9/11 - Inkompetenz/Vertuschung - oder doch Absicht?
06.01.2013 um 01:46@FZG
Aus der Löschdiskussion:
-macht keinen Sinn
-wo ist die Patentnummer
-wo sind die Bauvorschriften
Scheinbar konnte man die auch damals nicht (er)finden...
Aus der Löschdiskussion:
Delete Complete ridiculousness. Tall buildings are torn down via deconstruction and the NRC (along with almost every citizens group ever to exist) would never approve this process for demolition. Nate • (chatter) 08:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete. My goodness, that's an imaginative theory. Also, a completely unverifiable and patently ridiculous one. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I've edited it further to remove the bizarre implication that the so-called "suitcase nukes" were intended for use for peaceful building demolition. Ten-kiloton weapons are kind of impractical for use in a city, unless you're trying to kill the people in it. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd really like to know what building code requires us to implant a means of destruction in a building. My copy of the International Building Code seems to be missing this section. If it's there, I need to have a long talk with my insurance agent concerning a) my liability for neglecting to specify Section 99999 - Atomic Demolition Munitions in the project manual, and b) my liability for the loss of a medium-sized city if I screw up the calcs. Come to think of it, the architect's licensing exam was curiously remiss on this subject as well. Acroterion (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I have trouble believing this is serious. I think the website linked by Mansford above and this page are meant to be a joke. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not just describing a "principle." It's saying specifically that something was developed in the 1960s and that there is a patent on it. Those are claims that have to be verified. If the rest of the article describes your principle or someone else's unpublished principle, then that does not belong here. WillOakland (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Die Wikipedianer hat also all das gestört, was wir hier auch schon so schrieben:
-macht keinen Sinn
-wo ist die Patentnummer
-wo sind die Bauvorschriften
Scheinbar konnte man die auch damals nicht (er)finden...