RE: 102 minutes that changed America (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Politesub53 -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/10/2009 1:03:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


I believe that extraordinary rendition is another topic, what I was referring to was the enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the CIA at Club GTMO. Even counting Arpig's highly questionable contribution though, together with the people sent off through extraordinary rendition by Bill Clinton and G.W. my point stands rather well I think, which is essentially that we're not torturing everyone who we find wearing a turban. There were basically a few very high value people at the top who were questioned that way.

Obama's doing an extensive internal audit and he's not finding what you and Arpig seem to be claiming at all, is he. And he has every resource available to him to find the truth.



Im not sure how you can claim you only meant Gitmo, torture is torture no matter where it is carried out. The previous administration new that when authorising renditions.

Im also unsure how you know what President Obama has or hasnt been told. I havent seen anything in the public domain about this, at least not in the news.




Arpig -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/10/2009 4:49:43 AM)

Please ignore my previous post (#80) it was posted to the wrong thread, and I didn't catch it in time to delete it....Hey Mod 11, if you see this could you please delete post#80...thanks.




luckydawg -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/10/2009 8:26:55 AM)

Arpig, you switched terms from post 75 to 79 It went from "absolute nobodies" being interogated to "relative nobodies".

It's hard to have a serious talk with someone who switches terms in mid debate, and pretends he hasn't.




Arpig -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/10/2009 10:36:41 AM)

quote:

Arpig, you switched terms from post 75 to 79 It went from "absolute nobodies" being interogated to "relative nobodies".

It's hard to have a serious talk with someone who switches terms in mid debate, and pretends he hasn't.
You are right, I did switch terms,nothing deliberate, I was just making my point and didn't go back to see just which terms I had used...I didn't think anybody would care, seeing as it didn't detract from the point I was making, but I guess that was wrong, some of you do care. I never claimed or pretended to have not switched terms, I wasn't even aware I had...I wasn't quoting myself I was reiterating my point and used slightly different wording to say essentially the same thing. And just to be clear, so there's no worry about what terms are being used...I stand by first term: "absolute nobodies" happy now?

Now if you could address the substance of my post rather than the wording, we could move this discussion along




TurboJugend -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/10/2009 1:08:11 PM)

I am watching the movie now ( recorded from History Channel HD). It is 2 hours in total.
Gives a bit of a different view then I saw before.....but to be honest ..content wise as a viewer ( at minute 28)......it is almost all the same...

For history/documentation....it is very important....




thornhappy -> RE: 102 minutes that changed America (9/10/2009 3:26:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

What I find most striking about the film if I'm being honest is the total inability to fight fire, despite their best efforts, in a high-rise building or to evacuate people. I'm not sure if the WTC towers had a sprinkler system but I expect it would have all most certainly been water based which would have only spread the fuel around further. No one expected a fire load of jet fuel but future systems should use foam like is used when a plane crash lands at an airport. If those fires had been brought under control sooner those towers almost certainly wouldn't have collapsed at all and this is where most people probably died, not from the initial impacts.

Neither system would've helped in this case, since the distribution systems for the sprinklers (and would've been the same for foam) were broken by the impact.

quote:

SL4V3M4YB3

You know you see those heavy lifting helicopters lifting tanks, they should have some on standby containing foam tanks that could be flown adjacent to a high-rise building then a high pressure jet of foam could be directed into the fire from the outside. The outside perimeter is where the fire is being fuelled by the most oxygen. You could even spray some kind of viscous coating on the outside to remove the external source of oxygen.



The coating can not span a structural opening; while the foam may help when the fire's close to the exterior, it would be of little use when it's in the overhead or central structure.

quote:

SL4V3M4YB3
In any case these buildings were designed long ago and I expect modern design philosophy would cope better under such a situation.

They were designed for a 737, IIRC.  No one can read the future.

quote:

SL4V3M4YB3
edited to add: I suppose the towers could have collapsed eventually due to the wind forces alone but I'm a strong believer in equilibrium of forces meaning if a structure is proven to stand up for a period of time as it is and the external forces applied to it remain more or less the same it will stand much longer. The only significant thing affected the structure in my view was the heat from the fire and if the fire had been at the very top of the buildings rather than a few floors down that obviously also would have helped the situation.

If the fire heats the trusses to the point of sagging, and the floor fails, then wind has nothing to do with the failure.

NIST has an 8-part investigation of the cause of collapse of WTC 1 and 2, and also has an analysis of the collapse of WTC 7.  You can find the start of the reports here.

thornhappy




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125