= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Bo102010 comments on The Correct Contrarian Cluster - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (228)
What irks me about this is that you probably don't know what an uncontrolled demolition brought on by massive pieces of falling building, thousands of gallons of rushing diesel fuel, and apparently unstable electric conditions ought to look like. I certainly don't.
I expect it would look like the building FALLING OVER, among other things. Making a building fall straight down into its own footprint is actually quite tricky. Buildings are designed to stay in one piece.
They're designed to stay in one piece under normal conditions, and predictable disaster conditions. Clearly this wasn't one of those, but you expect the same thing to happen?
Given that that's what happens in failed controlled demolitions, yeah, I do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwGE92upfQM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsePUn5-88c
Wait, what? Neither of those tipped like you said you would expect.
And failed controlled demolitions are not unprecedented disaster conditions, but I suspect this discussion is not worth having.
I meant that they stayed in one piece, as per your objection. No, they did not fall over, but then these have had their lower floors taken out symmetrically. Presumably a natural disaster would not be as forgiving.