4 ms·

I’m not sure why you are arguing this. Arson is a horrible crime and the fact that it is being attempted towards fire resistant buildings (according to you at l

I’m not sure why you are arguing this. Arson is a horrible crime and the fact that it is being attempted towards fire resistant buildings (according to you at least, I’m not convinced) doesn’t matter. This makes me wonder if you also have a theory about why 9/11 towers couldn’t have fallen on their own...

eesmith 6y ago
Arson is so horrible that it's worth sending in the DHS to override the local police? No. Emphasizing "flammability" is an unbalanced view which omits the ignition requirement which is part of Kednicma's "how oxidize building". My theory on 9/11 is that the fire code kept the buildings standing until the heat from the unplanned-for fuel load caused the structural support metal to soften and weaken, leading to the collapse. Checking now, it's close to what Wikipedia describes. Can you tell me why your question is at all relevant? Is your theory that firing firework mortars at this federal courthouse is so far out of code expectations that a special response is needed? If so, isn't that a huge flaw in the current system put in place after the OKC bombing?
Kednicma 6y ago
Yikes, let's break apart your claims. Why am I arguing this? Your initial claim, that protestors are trying to burn down the federal courthouse, is totally unsubstantiated and smells like bullshit. It's worth arguing against because it paints protestors as violent agitators. The horror of arson does not excuse extrajudicial precrime tactics. In fact, it is reasonably well-argued that no crime can excuse extrajudicial tactics, simply because committing crimes in the case of seeking justice for crimes will lead to never-ending criminal acts. By what evidence are you not convinced that these buildings are fire-resistant? The positive circumstantial evidence is that, from both an encyclopedic source and firsthand hearsay, the building is composed of quarried stone, steel, concrete, marble, and bronze. The negative circumstantial evidence that you've brought up, that the office-interior decor may ignite and that the building may burn out from the inside, is not just speculative, but doesn't meet the original criterion: The building would not burn down just because it has fire damage inside. Even worse, once again your unfamiliarity with the building hurts, because you don't know about the marbled entryways and stonework walls, which don't have enough wood in them to sustain fire damage. And then you bring up 9/11. What a red herring. What a non sequitur. Finally, you failed to address a sibling point: That after the Oklahoma City bombing in the 90s, the Feds stepped up their stance on defending federal public buildings like courthouses. We are not really exaggerating the level to which these buildings have been secured. Again, this is something that you may have to visit and see for yourself to grok. Please watch less Fox News, or whatever it is that is rotting your arguments in this way.

eesmith 6y ago

Arson is so horrible that it's worth sending in the DHS to override the local police? No. Emphasizing "flammability" is an unbalanced view which omits the ignition requirement which is part of Kednicma's "how oxidize building". My theory on 9/11 is that the fire code kept the buildings standing until the heat from the unplanned-for fuel load caused the structural support metal to soften and weaken, leading to the collapse. Checking now, it's close to what Wikipedia describes. Can you tell me why your question is at all relevant? Is your theory that firing firework mortars at this federal courthouse is so far out of code expectations that a special response is needed? If so, isn't that a huge flaw in the current system put in place after the OKC bombing?

Kednicma 6y ago

Yikes, let's break apart your claims. Why am I arguing this? Your initial claim, that protestors are trying to burn down the federal courthouse, is totally unsubstantiated and smells like bullshit. It's worth arguing against because it paints protestors as violent agitators. The horror of arson does not excuse extrajudicial precrime tactics. In fact, it is reasonably well-argued that no crime can excuse extrajudicial tactics, simply because committing crimes in the case of seeking justice for crimes will lead to never-ending criminal acts. By what evidence are you not convinced that these buildings are fire-resistant? The positive circumstantial evidence is that, from both an encyclopedic source and firsthand hearsay, the building is composed of quarried stone, steel, concrete, marble, and bronze. The negative circumstantial evidence that you've brought up, that the office-interior decor may ignite and that the building may burn out from the inside, is not just speculative, but doesn't meet the original criterion: The building would not burn down just because it has fire damage inside. Even worse, once again your unfamiliarity with the building hurts, because you don't know about the marbled entryways and stonework walls, which don't have enough wood in them to sustain fire damage. And then you bring up 9/11. What a red herring. What a non sequitur. Finally, you failed to address a sibling point: That after the Oklahoma City bombing in the 90s, the Feds stepped up their stance on defending federal public buildings like courthouses. We are not really exaggerating the level to which these buildings have been secured. Again, this is something that you may have to visit and see for yourself to grok. Please watch less Fox News, or whatever it is that is rotting your arguments in this way.