.com.unity Forums - [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Space Empires: IV & V (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics. (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=8669)

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

Same here, some of the questions are too geared towards American issues.

To give two examples, 99% of all Brazilians would not support our government if it was wrong. Every political party in Brazil supports social reform, even if only outwardly. All of this tends to shift us towards the bottom left corner because some of the questions are not the 'right' ones for us.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

Economic Left/Right: -1.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -1.90

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

Quote:

Originally posted by Erax:
To give two examples, 99% of all Brazilians would not support our government if it was wrong. .

Hey, are you from Brazil?!
Brazilian Metal rocks!!
I love Sepultura, Portrait, Imago mortis, Rebaelliun and Leroy !!!

.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

Quote:

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Check out the new addition to my sig http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Lol.

If you make a search on anarchist ideology you gonna find that there is a lot more to anarchy than what the name sugest.
It seems that most anarchist movements today are striving for local goverments as oppouse to national goverments.
I've heard that Spain and France have the strongest anarchist movements today.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

A self destruct device for a skyscraper? ROFL! That is too much. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Anybody with the skill to have setup something like that would have known it was useless to try.

Seriously, what that guy doesn't understand is that contrary to popular misconception buildings don't fall over, they fall down. It's not a coincidence or a conspiracy that the collapse of the towers looked very much like a controlled demolition. It's simple physics and engineering. That is the only way they can fall.

The highly skilled demolitions experts you see blowing up stadiums and office buildings have things down to a level of sophistication that they can take them down and not damage a building on the other side of a narrow street. Didn't the WTC collapse take out like 5 or 6 other buildings and damage another dozen? That was pretty much a worst case scenario in action. Not really anyway it could have done any worse damage to the surounding area. If a demo company did that poor of a job they'd be looking at criminal negligence charges.

Here's a good article that explains it in plain terms. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

I think the key point in the article is this:

Quote:

NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?

Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over.

Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways.

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

I think the only way to knock them over would have been taking out, say, the left side of the first five floors (so all the weight is on the right side).

Hitting from way to heck up there? Nah. Notice how the jets hit and the building barely even moved at first..puts the relative size in perspective.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

Yeah, a cousin of mine that is an arquitec said exactly the same.

Now i wonder how many people have fallen for this "theory".

Check out what else they say:

Quote:

A self-destruct mechanism might not have been designed into the Twin Towers originally, but it might have been added later, especially after the 1993 bombing of the WTC alerted all of America (an in particular, the people working in the surrounding office buildings) to the possibility that there might be another attack on the WTC which would succeed in destroying the towers. It would not be particularly difficult to engineer this possibility. One simply has to engage the services of a controlled demolition company (such as Controlled Demolition Inc. to set things up. (This is the company that hauled away the rubble from the Murrah Building in Okalahoma City after its demolition and provided a detailed plan to do the same for the WTC eleven days after September 11th.) Naturally they would be told (if they wondered at the purpose) that this was a "fail-safe" mechanism, not intended to be used except to minimize damage in the event of an attack.

So such a company specializing in controlled demolition of large buildings could study the problem and, with the approval of the owners (the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey prior to July 2001), place explosives at just those points which would destroy the structural integrity of the building (if and when detonated) so as to bring the Twin Towers down precisely in the way the world witnessed on CNN on September 11th.

It has even been suggested that such a self-destruct mechanism was required in order to prevent companies with offices in the buildings in the vicinity of the Twin Towers from moving out (fearing for the safety of their premises and their employees), and was also required to persuade new companies to rent office space in Lower Manhattan. It has been suggested that the company directors of large companies with, or considering buying or renting, office space in the financial district would not agree to keep or to obtain that office space unless they could be given an assurance that in the event of a major attack on the WTC, sufficient to destroy the Twin Towers, their offices would not be damaged significantly and their employees would not be put in mortal danger. Whether this is true or not is known only by a few, including the past and present owners of the WTC (and some of their employees) and the directors of large companies with offices in Lower Manhattan.

This guy is missing the point that nobody would rent space in a building with explosives permanently installed in it!!!

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

Quote:

This guy is missing the point that nobody would rent space in a building with explosives permanently installed in it

Or that by telling all these neighbouring businesses about the explosives they make it impossible to keep the whole thing a secret.

I'm all for anti-gov/ anti-biz propaganda (us anarcho-syndicalists are like that) but this one just hasn't been thought through. It's this kind of junk that gives conspiracy theorists a bad name! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

I recently watched the "Booling for Columbine" movie. I found it quite intersting, but I wonder about US advices about it.

So what do you think guys ? Comments ?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

Quote:

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
I think the only way to knock them over would have been taking out, say, the left side of the first five floors (so all the weight is on the right side).

That's the point Phoenix, even that would not have caused the building to fall over, only down. Taking out one side of the bottom five floors and would have definetly changed the center of gravity enough to tip the building. But before it could reach the point where it could fall over, all the internal weight bearing structures would have collapsed and brought it basically straight down. Very similer to what we saw happen. Perhaps the pile would have been a bit more spread out. Maybe those buildings around it that fell a few hours later would have come down right away. But it wouldn't have landed on wall street or anything.

Geoschmo