If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   20 years after Waco, it's still real to the Branch Davidians   (npr.org) divider line 296
    More: Strange, Branch Davidians, Waco, David Koresh, prophecies, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives  
•       •       •

10601 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Apr 2013 at 1:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



296 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-20 03:01:52 PM

LavenderWolf: Right. You have to purposefully MAKE things of this nature ignite. It's not going to just happen when you use one.

If you launch one into an area with a far more easily combustible substance - e.g. the gasoline/kerosene that was spread around - it might ignite. But that's not a foreseeable situation. Who would have assumed they covered their compound in fuel?


Or the explosive charge that deploys the gas is the right temperature to ignite it, or is close enough to a sufficiently and properly concentrated amount.

OR you deploy quarts of it through a nozzle on a tank and the stuff lingers long enough for the dust to reach flammable concentrations , THEN you begin tossing in the in the ones that use incendiary charges to deploy.
 
2013-04-20 03:01:52 PM

snocone: LavenderWolf: LavenderWolf: snocone: Let's call it CS gas, get it.

There is that word "volatile".
WIKI sez: The compound 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile (also called o-chlorobenzylidene malononitrile) (chemical formula: C10H5ClN2), a cyanocarbon, is the defining component of a "tear gas" commonly referred to as CS gas, which is used as a riot control agent. "CS gas" is actually an aerosol of a volatile solvent (a substance that dissolves other active substances and that easily evaporates with it) and 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile, which is a solid compound at room temperature. CS gas is generally accepted as being non-lethal. It was discovered by two Americans, Ben Corson and Roger Stoughton, at Middlebury College in 1928, and the chemical's name is derived from the first letters of the scientists' surnames.[4][5]

Air & Water ReactionsThe finely powdered nitrile is a significant dust explosion hazard. Slightly soluble in water.Fire HazardFlash point data for this chemical are not available, but it is probably combustible. (NTP, 1992)

Having been in heavily-concentrated areas of CS gas while also in the presence of a source of ignition, I'm going to call BS and demand you find out exactly HOW flammable it is before making such accusations.

shiat, if it were that flammable, the heat source inside the canister would essentially turn every CS grenade into a fuel-air bomb.

Used improperly, yes they are.
Unless improper is what you are aiming for.


This is the most paranoid, delusional bullshiat I've read today. And that's saying something - I've been surfing the web all day.

Is there any evidence or reason to believe that the tear gas canisters were modified to produce an incendiary effect?

No, the fact that there was a fire is not proof. There is evidence that they covered the inside of their compound with gasoline. The available evidence shows one thing, but you are insisting on another thing.
 
2013-04-20 03:02:43 PM

MisterRonbo: pedrop357: Forgot to mention that that must explain the police officers caught on camera saying things like "burn the mother farker out", etc.

I'm sure you have a citation for that.

And since it took six hours from the time tear gas was deployed until the fire started, I guess it has some amazing time delay feature before it ignites, right?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9868110/P ol ice-tried-to-burn-out-Christopher-Dorner.html
 
2013-04-20 03:02:56 PM

Wise_Guy: The police call the devices they insert "burners" and would you believe it that a few seconds after deploying one of these "burners" into a cabin, a fire started? It's almost like deploying this stuff in high concentrations OR into an area with an open flame (fireplace) is likely to start a fire and they know it.

Tear gas isn't flammable. It burns your eyes and throat. "Burners" -- get it?


He apparently thinks its a bottle of gas instead of a compound that makes noxious smoke as it burns

From the MSDS:

PYROTECHNIC CS AGENT

Potassium Chlorate
Sugar
Magnesium Carbonate
Nitrocellulose
o-chlorobenzylindenemalononitrile

http://www.defense-technology.com/pdfs/msds/1182-37LRSpedeHeatCS.pdf

It is a smoke bomb with crap in the smoke.  Not a bottle of flammable gas.

/wait until he hears about some of the kinds of O2 generators that firemen use
 
2013-04-20 03:03:01 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Mock26: snocone: MFAWG: doglover: 2wolves: doglover: DoctorCal: Have they found a new messiah to rape their kids?

That new messiah would have to be pretty damn gross, because if I recall correctly, the ATF and FBI roasted a fair number of those kids Dorner Kebab style.

No. You're forgetting that Mr Koresh used arson in an earlier incident to erase his mistakes. Stop spreading disinformation.

So they didn't fire military tear gas shells (aka burners) into the bunker after breaching the wall?

Burners refers to the effects, jackass.

Still having trouble with "tear gas" starting fires after all these years.


If Alex Jones says it is true then it must be true!

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!  Sorry.  I could not keep a straight face while typing that!

"Incendiary tear gas"? Does he think that it's MEANT to ignite after being deployed?


I have a practical experiment for you.  Pull the pin on a tear gas can, and hold it in your bare hands for 10 minutes.  You should probably get a mask.  I'll bet anything you care to match that you can't hold that can for more than a minute after you pull the pin.  Do you have some idea why?

