I don't think you know what that
non sequitur means, but you're infallible, so I must be wrong.
heres the thing, none of us have cut this open to see what they did, but, at 3mm, the "skin" is not load bearing over that distance without something that equates to gusseting somewhere, which essentially makes it a unibody shell. otherwise, it would buckle. Bracing behind it, most likely. It...
www.expeditionportal.com
And with that, as much as I'm tempted to keep showing everyone what you are, I'll honor my Ignore List and let you sink back to obscurity. bye
And you continue with your strawmanning. I don't think I'm "infallible". But I do know how physics work.
I'm sorry, should I have called it a diversion tactic instead? A red herring?
You do realise that you're quoting yourself making the same idiotic "infallible" claim, right? You are not only giving up when it comes to logic, you're using the accusation of "infallibility" as a cop out.
That is how you lose an argument: Making sh.tuff up, making claims with no bearing on reality, and try to divert, divert, divert.
Just because someone knows more than you doesn't mean they think of themselves as "infallible", but if that is how you cope with reality, I guess I should just respect it, right?