Originally posted by baracustastic
Every building is different.If I am not mistaken there was substaintial CONCRETE supports in the Madrid building that you talk of. Concrete is much better at withstanding fire than Steel.
Also the TT were designed to cope with the collision of a plane, but a smaller plane than those which hit.
Moreover, with Steel the fire-proofing is critical. The explosion wave caused when the planes hit probably dislodged the spray on fire-proofing. After all the spray-on stuff is designed to cope with fire, not shock-waves.
I would not decribe the fires caused by fully fueled aeroplanes as "minimal!"
Once the fire causes one steel column, beam or most importantly CONNECTIONS (weakest parts) to lose their rigidity, the weight of the buildings must be carried by the rest. Bear in mind steel conducts heat rather well so, in the unlikely event of the fires hardly spreading, the effects of the fire would have been transferred, to an extent, through the steel.
Steel is not like timber, it does not turn to charcoal and remain standing for hours. With the effectiveness of the fire-proofing reduced by the impact/blast it is entirely likely that the buildings would collapse after 40-50 mins.
Apparently the guy who designed the buildings was shocked when they collapsed. They were hugely over-engineered. The other interesting thing brought up in the video was the fact that people were seen standing in the holes the planes made in the buildings, which were supposedly hot enough to melt, or at least weaken steel.
Then there's the bit about the gentleman who bought the entire WTC property and took out a massive insurance policy shortly before 9/11... And demolished another of the buildings there on 9/11 even though it had almost no structural damage.
What this has to do with the thread topic, I don't know.
big evil Im still waiting for a response to the question that was more or less for you.
So you are a hardcore socialist huh?, you are for stronger government control of the marked, you for higher taxes(much higher taxes), more taxes on goods and commodity's, government control of large corporation like oil companies phone companies , government control of the economy?
Big Evil - you have written a few posts since your return, all with the passion and bluster, but you still haven't answered the question.
How have the Liberals taken away your rights and freedoms?
I want rights and freedoms that have been taken away from you by liberals. That is all. Not opinions or political pontifications. Just examples. No insults, no lame attempts at humour just 3 or 4 examples.
As for your comment about the media being liberally biased, that topic has been covered in this forum ad nauseum. Check it out if you wish, however I doubt that you will.
så når skal vi få svar på det sosialistiske spørmålet, big evil the master of the socialist answer: how is the rights due to socialist movement depriving the right of freedome of chioice as it is depriving the free will, so the liberals take away freedom how ?
yet socialist ................take away the freedom you thougt were personal as a means of control..........looking for a closed state or? have you ever encountered socialism or is it just a weat dream
Although I can't stand PETA, the have not taken away anyone's rights or freedoms. And to call PETA a liberal organization is a misnomer, I would consider them a radical group.
Try again. You have stated that Liberals have taken rights and freedoms, yet you have still come up with nothing, give at leaast 3 examples to prove your point please.
Originally posted by PVS
an example.....?
The sex offender registration law is a prime example. The ACLU come rushing to aid of sex offenders saying it is a violation of their civil rights, because it embarrasses the person on the list. When asked about the parents' rights to protect their children, the ACLU's stance was that the issues was the offenders' rights, not the rights of the parent.
There are numerous cases in which the ACLU has been involved in championing the rights of an individual over the rights of the many.
Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
The sex offender registration law is a prime example. The ACLU come rushing to aid of sex offenders saying it is a violation of their civil rights, because it embarrasses the person on the list. When asked about the parents' rights to protect their children, the ACLU's stance was that the issues was the offenders' rights, not the rights of the parent.There are numerous cases in which the ACLU has been involved in championing the rights of an individual over the rights of the many.
interesting points.
really illustrates the line between rights and liberty, and how thick it can be in certain instances. but the ACLU by nature and by name is for the protection of civil liberties, for EVERYONE...even the scumbags. they cant be selective in who's liberty they seek to protect or they become a hypocrisy.
as far as the 'right' for a parent to be safe and secure, that opens up a can of worms. the issue of sacrificing liberty for safety comes to mind. a dangerous slippery slope.
personally, im glad we have megan's law, and i'm ALSO glad there are those who would argue against it. its all about checks and balances, and im comfortable in the fact that they had the rocks to question it when so many consider it taboo to do so.
if only congress would be so questioning of bills brought before them. had they had the balls to actually read and perhaps question the patriot act or the iraq war, they may have proven useful. instead they bowed their heads in a meaningless gesture of respect and allowed such deals to pass, simply because of 9/11. not to mix issues, but i think the "dont question what is sacred" mentallity is related.
Originally posted by PVS
interesting points.really illustrates the line between rights and liberty, and how thick it can be in certain instances. but the ACLU by nature and by name is for the protection of civil liberties, for EVERYONE...even the scumbags. they cant be selective in who's liberty they seek to protect or they become a hypocrisy.
as far as the 'right' for a parent to be safe and secure, that opens up a can of worms. the issue of sacrificing liberty for safety comes to mind. a dangerous slippery slope.
personally, im glad we have megan's law, and i'm ALSO glad there are those who would argue against it. its all about checks and balances, and im comfortable in the fact that they had the rocks to question it when so many consider it taboo to do so.
if only congress would be so questioning of bills brought before them. had they had the balls to actually read and perhaps question the patriot act or the iraq war, they may have proven useful. instead they bowed their heads in a meaningless gesture of respect and allowed such deals to pass, simply because of 9/11. not to mix issues, but i think the "dont question what is sacred" mentallity is related.
This topic is too broad. Liberals as a whole have not infringed on the rights and freedoms of others, nor have conservatives as a whole. For me, both doctrines make excellent points. My problem with the ACLU is that one group's liberties are ignored in defense of another. They do not stand for all persons' liberties, just the ones who they feel like defending.