Christophera said:
Do you have a reason to know about secret, self destruct policy? Can you document this?
No problem, can you understand an image of self destruction in action?
Chris, I was referring to your claim about sub bases and missile silos. Why would you know about such secret things?
Obvious facts (from a series of 10,000):
4,786: The sun moves round the earth, or we'd all be flung off.
5,212: The earth can't be a sphere, or people would fall off the bottom.
6,094: When you swing a ball on a string round your head, there is a radial force pulling the ball away from you. When you cut the string, it will fly directly away from you.
7,703: Heavier objects fall faster than light ones.
#3,453: Solid objects are made mostly of solid stuff, not empty space.
See, this is the reason nobody takes you guys seriously. You go on and on about these dire conspiracies, and then you claim it's all "common sense" and you "don't even need to read any expert" (I assume you mean either "expert opinions" or "experts"). But there is a reason why we have people who study their whole lives in order to construct these buildings, rather than simply using "common sense."
There are areas where you need to show more diligence in terms of research and knowledge, especially complex technical subjects like structural engineering and architectural design. There is a lot of complicated math and physics involved, and "common sense" doesn't even scratch the surface.
Quick, I'll use an example from a totally different area of life. I underwrite state-mandated group disability insurance for a living, so I'll use an example I'm qualified to judge.
Using common sense, tell me how to determine a profitable rate for a group disability insurance policy given three years of premium, claims, and rate history. The business has changed insurance carriers several times, and has been with the current carrier less than six months. Assuming a low yearly premium (say, under $5,000 a year), what would you need to do, without mentioning specific numbers. Just give me a general idea of what kind of factors you would include in your calculations and decision-making process.
Only people who believe "common sense" is an acceptable methodology in solving technical problems are allowed to answer. Come on, this is not nearly as hard as structural engineering.
The answer is 42. It's obvious.
The concrte core was vital to the towers stability and safety.
Steel flexes WAY TOO MUCH in those proportions.
Steel is supposed to flex. I suspect that a concrete core wouldn't flex enough. But I could be wrong. Somebody check me? (See how that works, Christophera? You allow for the possibility that you may be mistaken. That way, when you find you are, you learn something instead of going mad and having your world collapse around you.)
christophera said:
Imagine the tower faces to the wind and those opposite. Do you know how a wing flies? It is not so much the pressure below holding the wing up. it is the low pressure above lifting, just tlike the sail on a boat.
Chris, Chris, Chris. Aerodynamics 101. The shape of the wing causes higher pressure underneath and lower pressure above the wing. The differential between the two causes lift. It is just as much the high pressure below as the low pressure above that causes this. To attribute it to one and not the other is being very selective in your argument (which logical fallacy this is, I forget, but it's similar to picking the trials that work and ignoring the rest.)
christophera said:
and so the steel core columns originally concieved of were rejected in favor of a steel reinforced, tubular, cast concrete core.
If steel flexes too much, and this is so well known, why would a world-famous architect come up with the idea in the first place?
All towers of the propostions of the twin towers have steel reinforced tubular cast concrete cores. The have to, otherswise they felx TOO MUCH like the Tacoma narrows bridge did.
First of all, it's been pointed out that not all towers have concrete cores. See the Sears Tower. Care to address your mistake here?
Secondly, it's also been pointed out that the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was a highly specialized case of the right design being in the wrong place. The wind in that valley set up a resonance with the beams in the bridge. The same design was used in the Golden Gate Bridge, which doesn't seem to have any problems at all. Care to address this point?
The conclusion is that you're an unschooled halfwit with a massive ego problem, who probably has to have help making sure the skidmarks are in the back of his underpants.
You owe me a new keyboard. I had to dry ice tea off of mine after reading this.
By the way, Christophera, if all these welders (and presumably firefighters, politicians, engineers, etc) are afraid to speak out, why is it that you are able to maintain a website and promote it so shamelessly over and over without retribution by the powers that be? If you can get away with it, don't you think that one welder might be able to speak up?
