine: please provide your educational/professional background that informs your opinions about matters relating to structural engineering.)

I provided you with my simple, clear assessment that Bazant is considered one of the greatest engineers of this, or any, era; and that he is one of the world's foremost authorities on the collapse of large structures. Then I BACKED UP my assessment by providing you with links to his CV & Publications list.

I provided you with my simple, clear assessment that Bjorkman is a lunatic, likely with serious mental issues. Then I BACKED UP my assessment by providing you with links to Bjorkman's own writing on "the reasons that atom bombs, moon landings, Shuttle launches, the ISS, Mars landers, Galileo, Cassini, Pioneer, Voyager, etc. are ALL impossible fakes."

Did you respond to ANY of the info I provided you? Nope
Did you even look at ANY of the info I provided you? I doubt it.

In post 58, you pitched a hissy fit, said that my writing was "unclear, fragmented & non-objective".
You answered nothing & then ran away.

So in post #61, I responded to your "unclear" complaint.
I broke everything down into simple bite-size chunks: 18 simple questions that any 4th grader could understand.

Your reply: Silence. Not one question answered. Not one issue addressed.

In post #65, I asked again if you would address the SUBSTANTIVE issues.

Your reply: Silence.

This last silence proved to my satisfaction that you are NOT interested in either the truth or in a meaningful discussion.

In post #74, I posted my conclusions about your behavior.

I asserted that "someone who was rigorous, honest & really seeking the truth would address the issue."
And that "someone who was dishonest, frivolous, unconcerned with the truth & only looking to win debating points would simply skulk away. Only to return later to post the same crap."

So what did you do??
You ran away for 3 weeks.

And then, in post 88, returned, answered nothing & posted the same crap as before.

Gee, if only there was extra credit offered for psychic predictions…

And you have the huevos to suggest that "when I want to have a real discussion, then you'll be here"??? LMAO, OC.

If I were in your shoes, OC, I'd be just too damn humiliated to show my face any more in this thread.

It appears that Truthers have become inured to their own humiliations.

Cheers. I have zero doubt that you'll get your panties in another bunch, run away, whine about my writing style, and address no issues.

"Plus ça change …", I guess.

Tom

PS.
By the way, I did not call Bazant "an engineering God", as you falsely asserted in post #71. That interpretation is purely the result of your abject ignorance of engineering issues.

In a similar fashion, I wouldn't call Michael Jordan "a basketball God". I would assert that he is "one of the world's finest basketball talents, ever." Exactly as I referred to Bazant in his field. Anyone familiar with basketball would agree with me regarding MJ. Anyone familiar with Structural Engineering would agree with me regarding Bazant.

Your twisted misinterpretation of my words & meaning springs solely from your deep well of ignorance on matters related to my field, heavily seasoned with your own insecurity & snarkiness.

Your problem, Junior. Not mine.