Tear gas canisters are a dry chemical mix, and they produce gas by BURNING at over 450 degrees.  The heat is spread to the outer walls of the can and it can ignite any number of things.  It can also have fire actually spitting out the top of the can.

Also, I'm getting a kick out of you...gentlemen arguing over this, as it's super clear none of you has ever actually seen a tear gas can, much less operated one.
 
2013-04-20 03:03:16 PM

theflatline: Colin Powell went to the U.N with tape recordings that "proved" Saddam Hussein was making anthrax and other biological terror weapons. The ATF and the FBi have very good reasons for making it seem as though they had no part in the fire..

Actually, it was 100% sure it was moved, what all was stuck me as funny that in the Gulf War Hussein threatened the use of chemical weapons if Israel intervened, plus the fact that he used them during the original Iran-Iraq conflict and what about the entire town of Kurds he gassed in the late 1980s, killing thousands and genetically mutating the ones that live.


Oh look at you, conflating all kinds of things under that stupid label "WMDs".

Let me help you out:  We invaded Iraq because his weapons supposedly posed a threat - pay attention now - to the United States.

Biological weapons could do that.

It did make sense that he had chemical weapons:artillery shells equipped with mustard gas, and possibly helicopters capable of delivering poison gas.

Those posed no threat to the US. See, those artillery shells and helicopters couldn't make it to the US.  Or even to Israel, actually.

So no, he was no threat to anyone outside of Iraq.  And with the no-fly zone, not a threat to the Kurds, either.
 
2013-04-20 03:03:38 PM

pedrop357: LavenderWolf: Right. You have to purposefully MAKE things of this nature ignite. It's not going to just happen when you use one.

If you launch one into an area with a far more easily combustible substance - e.g. the gasoline/kerosene that was spread around - it might ignite. But that's not a foreseeable situation. Who would have assumed they covered their compound in fuel?

Or the explosive charge that deploys the gas is the right temperature to ignite it, or is close enough to a sufficiently and properly concentrated amount.

OR you deploy quarts of it through a nozzle on a tank and the stuff lingers long enough for the dust to reach flammable concentrations , THEN you begin tossing in the in the ones that use incendiary charges to deploy.


OR you can actually go by actual evidence rather than speculation.
 
2013-04-20 03:04:24 PM
Chemistry!
What the fark does it have to do with derp?
Where humans are concerned, derp always wins the emotional "debate".
Because humans can just believe away the non actual stuff like Real World.
 
2013-04-20 03:05:40 PM

LavenderWolf: Smoke grenades/tear gas grenades do not cause fires unless you try very hard to make them do that. For example, by covering the inside of the compound in gasoline or kerosene. Which there is ample evidence to support.


Or employing them near where kerosene lamps have been broken?
 
2013-04-20 03:07:28 PM

Kahabut: Keizer_Ghidorah: Mock26: snocone: MFAWG: doglover: 2wolves: doglover: DoctorCal: Have they found a new messiah to rape their kids?

That new messiah would have to be pretty damn gross, because if I recall correctly, the ATF and FBI roasted a fair number of those kids Dorner Kebab style.

No. You're forgetting that Mr Koresh used arson in an earlier incident to erase his mistakes. Stop spreading disinformation.

So they didn't fire military tear gas shells (aka burners) into the bunker after breaching the wall?

Burners refers to the effects, jackass.

Still having trouble with "tear gas" starting fires after all these years.


If Alex Jones says it is true then it must be true!

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!  Sorry.  I could not keep a straight face while typing that!

"Incendiary tear gas"? Does he think that it's MEANT to ignite after being deployed?

I have a practical experiment for you.  Pull the pin on a tear gas can, and hold it in your bare hands for 10 minutes.  You should probably get a mask.  I'll bet anything you care to match that you can't hold that can for more than a minute after you pull the pin.  Do you have some idea why?

Tear gas canisters are a dry chemical mix, and they produce gas by BURNING at over 450 degrees.  The heat is spread to the outer walls of the can and it can ignite any number of things.  It can also have fire actually spitting out the top of the can.

Also, I'm getting a kick out of you...gentlemen arguing over this, as it's super clear none of you has ever actually seen a tear gas can, much less operated one.


THIS.

That, and the police in articles that are very easy to find on google talk about how they are seeking/have sought less flammable models, which they sometimes to refer to as "non-incendiary" or "non-flammable" versions.  Strange of them to refer to a product that's supposedly not flammable as having a 'non-flammable' and/or 'non-incendiary' version to use those terms to prefix the item.
 
2013-04-20 03:07:35 PM

snocone: pedrop357: LavenderWolf: snocone: Let's call it CS gas, get it.

