Should demolitionists be banned from using conventional explosives?

[BuyingThyme]

With the War on Terror and all, shouldn't we make every effort to keep high explosives out of the hands of the Enemy?

And, if so, why do we still make these materials available to those who don't really need them anymore -- particularly when there is apparently a much safer, less expensive way to bring down an unwanted structure?

As we all very well know, all one has to do is dump a few thousand gallons of kerosene (or a similar product) on any floor of any unwanted structure -- even the largest in the world -- and, in a very short time, it will fold up into a nice, neat, little pile. No dangerous materials necessary, no experts on the payroll, no science of any kind to complicate the process.

I don't understand why they're still doing it the old way.

Do you?

[slackmaster]

1. Sure, I understand.

:tinfoilhat:

[nebenaube]

2. you know..

It's getting to the point where calling us tin-foilers just makes you look silly.

[achtung_circus]

6. Sillier than the OP?

Didn't think so.

[BuyingThyme]

8. Why do you want all of those explosives out there when

there's really no need for them?

[achtung_circus]

9. Get a life. nt

[BuyingThyme]

13. I don't understand your position at all.

[mongo]

3. Please tell me you forgot the sarcasm tag

[BuyingThyme]

4. What are you trying to say?

[Ron Green]

5. I think demolitionists ought to use nukes to bring these things down.

:P

:nuke:

[achtung_circus]

7. Too expensive,

chicken cannons, baby.

[nebenaube]

26. you know...

I know Colorado is high because of elevation and the nuke bomb plant that's out there but NY?



btw... this is the current background radiation there... Is that from Three Mile Island or from the shock wave that is visible in the film at 911eyewitness.com?

[razors edge]

10. I agree completely,

it should also give the nice clean cuts at the base of the structure like these.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

11. Seems odd to me that minds in here can make

such a complete dismissal of how the towers were brought down without having access to all the factual information. :shrug:

[BuyingThyme]

12. I don't know much about that.

But I do know it took as little as a couple quarts of jet fuel to bring down Building Seven.

In addition to tying the hands of the Enemy, imagine the savings to be realized in demolition projects.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

14. Who knew that jet fuel was so potent. No wonder the

oil companies are so important...

[achtung_circus]

15. .

[BuyingThyme]

16. We know.

[uppityperson]

17. I think the problem is..

that it has to be delivered via jet. :rofl:

[BuyingThyme]

18. I was thinking about that.

I figure that if they could come up with a system where the flammable liquid is not distributed randomly, there would be less flammable liquid required to get the job done.

Then they could just bring the liquids up in garbage cans, maybe on service elevators. Or maybe they could use hoses, as with concrete pumpers.

[achtung_circus]

19. How about a sprinkler system,

you know, like for fire suppression.

And make the pipes out of thermite.

[BuyingThyme]

20. Yes, then the liquid could be regulated as needed.

If the building doesn't come down in the first hour, just pump a little more liquid in there.

[achtung_circus]

21. When they build highways

and railway lines and canals they sometimes need to remove large quantities of rock.

Currently they drill holes and insert explosives and blast.

Ditto in a lot of mines.

Any ideas for alternatives in those cases, laser beams?

[BuyingThyme]

22. Just pour a little kerosene on those structures.

They'll come down.

[pinto]

23. Demolitionists are the enemy? I don't get it.

[BuyingThyme]

24. Oh, no. It's al Qaeda.

And they can bust in to the demolition places and get the explosives. But since those explosives are not needed to get the job done, why have them lying around?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

25. I thought it was Osama...

or was it the Mossad, no wait that's not it, Hezzbolah -- yeah that's the ticket! But wait...