The 9/11 Forum

Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues

Skip to content

v

Welcome
Welcome!

Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been suspended.

Models of Inelastic Accretion

Other 9/11 topics of a technical nature.

Re: Models of Inelastic Accretion

Postby OneWhiteEye » Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:32 am

SanderO wrote:I think that current analysis would not justify these monsters.

I totally agree. They are impressive and beautiful but I doubt in most cases are truly economical in the long run. Part of it is likely the influence of antiquated transportation, where distance could be a signficant cost. Now, people commute to Manhattan in droves from the upstate 'tent cities', as Mayor Koch called them. Does it really matter if they stopped 10 miles earlier in their commute, because the metropolis was spread out more? Seems like it would be better.

I think the biggest driver now is ego. Always has been for the tallest buildings.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 4977
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

 

Re: Models of Inelastic Accretion

Postby SnowCrash » Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:47 pm

I love tall buildings and I was infatuated with the World Trade Center and the NYC skyline.

Yet, I admit the discussion in the Bazant thread with Akareyon made me think twice.

And.. Galileo's Square Cube Law was a definite eye-opener too.

Seems more important to me to explain the world (biomechanics!) than super string theory.

Sounds corny but it's true.

Typical blockhead! :lol:
SnowCrash
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 2:45 am

Previous



Return to Other technical issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



suspicion-preferred