5 ms·

How would they do it? Heck, how would you do it? This isn't idle banter, nor am I trolling for a ban or an FBI watchlist. The federal courthouse building [0] i

How would they do it? Heck, how would you do it? This isn't idle banter, nor am I trolling for a ban or an FBI watchlist. The federal courthouse building [0] is one of several stone buildings downtown, built out of massive blocks of stone on the outside, with a core of steel and concrete. This building is basically a block-sized stone. I've been inside it a few times. I would not characterize it as flammable in the slightest. Additionally, even during peaceful times, the courthouse blocks are designed to be guarded. Each courthouse is inset from the street and there are stone steps giving guards the high ground. I have personally had an experience where I was walking past this building, and I looked up the stairs at the door, and I slowed down. Within about five seconds, the door was open and a federal agent was asking me what I needed, while I was still standing on the sidewalk. The sidewalks are covered with spaces for police and federal agents to park, and again even during peaceful times, ever since 9/11 there have been multiple federal cars parked around these blocks. So yeah, on both "how oxidize building" and "how not get shot by feds", I'd rate this courthouse 0/10, could not burn it and I'd get shot if I tried. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gus_J._Solomon_United_States_Courthouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gus_J._Solomon_United_States_C...

koheripbal 6y ago
The exterior walls are stone - the entire interior and roof are wood, as well as most the interior walls, floors, ceilings, and furniture/carpeting. It is absolutely flammable.
- eesmith 6y ago
  Carpeting is treated with fire retardant. Interior structures are built to fire code. Solid wood is flammable, yes, but difficult to ignite. Treated oak has even been used as a spacecraft re-entry heat shield - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanhui_Shi_Weixing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanhui_Shi_Weixing . After the Oklahoma City bombing, federal buildings were made more resistant to terrorist attacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_building_security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_building... says Federal courts are Level IV, or one below the Pentagon. Verified with https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-T-GGD-98-141/pdf/GAOREPORTS-T-GGD-98-141.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-T-GGD-98-141/... . If it's so easy to ignite that a few firework mortars can set it ablaze, then the US federal building security system is a joke just waiting for the next McVeigh and Nichols.
  - Google234 6y ago
    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.

koheripbal 6y ago

The exterior walls are stone - the entire interior and roof are wood, as well as most the interior walls, floors, ceilings, and furniture/carpeting. It is absolutely flammable.

eesmith 6y ago
Carpeting is treated with fire retardant. Interior structures are built to fire code. Solid wood is flammable, yes, but difficult to ignite. Treated oak has even been used as a spacecraft re-entry heat shield - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanhui_Shi_Weixing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanhui_Shi_Weixing . After the Oklahoma City bombing, federal buildings were made more resistant to terrorist attacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_building_security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_building... says Federal courts are Level IV, or one below the Pentagon. Verified with https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-T-GGD-98-141/pdf/GAOREPORTS-T-GGD-98-141.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-T-GGD-98-141/... . If it's so easy to ignite that a few firework mortars can set it ablaze, then the US federal building security system is a joke just waiting for the next McVeigh and Nichols.
- Google234 6y ago
  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.