Fook Yeah! Lettin' 'em have it!
R.I.P.

Dignified and with balls. Joel Pollak, thank you very much.

I don't think too many Tea Partiers went away. Most of us work, some of us a quite a lot. The People will come out when the need is there. I have faith!

That is not accurate. Michael Savage, true to form, has been defending these marines right out of the box. He has even proposed starting a defense fund should the need arise, as he has done in the past.

Why is this taking up space on this great site?

Savage is and has always pummeled Levin ratings-wise. Nice try Mark.

Much respect to Rick Amato. You have iron-clad balls and are super-awesome sir.

Well, I don't see it as a particularly reasonable hypothesis/theory. The only fact supporting it is the presence of unknown quantities of water and (possibly molten) aluminum in the buildings. There is absolutely no visual evidence that anything other than internal failure mechanisms caused the collapse. I have never perscribed to the idea that anything else was necessary to cause the collapse. The impact damage, heat weakened steel, and unique design were sufficient imo. In fact the troofer thermite theories are more reasonable than this, they don't required a large explosive force, but small shaped charges. An unfocused explosive mechanism that this article describes would require significant explosive force, which would most definately be visible somewhere and at some point. I would be more than happy to entertain any theories that fit in with the dearth of existing video footage. Internal failure are the only theories which pass the visual evidence test imo.
Ironically my original post is also a question, just like the title of the article. Yet I get large negative ticks for asking a PERFECTLY REASONABLE question about a hypothesis/theory which has obvious shortcomings. It really doesn't give me much faith in America's future that asking reasonable questions (even if a bit sarcastically) on a website that I have great respect for triggers such a negative response. I know that's a bit dramatic, but seriously people... -43 for asking a freaking REASONABLE question? WTF

Are you reading the same story as me, the one towards the top of this page, which clearly references chemicals and violent explosions? I don't pretend to be a chemical engineer or anything but what is said in this story has almost nothing in common with your post. And there is no visual evidence (we are talking about one of if not the most documented events in history) of an explosion involving bright orange flame or otherwise. The 'simple physics of heated water expanding into water vapor' is most certainly not sufficient to cause collapse, at least not when the 'explosion' was not even large enough to even be seen visually from outside the building.

No, I'm not. I'm cool with the idea of a hypothesis. However when a hypothesis does not stand up to basic visual inspection it should be discarded. The only significant explosions involved in the collapse were the impacts and the resulting fuel explosions.