There is that word "volatile".
WIKI sez: The compound 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile (also called o-chlorobenzylidene malononitrile) (chemical formula: C10H5ClN2), a cyanocarbon, is the defining component of a "tear gas" commonly referred to as CS gas, which is used as a riot control agent. "CS gas" is actually an aerosol of a volatile solvent (a substance that dissolves other active substances and that easily evaporates with it) and 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile, which is a solid compound at room temperature. CS gas is generally accepted as being non-lethal. It was discovered by two Americans, Ben Corson and Roger Stoughton, at Middlebury College in 1928, and the chemical's name is derived from the first letters of the scientists' surnames.[4][5]

Air & Water ReactionsThe finely powdered nitrile is a significant dust explosion hazard. Slightly soluble in water.Fire HazardFlash point data for this chemical are not available, but it is probably combustible. (NTP, 1992)

Having been in heavily-concentrated areas of CS gas while also in the presence of a source of ignition, I'm going to call BS and demand you find out exactly HOW flammable it is before making such accusations.

Ignition temperature matters too.

Things like thermite don't typically ignite when you use a match or lighter, but get something hot enough and it goes off pretty nice

I love the smell of thermite on 6" steel in the morning!


So you're a Truther. Everything you say is now irrelevant.
 
2013-04-20 03:08:35 PM

Kahabut: Keizer_Ghidorah: Mock26: snocone: MFAWG: doglover: 2wolves: doglover: DoctorCal: Have they found a new messiah to rape their kids?

That new messiah would have to be pretty damn gross, because if I recall correctly, the ATF and FBI roasted a fair number of those kids Dorner Kebab style.

No. You're forgetting that Mr Koresh used arson in an earlier incident to erase his mistakes. Stop spreading disinformation.

So they didn't fire military tear gas shells (aka burners) into the bunker after breaching the wall?

Burners refers to the effects, jackass.

Still having trouble with "tear gas" starting fires after all these years.


If Alex Jones says it is true then it must be true!

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!  Sorry.  I could not keep a straight face while typing that!

"Incendiary tear gas"? Does he think that it's MEANT to ignite after being deployed?

I have a practical experiment for you.  Pull the pin on a tear gas can, and hold it in your bare hands for 10 minutes.  You should probably get a mask.  I'll bet anything you care to match that you can't hold that can for more than a minute after you pull the pin.  Do you have some idea why?

Tear gas canisters are a dry chemical mix, and they produce gas by BURNING at over 450 degrees.  The heat is spread to the outer walls of the can and it can ignite any number of things.  It can also have fire actually spitting out the top of the can.

Also, I'm getting a kick out of you...gentlemen arguing over this, as it's super clear none of you has ever actually seen a tear gas can, much less operated one.


Sup, I have used smoke grenades. CS gas canisters are just dirty smoke grenades. I've been in heavily concentrated areas of CS gas while in the presence of an ignition source.

You are full of shiat. The actual heat source inside the canister gets very hot, but while the casing does get too hot to touch, that doesn't mean the casing is as hot as the heat source. In fact, it would be just about impossible for the canister to reach the same temperature as the fuel/heat source. You can pick up a smoke grenade and throw it again while it's burning without searing your skin.

Have YOU started a fire using a smoke grenade and no additional source of easily combustible fuel? Because I've thrown those farkers around in the middle of a pine forest covered in dead pine needles.
 
2013-04-20 03:08:49 PM

LavenderWolf: OR you can actually go by actual evidence rather than speculation.


They admit to pumping large amounts of tear gas into a structure.  This means that the air was thick with CS gas, and eventually the flammable dust.
They admit to shooting tear gas canisters in with 40mm launchers.
 
2013-04-20 03:11:21 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: LavenderWolf: Smoke grenades/tear gas grenades do not cause fires unless you try very hard to make them do that. For example, by covering the inside of the compound in gasoline or kerosene. Which there is ample evidence to support.

Or employing them near where kerosene lamps have been broken?


A) If that were the case, I'd imagine this wouldn't be the absolute first time I've heard of this, having done plenty of reading about Waco, and having debated this shiat in fark threads since time immemorial.

B) If that were the case, that would absolve law enforcement of any responsibility. How on earth would they be able to predict that?

C) Your reply to B will, invariably, be "well they could have just NOT stormed the compound!" to which I say "You're a fool" because no government on the planet is in the business of letting people who kill federal agents escape justice.
 
2013-04-20 03:11:38 PM
Q: How do you pick up a Branch Davidian girl?

A: With a dustpan.
 
2013-04-20 03:11:42 PM

Kahabut: Keizer_Ghidorah: Mock26: snocone: MFAWG: doglover: 2wolves: doglover: DoctorCal: Have they found a new messiah to rape their kids?

That new messiah would have to be pretty damn gross, because if I recall correctly, the ATF and FBI roasted a fair number of those kids Dorner Kebab style.

No. You're forgetting that Mr Koresh used arson in an earlier incident to erase his mistakes. Stop spreading disinformation.

So they didn't fire military tear gas shells (aka burners) into the bunker after breaching the wall?

Burners refers to the effects, jackass.

