It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by smilesmcgee
Don't know if its been mentioned yet, but a similar thing happened before.
www.cbc.ca...
People were out of their homes for months.
Originally posted by Hijinx
reply to post by Katharos62191
I'm sorry if I'm coming off as testy, I'm running myself in circles and I will admit this has become a bit of an obsession.
Is there another option you'd like me to explore? I've tried to apply the same means to each scenario, if it was an airline crash where are the engines? Large discernible chunks? Even flight 93 turned up with engines and a rather large piece of fuselage when the crater was looked over.
Here, we do not see a crater, so it rules out an aerial impact. I understand many of you believe the debris would fall into the crater, but given such a large object seems suspect to you the impact itself would throw material out, and create a deep hole which would give us a depression, even if debris fell into it. As well, air liners belly, and wings are filled with kerosene, I would expect a much larger burn pattern given their wingspan, as well it would come back to angle of approach, there is no skid. If it's a plane it literally had to come straight down, likely nose first, no crater, no large sections left over. No engines, or craters from engines.
I am trying to approach this with an open mind. I even took the pictures, circled the pattern and the source of the blast appears to have come from the homes garage. (this home is gone now ha ha.) An airplane crash would create a fireball much like TV explosions, with a majority of the concussive force coming from the impact, not the fuel. The fuel would be exposed to atmosphere, and burn freely applying a very very small pressure wave and incredible heat. It would not likely result in a supersonic concussion wave heard miles out. The aircraft would not have been traveling that fast, nor would the fire ball. It would produce more of a woof.
Please present me with evidence, you'd like me to look at and be open to criticism. I'm open to criticism, and I attempt to construct my reply in a manner with more evidence and data.
Originally posted by thepolish1
Ok, I'm gonna point out the obvious here, a house, no matter if it has brick on the outside or not, IT is built out of wood, my question is, why are there pieces of lumber on both sides of the explosion that are not charred or burnt?? In one of the pics, you can still see the green paint on the end to specify what the size is. And before anyone flames me, I do have an extensive back ground in construction, and dealing with wood.
why are there pieces of lumber on both sides of the explosion that are not charred or burnt??
to the comment that was made saying a 'fart' could knock them down.
Originally posted by jhn7537
Originally posted by azoth88
Originally posted by jhn7537
Originally posted by Hijinx
reply to post by jhn7537
Natural gas explosion seems most likely given the events that took place, and the aftermath.
Ok cool, that's what i heard earlier, but it wasn't confirmed yet...
Indianapolis resident here.
#'s really strange. I'm watching the news and they announced that a 10:00 PM curfew is being enforced in the area and that there will be "a strong police presence throughout the night."
They then cut to the spokesperson from Citizens Energy company who said that they have tested the area and detected no natural gas leaks.
I find that VERY strange... If they're calling for a curfew they should probably inform you to why that curfew is being enforced... If they believe something radioactive or chemical like has the risk of affecting the given area they should give residents the chance to GET OUT OF TOWN...
I'm in south chicago, so im sure the area isnt anywhere close to me, but I can get to Indiana within 10 minutes off rt 80
Originally posted by ToadInAHole
reply to post by salainen
In that case where did the fire start ?
second line ,sorry for the one line post.
Originally posted by magma
reply to post by Katharos62191
to the comment that was made saying a 'fart' could knock them down.
Yeah sorry bout that. If they had a brick facade which they clearly do, then a fart would not do the job.
Not even a big one.
For instance, the volume of gas can be much higher and produce even more energy than I calculated.
An initial survey of gas mains throughout the neighborhood has not identified any gas leaks.
Originally posted by Katharos62191
reply to post by diesel_actual
I'm not sure where I said they were half million dollar homes.. I was just stating they were brick and wood ( yes which I know is common logic ) to the comment that was made saying a 'fart' could knock them down.
Originally posted by salainen
Originally posted by ToadInAHole
reply to post by salainen
In that case where did the fire start ?
second line ,sorry for the one line post.
As stated by magma (perhaps more clearly), the wood didn't need to come into contact with the fire, it was thrown far enough by the explosion to not be burnt by the subsequent fire.
Originally posted by Katharos62191
reply to post by diesel_actual
I'm not sure where I said they were half million dollar homes.. I was just stating they were brick and wood ( yes which I know is common logic ) to the comment that was made saying a 'fart' could knock them down.
Originally posted by ToadInAHole
Yes , that much i gathered , but i`m asking - if most of the wood was fired away from the explosion how could a fire spread without fuel ?
It must have been a big explosion to throw the bricks around and damage near by homes , so if it was gas the fire ball would have been huge.
Note : the blue dye on the tips of the timber shows shoddy craftsmanship , a real craftsman trims them off to make the job look neat. Irellevant i know , but i`m a joiner (carpenter) by trade.
Box has a picture of what looks like a blue apple with a smilie face on it