Gage: Hell No I Ain't Reading Mackey's White Paper

DGM said:
If ergo floor height is correct,
Click to expand...

I have never seen an estimation of the storey height, so there is no "ergo floor height".

Here's an idea: Let's apply common sense. Four-storey buildings are generally not considered highrises. Even if by some freak chance they technically meet that definition, it is still irrelevant to our discussion because comparing a four-storey shoddy building collapse to two 110-storey skyscraper collapses from upper floor fires is not going to yield much insight for anyone.
 
DGM said:
I just looked at this again. If ergo floor height is correct, That would make it ~86 feet to the floor of the top story.

This is getting close folks
Click to expand...

I just recalculated, I took the length of the building 65m, divided it in 1/2, 32.5. Went center to center with the side facing end of the drawing, got ~30.

30x3.33=99.9'

I am hazarding a guess that the roof is equal to one floor in height. 99.9/5=19.98x4=79.92' from ground to top of 4th. If I can find a better ruler I will get more precise.
 
ergo said:
I have never seen an estimation of the storey height, so there is no "ergo floor height".

Here's an idea: Let's apply common sense. Four-storey buildings are generally not considered highrises. Even if by some freak chance they technically meet that definition, it is still irrelevant to our discussion because comparing a four-storey shoddy building collapse to two 110-storey skyscraper collapses from upper floor fires is not going to yield much insight for anyone.
Click to expand...

Yes, lets throw out the actual definition and what it actually means because its severely inconvenient to the rally call of truthers everywhere.
 
ergo said:
I have never seen an estimation of the storey height, so there is no "ergo floor height".

Here's an idea: Let's apply common sense. Four-storey buildings are generally not considered highrises. Even if by some freak chance they technically meet that definition, it is still irrelevant to our discussion because comparing a four-storey shoddy building collapse to two 110-storey skyscraper collapses from upper floor fires is not going to yield much insight for anyone.
Click to expand...
Let's take it the next logical step and stop comparing buildings all together.Why don't we deal with each one on it's own. After all, the "first time in history" is a bit lame.


:rolleyes:
 
DGM said:
Let's take it the next logical step and stop comparing buildings all together.Why don't we deal with each one on it's own. After all, the "first time in history" is a bit lame.


:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Great idea. Why bother with a premise that is not only fallacious, but inherently inaccurate?
 
ergo said:
I have never seen an estimation of the storey height, so there is no "ergo floor height".

Here's an idea: Let's apply common sense. Four-storey buildings are generally not considered highrises. Even if by some freak chance they technically meet that definition, it is still irrelevant to our discussion because comparing a four-storey shoddy building collapse to two 110-storey skyscraper collapses from upper floor fires is not going to yield much insight for anyone.
Click to expand...

Do fire and gravity work differently in a highrise?
 
ergo said:
The key word is access, kids. 75' or more measured from fire department access from the vehicle.

Removing the pic link, since that's a little exaggerated.
Click to expand...

A troofer that doesn't understand building codes AND moves words around in a very lame attempt to support his claims.
The code does NOT say "measured from the fire department access from the vehicle" is says "lowest level of fire department vehicle access" (IBC)

In other words the measurement takes place from the highest level that a fire truck can get to. If the building is built into a hillside, but only the lowest level is accessible by fire truck, then that is where the measurement starts.

Troofers being dishonest.....no surprise there
 
I finished reading the whitepaper a couple days ago, and I'd like to thank Mr. Ryan Mackey for summing up what most of us already know: that two airplanes destroyed the World Trade Center.
 
ergo said:
I have never seen an estimation of the storey height, so there is no "ergo floor height".

Here's an idea: Let's apply common sense. Four-storey buildings are generally not considered highrises. Even if by some freak chance they technically meet that definition, it is still irrelevant to our discussion because comparing a four-storey shoddy building collapse to two 110-storey skyscraper collapses from upper floor fires is not going to yield much insight for anyone.
Click to expand...


Number of stories is irrelevant. Nice tap dance though
 
Animal said:
Number of stories is irrelevant. Nice tap dance though
Click to expand...

Please....don't lecture Ergo. Look at all the thorough research he presented to support his assertions!

No doubt he will be linking to this thread in the future as evidence he has fully refuted Kader as an example of steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire.
 
grandmastershek said:
Please....don't lecture Ergo. Look at all the thorough research he presented to support his assertions!

No doubt he will be linking to this thread in the future as evidence he has fully refuted Kader as an example of steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire.
Click to expand...

He will. Hilarious,isn't it?
 
grandmastershek said:
Indeed...after all he started with me by linking to a similar thread from before, and a source which totally contradicted his claims. Pure comedy gold.
Click to expand...

I've noticed that too. They always link to something that contradicts them. They are not the sharpest knives in the drawer,I suppose that's why they are twoofers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom