Terrorists . . . or FEMA?

OrnotBitwise

OrnotBitwise

Watermelon
It seems that the shadowy forces behind the collapse of the WTC in New York are at work again, this time in the San Francisco Bay Area.

It seems so straightforward doesn't it? A tanker truck full of 8600 gallons of gasoline catches fire and burns on a freeway, heating the overpass above to such an extent that it collapses like a cheap toy on a hot day.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/30/MNGK8PI1CI1.DTL

Sure. That's what they want you to think.

I mean, come on. Witnesses say that the truck "just exploded." Like they do that all the time, right? And why right there in that particular spot, right where it could do the most damage?

ba_tanker.jpg


The bay area commute is going to be snarled for months as that ramp is repaired. Why is that?

Dig a little deeper and it gets even more suspicious. The energy density of gasoline is about 131 megajoules -- 1.31 * 10^8 J -- per U.S. gallon. Simple arithmetic reveals that the maximum amount of energy that could possibly be released was only about 1.12 terajoules. We're supposed to believe that almost all that energy went straight into the structure of the overpass with no loss at all? Uh huh.

What was really in that tanker truck? And, more importantly, what is it they don't want us to see from that ramp?
 
Okay, USC - Mr. smarty pants ;)

We're not taking about the engine blowing up. We're talking about the tanks blowing up. Gasoline is explosive under very specific physical conditions - when it's ignited under pressure: Like in the internal combustion engine.

I was obviously talking about gasoline tanks (not the engine), where the gasoline liquid is at atmospheric pressure. It's not explosive under those conditions. To my knowlege.
 
Cypress said:
Okay, USC - Mr. smarty pants ;)

We're not taking about the engine blowing up. We're talking about the tanks blowing up. Gasoline is explosive under very specific physical conditions - when it's ignited under pressure: Like in the internal combustion engine.

I was obviously talking about gasoline tanks (not the engine), where the gasoline liquid is at atmospheric pressure. It's not explosive under those conditions. To my knowlege.
Click to expand...
Once again, the fumes are explosive. When calculating the explosive capabilities of that fuel do you think the person who did it couldn't figure that out?

I forgot I was interrupted before. This isn't a "once again" post. sorry about that.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Okay, USC - Mr. smarty pants ;)

We're not taking about the engine blowing up. We're talking about the tanks blowing up. Gasoline is explosive under very specific physical conditions - when it's ignited under pressure: Like in the internal combustion engine.

I was obviously talking about gasoline tanks (not the engine), where the gasoline liquid is at atmospheric pressure. It's not explosive under those conditions. To my knowlege.
Click to expand...


The vapors from Gasoline are very explosive. Don't ask me how I know :shock:
 
The nitpicking crew is at it again ;-)

Do you guys want me to add caveats and qualifications to everything I write.

Gasoline tanks, under most situations and conditions in real life will ignite, but will not explode.


The article on the bridge collapse blames it on a gasoline FIRE. Not one mention of an explosion


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18392684/
 
Cypress said:
The nitpicking crew is at it again ;-)

Do you guys want me to add caveats and qualifications to everything I write.

Gasoline tanks, under most situations and conditions in real life will ignite, but will not explode.


The article on the bridge collapse blames it on a gasoline FIRE. Not one mention of an explosion


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18392684/
Click to expand...

Don't take any shit from them Cypress. They're just bored. If it were me, I'd tell them, listen, you should print out your post, roll it up, and stick it in your ass sideaways, that will give you something to do.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm Check back thru the posts Cypress It looked to me like you first used the word "explode" :)
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, uscit, you are right in this regard.

You said that gasoline cannot explode. I explained that it could, especially contained vapors in such a thing as a tanker.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm Check back thru the posts Cypress It looked to me like you first used the word "explode" :)
Click to expand...


Correction. Ornot's article said some eyewitnesses said they saw an "explosion". Since gasoline tank "explosions" are rare, that's why I wondered about what the facts actually were.

That's why I asked if the fuel was either propane, or whether the witnesses simply mistook the ignition of a fireball, for an "explosion".
 
Cypress said:
Correction. Ornot's article said some eyewitnesses said they saw an "explosion". Since gasoline tank "explosions" are rare, that's why I wondered about what the facts actually were.

That's why I asked if the fuel was either propane, or whether the witnesses simply mistook the ignition of a fireball, for an "explosion".
Click to expand...

Ok, I will give you that, but gasoline will explode, I know from personal experience...

and if it is heated in a container it blows up really big. But it will blow up a building just from accumulated fumes in the air....
 
uscitizen said:
Ok, I will give you that, but gasoline will explode, I know from personal experience...

and if it is heated in a container it blows up really big. But it will blow up a building just from accumulated fumes in the air....
Click to expand...


concur. Under certain conditions, in an enclosed space where the air is saturated with gasoline fumes, I wouldn't dare light a match.


:blowup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top