Still having trouble with "tear gas" starting fires after all these years.


If Alex Jones says it is true then it must be true!

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!  Sorry.  I could not keep a straight face while typing that!

"Incendiary tear gas"? Does he think that it's MEANT to ignite after being deployed?

I have a practical experiment for you.  Pull the pin on a tear gas can, and hold it in your bare hands for 10 minutes.  You should probably get a mask.  I'll bet anything you care to match that you can't hold that can for more than a minute after you pull the pin.  Do you have some idea why?

Tear gas canisters are a dry chemical mix, and they produce gas by BURNING at over 450 degrees.  The heat is spread to the outer walls of the can and it can ignite any number of things.  It can also have fire actually spitting out the top of the can.

Also, I'm getting a kick out of you...gentlemen arguing over this, as it's super clear none of you has ever actually seen a tear gas can, much less operated one.


Well, I have actually, personally used a lot more smoke than CS.
But I have been around a lot of other people's CS.
And direct answer, yes, CS held in mine own hand, where it is safe to use. BTW, don't put your face close to the business end. Hot!

"My Military ID number is  ***-**-***, Drill Sargent!" was just the first of many.

/WP is my absolute fave, but you have to have a damned good reason cooked up for after the fact
 
2013-04-20 03:11:43 PM
What happened to the front doors at the compound?
Which agent had the warrant for presentiation on demand?
Who announced themselves as law enforcement agents, and how long did they wait before executing the raid?
 
2013-04-20 03:11:47 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: but saying it's all the government's fault is pushing it a bit


Except prior to this big mess, the ATF was invited by Koresh to the compound to inspect their operation, and the evidence for "illegal weapons" was nothing more than an ATF agent's unsubstantiated opinion with nothing even approaching proof.  Additionally, the local sheriff (who along with other state officials would have been the appropriate authorities to deal with any child abuse allegations) knew Koresh well and was completely left out of the loop when the ATF decided to go in guns-a-blazin'.  None of what happened at Waco had to happen.  As the Branch Davidians held a federal firearms license (and had for some time), the ATF had the right to inspect their records and inventory peacefully, but they *chose* not to even after Koresh's invitation to do so.
 
2013-04-20 03:12:29 PM

HempHead: Badafuco: Haha! Oh I remember that!

[i763.photobucket.com image 274x369]

Clinton had no attorney general when the raid took place. His first two choices for AG had to with draw after it was revealed one was once a Playboy bunny and the other employed illegal aliens.

Reno took over after it was a two month old clusterfook.

/of course, now a days the Branch Davidians would simoly be called terrorist and no tears would be shed as they burned


Reno was appointed before this started and was in office less than two weeks into the siege.
 
2013-04-20 03:12:43 PM

pedrop357: MisterRonbo: pedrop357: Forgot to mention that that must explain the police officers caught on camera saying things like "burn the mother farker out", etc.

I'm sure you have a citation for that.

And since it took six hours from the time tear gas was deployed until the fire started, I guess it has some amazing time delay feature before it ignites, right?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9868110/P ol ice-tried-to-burn-out-Christopher-Dorner.html


Except your "burn the mother farker out" comment was in response to  Waco.  Specifically Waco, explicitly Waco, and most definitely not Dorner.

Did you think I wouldn't notice that little lie?
 
2013-04-20 03:13:09 PM

pedrop357: LavenderWolf: OR you can actually go by actual evidence rather than speculation.

They admit to pumping large amounts of tear gas into a structure.  This means that the air was thick with CS gas, and eventually the flammable dust.
They admit to shooting tear gas canisters in with 40mm launchers.


And if CS gas were as flammable as you think, I would not be here today telling you that you're a fool.

Read and address this point: I have been in an enclosed space with CS gas too thick to see through, in the presence of an ignition source. They put more CS gas pellets on the burner than you would ever see used in real life. The concentration ramped from negligible content to ridiculous concentration. If CS gas were as flammable as you posit, I should have been incinerated. Why am I alive?
 
2013-04-20 03:13:30 PM

Delawheredad: Except that the government ordered a hundred body bags before the siege even started.


So if I can show you a procurement order for hundreds of body bags by a disaster relief organization when Hurricane Sandy hit, will you conclude they were ready to slaughter flood survivors?

Contingency planning, how does it work?
 
2013-04-20 03:14:39 PM

pedrop357: What happened to the front doors at the compound?
Which agent had the warrant for presentiation on demand?
Who announced themselves as law enforcement agents, and how long did they wait before executing the raid?


I'm going to go with the small group of federal agents that served the warrant and were shot at, for all of those questions. The Branch Davidians fired on federal agents. What the hell do you think is going to happen? They're going to come back and knock on the door again?
 
2013-04-20 03:15:18 PM

pedrop357: LavenderWolf: OR you can actually go by actual evidence rather than speculation.

They admit to pumping large amounts of tear gas into a structure.  This means that the air was thick with CS gas, and eventually the flammable dust.
They admit to shooting tear gas canisters in with 40mm launchers.


