Originally posted by zumbido:
I've no architectural/structural background.
However, my cousin, who is quite a successful architect, finds it completely probable.
Oh brother. Thanks for clearing that up. Of course you're not, and of course he does. So do 64% of 'mericans. I did study physics. And architecture is NOT engineering mechanics.
If you were a structural engineer, you would've had something useful to say, complete with facts and reasons, so we already knew you know nothing about the subject. It's just that you feel SO strongly that there is no possible way any involvement by our government was possible that I thought you might actually know something. That's all I'm looking for. Useful information.
So.... You really don't know. You're basing your beliefs (strong enough to try and belittle those who ask questions, i.e., pea brain) on what you DON'T know. You believe what someone told you.
To sum up, your cousin agrees with you, Popular Mechanics has the expert answers, and you agree with both them, so there is no reason to question the scholars and engineers who ask the same questions I do. Got it.
Originally posted by zumbido:
Apparently, you haven't posted anything relevant.
To whom? You? How about to the families of the victims? My friends who died in the tragedy? And what for? Or the families of the dead Iraqi cilvilians?
That is a very thoughtless thing to say, all of this is relevant. It's like saying this is a game.
Originally posted by zumbido:
The thing that one learns as they become smarter (me), is that there are experts - I'm not one in this field. I therefore, deferred you to a reliable source.
The thing that one learns when they get older is that there is a lot of corruption in this world, and the US is no exception. Bush calls himself a "war president".
You consider yourself smarter, therefore, you sent me to Popular Mechanics, and I, therefore, deferred you back to the experts. Real experts in the field of engineering mechanics who also read that article and dissected every one of it's assumptions. They provided "irrelevant" facts disproving, in some cases with the government's own words and conclusions, each point in the magazine's article. But that is, apparently, irrelevant. Yer so smart. Shucks.
Originally posted by zumbido:
If you want to talk about music theory - I know way more than you, since I am an expert. Fire away.
Thanks. I, too have a degree in music, and you still probably know way more than me there, so put down the sword. I don't think I'll be asking any theory questions anytime soon, however, I'm too busy making music and chasing UFO conspiracy theories down at the local watering hole.
And why do they still call it "music theory"? They haven't proven that music exists yet? :p