Test of steel prototype for border wall showed it could be sawed through

a reply to: Byrd

Could someone Saw through a 5 foot Thick Concrete Wall ? Concrete is the Ideal Material to Build a Wall , but the Dems are Dead Set Against it for some Irrational Reason . Also , what would the Border Agents be doing when they can Clearly see someone trying to Saw through Steel Walls ? Eat Lunch ? .....Duh !......



The Entire U.S. Southern Border can be Viewed in Real Time on Google Earth by the Way ........

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Truth be told only we common people fight over terms. Dems say steel fence, Repubs say concrete wall.

The planners know it will be many types of materials and systems. Call it a fence or call it a wall....its a barrier system

From what I gather, the people along the border are divided. The ones that don't want to lose land, as some will, call it whatever is clever so as to oppose it.

Those that support the project do the same, call it whatever. They want barriers. Some are actually dealing with migrants and traffickers crossing their property.

So only everyone else not near the border argues over the material used. People there don't care what it is called. Fence, wall, barrier.

The issues for them don't change.

Our leaders know this. Trump doesn't care what its made out of or what it is called. He wants a barrier system.

And from what I have read, the steel was asked for instead of the concrete since you can see through the steel. It's prettier. I doubt wall builders were concerned with how pretty it is. We just want a barrier.

I won't say the group that wanted to use see-through steel slats over ugly concrete. LoL

originally posted by: Blaine91555

How many more decades do we go without fixing things?

I don't disagree. But a "wall" is not the answer, and frankly even if it were, watershed lawsuits, eminent domain lawsuits, etc would ensure that any groundbreaking would be so tied up in litigation that it would never see the light of day. It's far better to address how we screen incoming (refugees, asylum seekers) traffic by way of reform than to be ineffectual AND isolationist.

Fentanyl and heroin killed 49,000 people last year in the US and much of it came across that border. Is 49,000 deaths enough to call it an emergency?

No. 49000 is not enough, not in this argument and let me explain that. The premise of this thread is how a steel barrier can be cut. The premise of the steel barrier is to limit or stop entry from the southern border. With that in mind, you're using the wrong set of statistics to make a cogent argument about it all simply because fentanyl ALONE killed more Americans than prescription pill opioids and heroin combined. The overwhelming majority of fentanyl comes from China, not the southern border and if China's intent is to get fentanyl into the US (which by the way the majority of THAT is tied up as contraband in Customs houses via shipping) they wont use couriers coming across the southern border.

Back to the actual premise of this thread, to suggest any man-made material is completely impervious to being breached is baby talk; nonsense. Anything can be breached if someone wants to badly enough.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight


I don't want to get sued by 'TheDonald™' who knows He may be facing another bankruptcy or 6 and want to make an example out of folks who trademark infringe....


It is actually a computer program that scrambles any 3rd or greater viewer(s).

I also have tape over My camera and headphone jack hole, a little trick I gleaned from Agent Zuckerberg...

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: rickymouse

Am I missing something here with your electrified fence idea. I know you're a deep thinker; where is the electricity going to come from. A whole new grid and transformers is a major infrastructure undertaking?

Some one already mentioned solar before your statment

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: alphabetaone

I see. We will have to disagree then.

Sure it won't stop all the deaths, but how many is enough? I'm aware of the numbers and where it comes from. That's were I read that 90% of the heroin is coming across that border and by the way, it's what is killing people here. It not only crosses the border, it is then moved up here to Alaska and I'm sure Canadians are dying from it also. So strong and so cheap the addicts don't even realize they are taking a fatal dose.

No doubt anything can be breached but will it slow it down? Of course it will slow it down and as a result some lives will be saved, some gangs members won't make it here that would make it here otherwise and some American lives will be saved or protected.

Collateral damage of a partisan war waged by fanatics? You betcha.

I say build the damn wall, make work visa's easy to get for people who want to come here for work and go ahead and double the amount of people being let in legally right now today. Fix the damn problems already and compromise by using all of the above methods and put it behind us, so crooked politicians and bigots can't keep using it for partisan warfare.

A steel wall will help and everyone knows that's true.