And that automatically means they started the fire?
 
2013-04-20 03:15:42 PM

MisterRonbo: pedrop357: MisterRonbo: pedrop357: Forgot to mention that that must explain the police officers caught on camera saying things like "burn the mother farker out", etc.

I'm sure you have a citation for that.

And since it took six hours from the time tear gas was deployed until the fire started, I guess it has some amazing time delay feature before it ignites, right?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9868110/P ol ice-tried-to-burn-out-Christopher-Dorner.html

Except your "burn the mother farker out" comment was in response to  Waco.  Specifically Waco, explicitly Waco, and most definitely not Dorner.

Did you think I wouldn't notice that little lie?


You should re-read the thread then.  We were talking about a cabin and the term "burners", which was Dorner not Waco.
 
2013-04-20 03:17:20 PM

Too_many_Brians: Shadowknight: doglover: Peter von Nostrand: Never let the truth stand in the way of blaming the evil government jack-booted thugs

Regardless of who set the fires, what good did the siege at Waco accomplish?

Well, you couldn't very well let them keep raping kids and stockpiling illegal weapons with impunity.  Religious freedom only goes so far when you start doing insane and dangerous stuff like that.  I mean, yes, it ended badly.  No disagreement.  But this was a crazy cult that was never going to let things end well.


This. I still have to debate this with Alaskans every time I bring up the ATF.


This would be the same ATF that has given us, among other things, Fast ansd Furious?

An attempted dynamic entry on a armed group with a bunch of kids during daylight?????

The only possible reason for going that route was the good press if it was successful.. A lot less news worthy/career enhancing if they had simply and quitely arrested Koresh in town away from the kids when he was shopping.

The ATFs bungled that whole operation and the follow up by the other Federal agencies was not steller.

Were the charges of child abuse ever substantiated and even if they were how is that a Bureau of Alcohol, Tabacco and Firearms  matter?
 
2013-04-20 03:17:47 PM

Kahabut: I have a practical experiment for you.  Pull the pin on a tear gas can, and hold it in your bare hands for 10 minutes.  You should probably get a mask.  I'll bet anything you care to match that you can't hold that can for more than a minute after you pull the pin.  Do you have some idea why?

Tear gas canisters are a dry chemical mix, and they produce gas by BURNING at over 450 degrees.  The heat is spread to the outer walls of the can and it can ignite any number of things.  It can also have fire actually spitting out the top of the can.

Also, I'm getting a kick out of you...gentlemen arguing over this, as it's super clear none of you has ever actually seen a tear gas can, much less operated one.


From http://www.justice.gov/publications/waco/wacotwelve.html

 "In the meantime, at 6:00 a.m. HRT Commander Rogers received confirmation that Sage had made telephonic contact with the compound. Rogers ordered CEV-1 to insert gas, using the Mark-V liquid injection system to insert CS gas at the front-left corner of the building. The Mark-V system is a liquid tear gas dispenser that shoots a stream of liquid tear gas (propelled by noncombustible carbon dioxide) approximately 50 feet for a duration of approximately 15 seconds. "

They weren't lobbing incendiary cannisters when the fire broke out.  They were directly injecting CS gas (in liquid form) using carbon dioxide as a propellant.
 
2013-04-20 03:18:37 PM

LavenderWolf: pedrop357: LavenderWolf: OR you can actually go by actual evidence rather than speculation.

They admit to pumping large amounts of tear gas into a structure.  This means that the air was thick with CS gas, and eventually the flammable dust.
They admit to shooting tear gas canisters in with 40mm launchers.

And if CS gas were as flammable as you think, I would not be here today telling you that you're a fool.

Read and address this point: I have been in an enclosed space with CS gas too thick to see through, in the presence of an ignition source. They put more CS gas pellets on the burner than you would ever see used in real life. The concentration ramped from negligible content to ridiculous concentration. If CS gas were as flammable as you posit, I should have been incinerated. Why am I alive?


God loves a fool?
Sorry 'bout that.
The point has been made that there are two, count 'em, two components of a "burner".
The dispersant and the CS.
These devices can easily be used in a building correctly/incorrectly resulting in FIRE.
 
2013-04-20 03:18:55 PM

LavenderWolf: pedrop357: What happened to the front doors at the compound?
Which agent had the warrant for presentiation on demand?
Who announced themselves as law enforcement agents, and how long did they wait before executing the raid?

I'm going to go with the small group of federal agents that served the warrant and were shot at, for all of those questions. The Branch Davidians fired on federal agents. What the hell do you think is going to happen? They're going to come back and knock on the door again?


Which one had the warrant?  How did they present it?
Where did the doors go?

If the contention is that this was a lawful warrant service, then the question of who had the warrant, who knocked on the door, what they announced, how long they waited, etc. are extremely relevant.

