Giant sonic boom felt and heard in Indianapolis Indiana(meteor? mass devastation Info blocade

reply to post by Honor93


Lol these kind of threads are pretty nuts though. We were luck and got in on it early, and followed it all the way to here. It really sucks when I find one that's already 60+ pages already and got to read em all to catch up.

I really do wonder though..... If we know now what it is like to see a coverup in real time, when one actually pays attention. The average person would never even know with their attention span, and disinterest of anything going on outside their little personal bubble.

Originally posted by delusion

Originally posted by Honor93
[ you do that !!
it would fit right in with your classless posts.

i'm curious, since you're so convinced that this is similar to San Bruno, just how many furnaces do you think it would take to produce such destruction ??
[by sheer # of property & lives lost, San Bruno generated 1/2 the destruction]

aww, I thought he demonstrated good critical thinking skills. Is it just because he tends to think 'gas' that he's classless?
How did this so easily degenerate into an 'us and them' situation? All ideas are valid if properly supported and argued.

no, not because he/she thinks "gas".
wait just a moment ... where did the Us and Them come from ?
i am not choosing sides, are you ?

in case my "opinion" was missed because it was posted so very long ago ... i am still leaning toward ground movement that may have collapsed one house leading to the eventual fire/successive explosion (i was listening in ... you can read the archives ... Radio Reference or possibly even methane traveling the path of least resistance from the Bayou Corne.

so, kinda sorta gas, maybe ... but not natural gas and not a furnace and not a commercial leak.

in case anyone forgot, there was an earthquake in Kentucky and seismic activity noted around the explosion itself.

i have a very open mind about the potential "hows" but a commercial gas/natural gas connection, i just find that an extremely hard sell. i grew up with natural gas and those houses weren't exactly "airtight" if you looked at any of the "after" photos.

classless for multiple reasons, how many do you require ?
rude, fails to adhere to T&C, childish name-calling, refuses to discuss alternate theories, need more ??

I think a meaningful piece of evidence is the cat being boarded. That is really odd. Cats can be left for days with water and food and are just fine, That might be the flaw in the plan, if it was an insurance job.

reply to post by roadgravel


Yeah, maybe. But some people really are nuts when it comes to their animals. Animals spas, animal playdates, all kinds of things. I have always had cats, and I agree with you though. I left mine for weeks at a time alone(had the neighbor pop in once a day to make sure he had food and water still), and he was fine on his own. He was an outside cat mostly though, his own choice, spent a lot of time stalking through the woods hunting and such.

reply to post by TKDRL


Guess we can see if anyone on the forum mentions they board their cat for a day or two. Betting it won't be many.

I can envision one of those crime shows with the detectives talking about the unusual lead that broke the case.

reply to post by Honor93

those houses weren't exactly "airtight" if you looked at any of the "after" photos.

They might not be built really strong but they still could be sealed pretty well to conserve heat / cooling.

Originally posted by Honor93


classless for multiple reasons, how many do you require ?
rude, fails to adhere to T&C, childish name-calling, refuses to discuss alternate theories, need more ??

Well, he came in with one post, offering info from another event, thinking it was fair to compare, and got mocked for it by trillium, his second post in response to that explained his thinking and reasoning quite well, and also responded with one line at the end in response to the mocking, then a third and fourth post expanding his reasoning, fairly logically.
trillium mocked him again, rather weakly (not backed by anything except general derision for his views.) He responded in kind, defending his view. Then it kind of degenerated, and you joined in. He would have felt attacked.
Dunno about refusing to discuss alternate theories though, didn't get that impression, not that there was really any opportunity to do so. The T&C violations (what, not providing sources) were pretty minor, and easily fixed.
As to the basic quality of his posts, I think they were good. I learned something.

Thanks for clarifying your own views. I got the impression some were being unneccessarily mocked if they were sticking to non-strange explanations, could just be a general impression from a couple of days of reading, I've lost track of the main players in the camps, if there is such a thing happening.
It's fair to say some have been insulted for thinking up more far-out explanations as well. Some-times deserved, some-times not.
Not all ideas are equal, it's not whether they're far-out or not, it's whether they're backed up reasonably.

I'm more an observer than a contributer, so I may be seeing things more objectively than those actually making some effort to speculate or gather information who get more attached to their ideas.
Ah, it's late, I'm ramblin'.

reply to post by roadgravel


Just recently heard from a reliable source (blue blood kind) that a witness saw a moving truck in their driveway the day before the blast, and now heavy questioning is being put on the people that lived there (the ones that boarded the cat).

Just sharing what I know. :-)

reply to post by Honor93


How about you follow the T&C and stay on topic... See, two can play your little game.

Quick, try to discredit someone because they didn't post a link to a quote that is plastered all over the internet, and available on this topic already.

Anyway, like I said. When this is proven to be a gas leak I will come back and say I told you so. It's pretty clearly a gas leak when you know what to look for.

reply to post by illuminated0ne

look, i don't do this childish babble.
you want to bicker back and forth, keep it between you two.

and yes, your posts have been "classless", imho, that's why i said so.

