0
shward

Anybody think that this might not be the greatest of ideas?

Recommended Posts

Authorities have discovered a house filled with explosive material and their solution to the disposal is.... BURN IT DOWN!!! Anybody think that this might not be the best idea in the world?
Life is short, eat more bacon, have more sex and jump anytime you can!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After 9/11 a lot of us Firefighters were sent to explosives emergencies training. We were trained to let explosives burn and evacuate the area. Explosives need a detonation to set them off and a fire by itslelf will not cause a detonation. If they are certain nothing is in there that will detonate from fire, like fused blasting caps, etc., then it might make sense to burn it. Just seems like they could come up with a way to move it out of there. The other thing that does concern me is the toxic fumes and toxic run off from any water they may apply to the site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Toxic smoke and ground water contaimation is my major concern, I'm not all that worried about a huge explosion, it's just the HUGE possibily of the unkown and then once the house is burning they won't exactly be able to halt the process in a heartbeat.
Life is short, eat more bacon, have more sex and jump anytime you can!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I would rather have to be in a building that is burning that contains RDX, than a building full of gasoline or magnesium



Yep. Any day.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the worst that could happen?
How hard can it be?
What could go wrong?










Hold my beer and watch this. ;)

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Well the other option is having people walk in there and carry it out.

Well, geez, have the guy who made it carry it out. Offer him 5 years off his sentence if he does it without blowing any of it up. He knows the stuff he made, and he will be very motivated.

And if he does blow himself up, it sorta kills two birds with one stone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

After 9/11 a lot of us Firefighters were sent to explosives emergencies training. We were trained to let explosives burn and evacuate the area. Explosives need a detonation to set them off and a fire by itslelf will not cause a detonation. .



I can think of several explosives that will go off in a fire without requiring a detonation. Nitroglycerin comes to mind. So, for that matter, does plain old gunpowder.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The home has been declared a public nuisance and therefore the county does not have to reimburse the owners, who were renting the house to Jakubec.



This part of the article sucks.

I wonder if home owners insurance will reimburse the owners or if they are going to be out of pocket?
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[I can think of several explosives that will go off in a fire without requiring a detonation. Nitroglycerin comes to mind. So, for that matter, does plain old gunpowder.



I have to disagree with you on those. Gunpowder isnt and explosive, its a combustible solid. Nitro in its pure form is extremely shock sensative. Today nitro is used in a stable mixture in dynamite. You can throw a stick of it in a fire and it will burn but it won't blow. Needs a blasting cap, or another initiating charge to detonate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The home has been declared a public nuisance and therefore the county does not have to reimburse the owners, who were renting the house to Jakubec.



This part of the article sucks.

I wonder if home owners insurance will reimburse the owners or if they are going to be out of pocket?



It depends on the language of the specific insurance policy. It is common for insurance policies to exclude from coverage claims arising out of illegal activities. The question is the degree to which the non-resident landlord did or did not have (or should have had) control over the premises. My prediction is the landlord will file a claim with his insurer, the insurer will disclaim, and the landlord will sue the insurer for coverage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0