The ATF, which has had a long sordid history of abuse is accused by the BD residents that survived of shooting without cause, never even trying to peacefully show the warrant, failing to announce themselves, etc.
 
2013-04-20 03:19:28 PM
April 19th = Conservative Hero Day
upload.wikimedia.org www.bluecorncomics.com
 
2013-04-20 03:20:01 PM
LavenderWolf:

Sup, I have used smoke grenades. CS gas canisters are just dirty smoke grenades. I've been in heavily concentrated areas of CS gas while in the presence of an ignition source.

You are full of shiat. The actual heat source inside the canister gets very hot, but while the casing does get too hot to touch, that doesn't mean the casing is as hot as the heat source. In fact, it would be just about impossible for the canister to reach the same temperature as the fuel/heat source. You can pick up a smoke grenade and throw it again while it's burning without searing your skin.

Have YOU started a fire using a smoke grenade and no additional source of easily combustible fuel? Because I've thrown those farkers around in the middle of a pine forest covered in dead pine needles.


Are you talking about "tactical smoke" such as might be purchased for playing paintball, or are you talking about military grade material?  Because I'm sure you know, there is a far cry difference.  Furthermore, smoke and tear gas are far and away not similar substances and unless you are playing with IR smoke then you are just proving that you don't know the first thing about the subject.

Tear gas is generally a high temperature reaction.  Smoke is generally not a high temp reaction.  Tear gas is put into 40mm launchable canisters made of tin with no thermal insulation.  Smoke is made to be thrown on the forrest floor without starting a fire.

Typical warning on Gas nades "Throw away from self"
Typical warning on Tear Gas "warning do not use past expiration date" (it might explode instead) "do not use near flammable material" (it starts fires) "Use only outdoors" (the gas is toxic in large concentrations)

Please go back to your arm chair and reconsider your knowledge of the subject.  You could go look up police grade tear gas canisters and launchers, and you could also look into smoke, and you'll find two things. 1) they are not similar.  2) you didn't know what you were talking about.
 
2013-04-20 03:26:13 PM

Kahabut: LavenderWolf:

Sup, I have used smoke grenades. CS gas canisters are just dirty smoke grenades. I've been in heavily concentrated areas of CS gas while in the presence of an ignition source.

You are full of shiat. The actual heat source inside the canister gets very hot, but while the casing does get too hot to touch, that doesn't mean the casing is as hot as the heat source. In fact, it would be just about impossible for the canister to reach the same temperature as the fuel/heat source. You can pick up a smoke grenade and throw it again while it's burning without searing your skin.

Have YOU started a fire using a smoke grenade and no additional source of easily combustible fuel? Because I've thrown those farkers around in the middle of a pine forest covered in dead pine needles.

Are you talking about "tactical smoke" such as might be purchased for playing paintball, or are you talking about military grade material?  Because I'm sure you know, there is a far cry difference.  Furthermore, smoke and tear gas are far and away not similar substances and unless you are playing with IR smoke then you are just proving that you don't know the first thing about the subject.

Tear gas is generally a high temperature reaction.  Smoke is generally not a high temp reaction.  Tear gas is put into 40mm launchable canisters made of tin with no thermal insulation.  Smoke is made to be thrown on the forrest floor without starting a fire.

Typical warning on Gas nades "Throw away from self"
Typical warning on Tear Gas "warning do not use past expiration date" (it might explode instead) "do not use near flammable material" (it starts fires) "Use only outdoors" (the gas is toxic in large concentrations)

Please go back to your arm chair and reconsider your knowledge of the subject.  You could go look up police grade tear gas canisters and launchers, and you could also look into smoke, and you'll find two things. 1) they are not similar.  2) you didn't know what you were talking abou ...


Having direct personal experience = armchair?
 
2013-04-20 03:29:17 PM

pedrop357: LavenderWolf: pedrop357: What happened to the front doors at the compound?
Which agent had the warrant for presentiation on demand?
Who announced themselves as law enforcement agents, and how long did they wait before executing the raid?

I'm going to go with the small group of federal agents that served the warrant and were shot at, for all of those questions. The Branch Davidians fired on federal agents. What the hell do you think is going to happen? They're going to come back and knock on the door again?

Which one had the warrant?  How did they present it?
Where did the doors go?

If the contention is that this was a lawful warrant service, then the question of who had the warrant, who knocked on the door, what they announced, how long they waited, etc. are extremely relevant.

The ATF, which has had a long sordid history of abuse is accused by the BD residents that survived of shooting without cause, never even trying to peacefully show the warrant, failing to announce themselves, etc.


Whether you believe the ATF fired the first shots, or the BD fired the first shots, they went to serve the warrant. If you shoot me in the face when I try to serve a warrant, you don't get to then accuse me of not serving the warrant. They knew it was federal agents - they knew, even, that a federal agent had infiltrated the BB - and yet they prepared to "defend themselves" against a warrant. If they weren't sitting at the windows waiting to shoot people, the first shot wouldn't have resulted in exchanged gunfire.

