The Jumpers

[eyeball]

We could also just stop doing things that provoke the sort of hatred that leads to terrorism but that would probably be too much to expect.

[M.Dancer]

Clearly these are simple engineering issues. In regards to air pressure, it is only the very tallest buildings that have pressurized and hermetically sealed upper floors. In a mere 69 floor building, the air pressure at any given height is the ambient pressure at that height. As for opening the windows causing damage, clearly, they can be designed in such a way as to not be damaged in whatever wind is reasonably expected to ever occur at that height. For one, they could be sliding windows rather than ones that stick out into the wind; that in itself would reduce the stress substantially.

Yes those are engineering issues. Which is why it is simpler not to have the windows open.

Ad far as pressure goes...the pressure inside the 69th floor is greater than the pressure outside.

[Bonam]

Yes those are engineering issues. Which is why it is simpler not to have the windows open.

Heh well, building the high rise in the first place is also an engineering issue. It would have been simpler to stay living in caves. But that didn't stop us before.

[DogOnPorch]

I remember standing in downtown London one windy day when all the windows on this one building under contruction started popping out and falling to the streets below (to great cheers). A gust of wind had created a fairly large overpressure, I guess.

[OddSox]

Yes those are engineering issues. Which is why it is simpler not to have the windows open.

Ad far as pressure goes...the pressure inside the 69th floor is greater than the pressure outside.

Reason #2: Jumpers.

[DogOnPorch]

Reason #2: Jumpers.

Good point.

[bush_cheney2004]

We could also just stop doing things that provoke the sort of hatred that leads to terrorism but that would probably be too much to expect.

Not only that, but aircraft do collide with tall buildings for other reasons than "terrorism". The WTC structures exceeded their design requirements for a 707 impact and/or building evacuation before collapse from fire.

Edited September 18, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

Not only that, but aircraft do collide with tall buildings for other reasons than "terrorism". The WTC structures exceeded their design requirements for a 707 impact and/or building evacuation before collapse from fire.

There was this famous one. Good thing it wasn't bombed-up.

Or this more recent one when a small plane hit the Bel Air Apartments in Manhattan...

It does happen...

[GostHacked]

A couple of reasons....

Air pressure. Opening a window on the 69th floor could get you sucked out....

Winds....opening a window on the 69th floor with the winds whipping by at 60km could blow out lots of windows....

I guess that's really only one reason...

Most syscrapers are a closed system. Open windows can cause unwanted moisture/temp changes. And since most buildings are climate controlled, it is another reason why syscrapers do not have open windows.

[GostHacked]

A good idea too, and as pointed out above, already exists.

As for the equipment:

That is a lot less than what I thought it would be. It's quite affordable. Zip lines to other buildings would be great as well. Like to the roof of a lower building.

[Argus]

We could also just stop doing things that provoke the sort of hatred that leads to terrorism but that would probably be too much to expect.

It seems to me you have been rather unclear about how we go about avoiding such provocation. I've asked you before whether this means simply running away whenever a small percentage of the people in an area don't like us, or whether it means abandoning allies some small group of crazed fanatics don't like, and you've not answered.

Yes, we've supported dictators, mostly in their fight against people who would be dictators. I'm unaware of any efforts at helping dictators fight off democratic elements. But the Chinese and Russians have also supported dictators around the world and nobody seems to be attacking them or hijacking their planes.

[Bonam]

But the Chinese and Russians have also supported dictators around the world and nobody seems to be attacking them or hijacking their planes.

Actually Islamic terrorism also affects both Russia and China as well as other nations (India, Pakistan, etc). Granted they haven't had incidents precisely like 9/11, but they've certainly had their share of terrorism.

[eyeball]

It seems to me you have been rather unclear about how we go about avoiding such provocation. I've asked you before whether this means simply running away whenever a small percentage of the people in an area don't like us, or whether it means abandoning allies some small group of crazed fanatics don't like, and you've not answered.

Sure I have, you just never listen. We avoid it by not getting involved in other people's fights. Its that simple. Further to this we shouldn't have ties to allies that insist on picking fights and employ or empower client dictatorships in the process.

Yes, we've supported dictators, mostly in their fight against people who would be dictators.

I suppose you think this is like fighting a forest fire with fire - people aren't trees though and when innocent people are sacrificed to the torture chambers and prisons of our allies it is perfectly understandable why this might provoke an acute sense of hatred towards their tormentors patrons.

I'm unaware of any efforts at helping dictators fight off democratic elements.

Why is that so often what results then? Conditions will often be attached to this help but after decades of little or no improvement in so many dictatorships its long past time to conclude the jig is up and the sham has been exposed for what it is.

But the Chinese and Russians have also supported dictators around the world and nobody seems to be attacking them or hijacking their planes.

They're under attack, but the intensity of attention the west gets is probably due to the fact that the west should know better. Nobody likes a hypocrite, especially when they persist on focusing such a shining spotlight on their beacons and high falutin' principles. In any case this hasn't stopped either the Chinese or the Russians from feeling the need to ramp up their own defences against terrorism. I have no doubt these too will receive their comeuppance. Like I said if you've seen one super-rogue you've seen them all. The other feature they all seem to share in common is that the bigger they are the harder they fall as they inevitably do. Just ask Russia.

Edited September 19, 2009 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

.....We avoid it by not getting involved in other people's fights. Its that simple. Further to this we shouldn't have ties to allies that insist on picking fights and employ or empower client dictatorships in the process.

But it's OK for Canadian corporations to strip mine and drill around the world (supporting such "dictatorships"), encourage immigration of doctors and engineers from such places for so called "human rights" (further destabilizing them0, grant n-duple citizenships, and support / enforce UN sanctions?

As for severing "ties to allies", you would have to start with the Queen of all Empires. Good luck with that.

[BubberMiley]

But it's OK for Canadian corporations to strip mine and drill around the world ....

No, that's what he meant by "we."

duh.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, that's what he meant by "we."

duh.

"We've" already debunked "we"......duh!

[BubberMiley]

"We've" already debunked "we"......duh!

Now you aren't even making any sense. How do you debunk a collective pronoun? And if you did, your fretting about Canadian corporations debunks your previous debunking.

[bush_cheney2004]

Now you aren't even making any sense. How do you debunk a collective pronoun? And if you did, your fretting about Canadian corporations debunks your previous debunking.

I don't fret about anything, but I do like to laugh at your wannabe attempts.

[August1991]

Sure I have, you just never listen. We avoid it by not getting involved in other people's fights. Its that simple. Further to this we shouldn't have ties to allies that insist on picking fights and employ or empower client dictatorships in the process.

That's naive in the extreme. But it does have a strong following in Quebec, the US and South America. It's called isolationism and in this modern world, it's unrealistic.

Some Muslims (ie bin Laden) are very uncomfortable with letting infidels into Saudi Arabia. In fact, that was one of the reasons bin Laden gave for al-Qaeda's attacks on America. But US troops were in Saudi Arabia as part of Gulf War I to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.

More generally, we in teh West are bound to clash with tradition-bound people unable to cope with change. It is naive to pretend otherwise. It is unrealistic to believe that the misoygnistic theocracies of the Middle East can insulate themselves from Western freedom.

As to Israel, it is a red herring when it's not a canary in the mineshaft. Israel is a western liberal democracy in the midst of a region where the country closest to liberal democracy suffered a 17 year civil war. It may seem odd but many Palestinians and Lebanese are suspect because they are too modern and too western.

[eyeball]

More generally, we in teh West are bound to clash with tradition-bound people unable to cope with change. It is naive to pretend otherwise.

The irony here is almost hilarious because it is clearly the hidebound conservative elements in both cultures that are most determined to stay the course. It is naive to pretend otherwise.

[jbg]

Actually Islamic terrorism also affects both Russia and China as well as other nations (India, Pakistan, etc). Granted they haven't had incidents precisely like 9/11, but they've certainly had their share of terrorism.

The Muslim attack on the school in Chechnya about two or three years ago? Forget the name of the attack.

I suspect the Russians and Chinese deal with attacks far less publicly and far more brutally. No one in the press is going to weep for the Russian or Chinese iteration of a Khadr or Arer or agitate for the closing of their equivalent of Gitmo. The Siberian labor camps were remarkably under-protested by the likes of Eyeball and Myata back in the day.

(Edited to add name of attack, Beslan. I'll admit I had to google for it).

Edited September 20, 2009 by jbg

[eyeball]

The Siberian labor camps were remarkably under-protested by the likes of Eyeball and Myata back in the day.

Yeah that's right, I'd be cheering and sending them the names of people like of you.

Precisely what part of my oft-repeated reference to super-rogues do you not get anyway?