So, why should I show any respect? Why should I care about class

simple, because you should strive to Be the change you wish to see.

no. in this case, time is irrelevant as the house was likely less than airtight, 3 stories and vacant barely 24hrs.

from the links i provided above

www.indystar.com/article/20121113/NEWS/121113028/Owner-home-believed-source-explosion-talks-m-shock-like-everybody-else-?odyssey=mod%7Cbreaking%7Ctext %7CIndyStar.com
She said she and Leonard left Friday night to visit the Hollywood Casino in Lawrenceburg and had planned to be away until Sunday

not only is boarding her feline not unusual, they were gone barely 24hrs. before the explosion.
also she states with regard to the furnace ... from same link

She said that [color=amber]several weeks ago, she, her live-in boyfriend, Mark Leonard, and her 12-year-old daughter, Brooke, left their home and stayed in a hotel because the home’s heat wouldn’t turn on. Shirley said the thermostat was replaced and the heat was restored.

not really ... at least not as a comparison like you did ... as a question, remember ?

you stated the SB blast was similar, well ok, how many furnaces (which you think caused this) would it take to produce the damage, in either blast ??
point being, you cannot have it both ways.
either it was a large pipline blast like SB or it wasn't.
so, which is it ??
[completely ignoring the fact that both the utility co and NTSB have stated there is/was no leaks in the IN pipeline]

and NO, i wasn't meaning to compare damages but blast force.
[by the sheer numbers of damage and death / both blasts are comparable, yet, you think a single furnace can/did do similar damage as the SB blast, right ? ]

Here's a very interesting article! :

www.csmonitor.com...

As investigators try to determine what caused a deadly explosion that ravaged an Indianapolis subdivision, an expert says people shouldn't be alarmed by a homeowner's suggestion that his faulty furnace could be to blame.

Public Safety Director Troy Riggs said investigators will treat the area as a CRIME SCENE until they rule out FOUL PLAY.

Scott Davis, president and principal engineer of GexCon US, an explosion investigation firm in Bethesda, Md., said it's hard to believe a furnace could cause the damage seen in the Indianapolis neighborhood. He noted that most furnaces have multiple safety switches that must be triggered before any gas is used.

"For a furnace to allow that much gas through, you'd have to defeat many of the safety features," he said.

reply to post by nerdyclutzyblonde

For an explosion to occur, he said, the amount of natural gas in a confined space must reach a certain level before it can ignite. In many cases, ventilation or a low flow of fuel prevents an explosion from being strong enough to level multiple houses, he said.

Holsapple said investigators are looking at the gas meter for the home believed to have been the starting point for the blast, but she wouldn't comment on whether the house had unusually high gas usage in recent days.

I wish I could find the article that quoted the exact percentages, I tried yesterday. It is in the thread somewhere, I am pretty sure it has to be between 5% and 15% gas for it to light up. I don't see even if it was sparked at 15% gas, it having enough energy to completely level two houses like that. Although, like I said, I am not an expert.

reply to post by nightstalker78


okay, based on logic, the Energy Agencies have stated repeatedly "tHERE WAS NO NATURAL GAS LEAK and A GAS EXPLOSION WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EXPLOSION".

So....according to you and your logic, the explosion was due to a gas explosion! Flawless reasoning, no doubt.

You are making no sense. I would wager that you have not read this thread in its entirety and jumped in on the last page to give your opinion, which is fine, no matter how uneducated .

No one posting on these 88 pages has seen any evidence concluding this is a gas explosion.but by your definition, this is no big deal and we need to "get a grip". No thank you. People are sick of white knuckling
it. We deserve the truth!

Pax

reply to post by TKDRL

It really sucks when I find one that's already 60+ pages already and got to read em all to catch up.

yes it does but all of us should put forth the effort if our interest is sincere.

the first time i ventured into the 200+page mega Earthquake thread a few years ago, i hesitated, bounced around and wasted a bunch o'time only to end up back at the beginning ... was the best way to go though, especially if you desire the meat of the sandwich.

in today's world, i'd have to agree with you but it sure is foreign to me and those from my generation. we've had sooooo much, this is becoming old hat to many of us old farts and not so secret anymore

reply to post by Honor93


Being old hat you should understand RTFM! A lot of people do really need to RTFT!

A small leak versus a purposely created leak would change the whole gas leak picture. A manufactured leak with the intent of an explosion would not take many hours to set up a large explosion, IMO.

reply to post by paxnatus


Care to link to the part where officials make a statement to the effect that there was no natural gas explosion, nor indeed a leak? I would love to see that. Perhaps its been buried in the thread, but the last news site I was linked to on this thread ( back maybe thirty or so pages) had officials saying that it probably WAS a gas leak explosion.

Originally posted by roadgravel
I think a meaningful piece of evidence is the cat being boarded. That is really odd. Cats can be left for days with water and food and are just fine, That might be the flaw in the plan, if it was an insurance job.

there is nothing unusal about boarding a feline for a weekend ... they left Friday and had planned to be gone til Sunday. (see link posted above or below this post)
the owner states the animal suffers anxiety and gets ill when left alone, why is that odd ?

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by Honor93

 

those houses weren't exactly "airtight" if you looked at any of the "after" photos.

They might not be built really strong but they still could be sealed pretty well to conserve heat / cooling.

who said anything about "built strong" ??
did you look at the pics ??
please, if you can, point out the insullation in the walls.
did you see the French doors blown out ?
these houses are not what i would consider airtight as would be required to accumulate enough gas (as suggested) for 3 stories within 24hrs.

Oh! I found a PDF, it won't let me link it for some reason, it gives an error.

www.mathesongas.com...&-Upper-%28UEL%29-Explosive-Limits-.pdf

Methane is the gas used to heat homes I am pretty sure right? It says gas must be between 5% and 15% gas to kaboom.