You can accuse law enforcement of botching this operation - specifically, by performing the raid during the day, and with too little force to completely storm the place to stop them from destroying evidence - but accusing them of just burning the BD's compound down just because is just foolishness.
 
2013-04-20 03:29:44 PM
-They had pulled back once the sent in the tank to breach the wall.

-The tank used a CO2 system to deploy liquid CS.  There was no volatile propellant nor a chemical reaction taking place to produce the CS.

-Nobody was firing tear gas cannisters when the fire started, so all this talk about the high temperature tear gas cannister achieve is irrelevant.
 
2013-04-20 03:29:59 PM

Kahabut: LavenderWolf:

Sup, I have used smoke grenades. CS gas canisters are just dirty smoke grenades. I've been in heavily concentrated areas of CS gas while in the presence of an ignition source.

You are full of shiat. The actual heat source inside the canister gets very hot, but while the casing does get too hot to touch, that doesn't mean the casing is as hot as the heat source. In fact, it would be just about impossible for the canister to reach the same temperature as the fuel/heat source. You can pick up a smoke grenade and throw it again while it's burning without searing your skin.

Have YOU started a fire using a smoke grenade and no additional source of easily combustible fuel? Because I've thrown those farkers around in the middle of a pine forest covered in dead pine needles.

Are you talking about "tactical smoke" such as might be purchased for playing paintball, or are you talking about military grade material?  Because I'm sure you know, there is a far cry difference.  Furthermore, smoke and tear gas are far and away not similar substances and unless you are playing with IR smoke then you are just proving that you don't know the first thing about the subject.

Tear gas is generally a high temperature reaction.  Smoke is generally not a high temp reaction.  Tear gas is put into 40mm launchable canisters made of tin with no thermal insulation.  Smoke is made to be thrown on the forrest floor without starting a fire.

Typical warning on Gas nades "Throw away from self"
Typical warning on Tear Gas "warning do not use past expiration date" (it might explode instead) "do not use near flammable material" (it starts fires) "Use only outdoors" (the gas is toxic in large concentrations)

Please go back to your arm chair and reconsider your knowledge of the subject.  You could go look up police grade tear gas canisters and launchers, and you could also look into smoke, and you'll find two things. 1) they are not similar.  2) you didn't know what you were talking abou ...


Yes, and your iron says "Do not iron clothes on body."
 
2013-04-20 03:33:17 PM

Kahabut: LavenderWolf:

Sup, I have used smoke grenades. CS gas canisters are just dirty smoke grenades. I've been in heavily concentrated areas of CS gas while in the presence of an ignition source.

You are full of shiat. The actual heat source inside the canister gets very hot, but while the casing does get too hot to touch, that doesn't mean the casing is as hot as the heat source. In fact, it would be just about impossible for the canister to reach the same temperature as the fuel/heat source. You can pick up a smoke grenade and throw it again while it's burning without searing your skin.

Have YOU started a fire using a smoke grenade and no additional source of easily combustible fuel? Because I've thrown those farkers around in the middle of a pine forest covered in dead pine needles.

Are you talking about "tactical smoke" such as might be purchased for playing paintball, or are you talking about military grade material?  Because I'm sure you know, there is a far cry difference.  Furthermore, smoke and tear gas are far and away not similar substances and unless you are playing with IR smoke then you are just proving that you don't know the first thing about the subject.

Tear gas is generally a high temperature reaction.  Smoke is generally not a high temp reaction.  Tear gas is put into 40mm launchable canisters made of tin with no thermal insulation.  Smoke is made to be thrown on the forrest floor without starting a fire.

Typical warning on Gas nades "Throw away from self"
Typical warning on Tear Gas "warning do not use past expiration date" (it might explode instead) "do not use near flammable material" (it starts fires) "Use only outdoors" (the gas is toxic in large concentrations)

Please go back to your arm chair and reconsider your knowledge of the subject.  You could go look up police grade tear gas canisters and launchers, and you could also look into smoke, and you'll find two things. 1) they are not similar.  2) you didn't know what you were talking abou ...


Oh, also, no. You dumb farker. Not paintball toys.

Believe it or not, but people who are or were in the military aren't banned from using the internet. Crazy, I know...
 
2013-04-20 03:34:19 PM
It's OK if these people were violating all kinds of laws and that they murdered several federal agents, because they're white Christians.
 
2013-04-20 03:39:22 PM

LavenderWolf: Whether you believe the ATF fired the first shots, or the BD fired the first shots, they went to serve the warrant. If you shoot me in the face when I try to serve a warrant, you don't get to then accuse me of not serving the warrant. They knew it was federal agents - they knew, even, that a federal agent had infiltrated the BB - and yet they prepared to "defend themselves" against a warrant. If they weren't sitting at the windows waiting to shoot people, the first shot wouldn't have resulted in exchanged gunfire.