Can the wall be sawed through while somebody is watching with a drone and pointing an M-16 at you?

a reply to: Blue Shift

So now you’re advocating shooting them for non violent crimes before they even cross?

a reply to: MConnalley

Solar is sustainable, it is not free. It is also very fragile equipment in an environment where you need things to be resilient.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Blue Shift

So now you’re advocating shooting them for non violent crimes before they even cross?

I doubt it.
But if someone is trying to saw through the steel, it's going to take some time. Enough to time to get there and arrest them.
Obviously, shoot them dead if they get violent. That goes without saying.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Truth be told only we common people fight over terms. Dems say steel fence, Repubs say concrete wall.

The planners know it will be many types of materials and systems. Call it a fence or call it a wall....its a barrier system

From what I gather, the people along the border are divided. The ones that don't want to lose land, as some will, call it whatever is clever so as to oppose it.

Those that support the project do the same, call it whatever. They want barriers. Some are actually dealing with migrants and traffickers crossing their property.





So only everyone else not near the border argues over the material used. People there don't care what it is called. Fence, wall, barrier.

The issues for them don't change.

Our leaders know this. Trump doesn't care what its made out of or what it is called. He wants a barrier system.

And from what I have read, the steel was asked for instead of the concrete since you can see through the steel. It's prettier. I doubt wall builders were concerned with how pretty it is. We just want a barrier.

I won't say the group that wanted to use see-through steel slats over ugly concrete. LoL

Who's Kidding Who Here ? We Both Know a LIVE Mind Field with Postings would be a Cheaper and More Efficient way at Stopping Intruders ...........)

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Blue Shift

So now you’re advocating shooting them for non violent crimes before they even cross?

I doubt it.
But if someone is trying to saw through the steel, it's going to take some time. Enough to time to get there and arrest them.
Obviously, shoot them dead if they get violent. That goes without saying.

How do you arrest them? Knock holes in a wall that are big enough for people to go through. Then leave. Do this in a bunch of places and it's not realistic to keep them all guarded.

BP would never follow to the other side of the wall, because that's not safe if they have to go through single file without most equipment, and even if they did, what are you going to do? Arrest them for not crossing the wall?

This is why sensors to detect a breach won't work. That's only good if people are passing through the wall right at that moment. If you punch holes in the wall and leave, you can come back later when it's not being watched.

a reply to: Aazadan

I rather suspect that the barrier won't be built to the edge of US soil. Arrests will take place on the side the criminals are trying to break in from.
Seriously, do you actually think it's going to a barrier that officials are trapped behind and can't manage the other side?
Seriously have to question the smarts of some people who seem to have lost their minds over partisan politics.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Aazadan

I rather suspect that the barrier won't be built to the edge of US soil.

Yep, if I was building the fence then I'd leave say a 5 metre space on the Mexican side and have my patrols running there. Don't give the migrants the chance to even touch the fence.
Off-topic ish, but the land border between Malaysia and Thailand has a 'no mans land' gap of about 100 metres between the two nation's fences. At one border crossing it has army bases on both sides, but the Malay side look like they'd win the fight if there was ever conflict.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Just the geography alone through in some places of the area in question pretty much precludes the notion of a solid steel fence being erected at any kind of cost-effective manner.

$5 billion will become $15 billion, and the costs are only going to increase, and so on, and so on.

Personally, i really don't see this working until America addresses the reasons the people choose to come.

a reply to: Byrd

Something else to consider regarding "The Wall". Does anyone know the cost of maintaining it? Does anyone know what environmental impacts it may have, such flooding? Has a study been done? If $50bill is going to invested in it to build it, shouldn't we also know what further costs this investment will need? Does the cost justify it? Or is the whole point just to build it and throw our hands up in the air and say "we didn't think about that!" Or are there better ways to maintain security? Can someone please explain those numbers?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Just the geography alone through in some places of the area in question pretty much precludes the notion of a solid steel fence being erected at any kind of cost-effective manner.

$5 billion will become $15 billion, and the costs are only going to increase, and so on, and so on.

Personally, i really don't see this working until America addresses the reasons the people choose to come.

You want America to become a place people no longer want to come too?
That is a very Pelosi like answer to this problem.
Can you explain further?

Where did you get the number 50bill?