Yeah, that would be me. And, once again, the "basic physics" says precisely the opposite of what you claim. Here are the articles I linked before (one of which is from the University of Virginia's physics department). I would suggest actually reading them this time:
https://www.wired.com/2016/07/giant-bfg-shouldnt-just-look-like-giant-human/
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/scaling.html
*puts on math teacher hat* Look, guys, this isn't that complicated. A human being scaled up times 3 --- meaning, the same anatomical proportions but 3 times the height, 3 times the width, and 3 times the depth --- will weigh 27 times as much, because volume = length times height times depth and 3 times 3 times 3 = 27. So, basically, your suggesting a given column of support (say, an ankle bone) can be 3 times as thick yet somehow support 27 times as much weight. It just doesn't add up.
This is really, really basic stuff. Like, I teach this kind of stuff to my 8th graders basic.
Trotting out the T-Rex over and over is irrelevant because a T-Rex is not a scaled up human being. Their skeletal, circulatory, and respiratory systems are totally different from ours (they have more in common with birds than primates). Seriously, look at a T-Rex skeleton side by side with a human skeleton. Their leg bones are *massively* thicker in terms of relative proportions than ours are. All large animals are like that. Their bone structure is very, very different from that of smaller animals.
The only way to explain giants-as-scaled-up-humans is to basically wave our hands and say Its Magic! There certainly isn't any math to support their physiology.