You can accuse law enforcement of botching this operation - specifically, by performing the raid during the day, and with too little force to completely storm the place to stop them from destroying evidence - but accusing them of just burning the BD's compound down just because is just foolishness.


If they storm the place in a violent manner and and are fired on, they don't get to act like they were just serving a warrant and the other side started shooting just to avoid the law.
 
2013-04-20 03:39:57 PM

The Dog Ate My Homework: It's OK if these people were violating all kinds of laws and that they murdered several federal agents, because they're white Christians.


This is what it comes down to.

The conspiracy nuts would have us believe it's okay to ignore egregious violations of federal law because enforcing the law might hurt someone.

You can't let people think that cowering behind children makes them safe. If someone hides behind a child, shoot them through that child, because long term, that is the ONLY WAY to ensure the safety of children in general from these kind of nutjobs.

If you KNOW that I will shoot through a child to kill you, then you have absolutely no reason to hide behind that child.

/I expect this opinion to be wildly unpopular
//but logically, this is the only option to deal with these types.
 
2013-04-20 03:40:27 PM
DON'T BREATH SMOKE! DILUTE DILUTE OK!

/Dr Bronner's organic riot control agent
 
2013-04-20 03:40:42 PM

pedrop357: LavenderWolf: Whether you believe the ATF fired the first shots, or the BD fired the first shots, they went to serve the warrant. If you shoot me in the face when I try to serve a warrant, you don't get to then accuse me of not serving the warrant. They knew it was federal agents - they knew, even, that a federal agent had infiltrated the BB - and yet they prepared to "defend themselves" against a warrant. If they weren't sitting at the windows waiting to shoot people, the first shot wouldn't have resulted in exchanged gunfire.

You can accuse law enforcement of botching this operation - specifically, by performing the raid during the day, and with too little force to completely storm the place to stop them from destroying evidence - but accusing them of just burning the BD's compound down just because is just foolishness.

If they storm the place in a violent manner and and are fired on, they don't get to act like they were just serving a warrant and the other side started shooting just to avoid the law.


Sorry but driving a few pickup trucks with trailers is not violent.

You have yet to address anything I've said with any measure of reason. Enjoy your weekend.
 
2013-04-20 03:43:24 PM

LavenderWolf: The conspiracy nuts would have us believe it's okay to ignore egregious violations of federal law because enforcing the law might hurt someone.


But there weren't any. The juries repeatedly found as much.
 
2013-04-20 03:44:01 PM

LavenderWolf: Sorry but driving a few pickup trucks with trailers is not violent.


That's not when they were shot at.
 
2013-04-20 03:45:09 PM

LavenderWolf: But that's not a foreseeable situation. Who would have assumed they covered their compound in fuel?


In homicide law, you take your victim as he is, not as you expect him to be.
 
2013-04-20 03:50:57 PM

snocone: I love the smell of thermite on 6" steel in the morning!


the-trukstop.com
 
2013-04-20 03:51:32 PM
www.serendipity.li

Nuke, orbit, sure, etc.
 
2013-04-20 04:03:30 PM
isnt there a video out there that clearly shows a flamethrower spewing flames off the front of the tank?

I know I saw it. it was a longtime ago but still.
 
2013-04-20 04:04:42 PM

universebetween: isnt there a video out there that clearly shows a flamethrower spewing flames off the front of the tank?

I know I saw it. it was a longtime ago but still.


No.
 
2013-04-20 04:05:27 PM

LavenderWolf: pedrop357: LavenderWolf: Whether you believe the ATF fired the first shots, or the BD fired the first shots, they went to serve the warrant. If you shoot me in the face when I try to serve a warrant, you don't get to then accuse me of not serving the warrant. They knew it was federal agents - they knew, even, that a federal agent had infiltrated the BB - and yet they prepared to "defend themselves" against a warrant. If they weren't sitting at the windows waiting to shoot people, the first shot wouldn't have resulted in exchanged gunfire.

You can accuse law enforcement of botching this operation - specifically, by performing the raid during the day, and with too little force to completely storm the place to stop them from destroying evidence - but accusing them of just burning the BD's compound down just because is just foolishness.

If they storm the place in a violent manner and and are fired on, they don't get to act like they were just serving a warrant and the other side started shooting just to avoid the law.

Sorry but driving a few pickup trucks with trailers is not violent.

You have yet to address anything I've said with any measure of reason. Enjoy your weekend.


It was violent, but it was definitely hostile. BD knew they were coming. The feds knew that BD knew they were coming. Yet they still conducted an idiotic raid  with a huge show of force when they easily could have nabbed Koresh or many of the other BDs who commonly went to sell guns at gun shows.
 
2013-04-20 04:11:46 PM

Wise_Guy: universebetween: isnt there a video out there that clearly shows a flamethrower spewing flames off the front of the tank?

I know I saw it. it was a longtime ago but still.

No.


I think he means this video

It's pretty grainy, so I don't know if it actually shows anything
 
Displayed 50 of 296 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report