|
TACD posted:Are you saying it was a g-g-g-ghost? drat, it's so obvious, they crossed the beams.
|
| # ? Nov 18, 2012 13:50 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 03:24 |
|
|
Ireland Sucks posted:Since everything else in that stupid movie was wrong I'll ask: does it actually just sting/burn an open palm or would a firework exploding in your hand send you to hospital either way? I really wouldn't want to be the one to test it. Without getting really nerdy about it or bringing up poor past judgement, yes, fire crackers generally only sting in close proximity to your hand. Or at least lady fingers.
|
| # ? Nov 18, 2012 15:50 |
|
|
The brick house the next street up. Is that their garage door blown to the side of the house!?
|
| # ? Nov 18, 2012 16:37 |
|
|
I Own Soulz posted:The brick house the next street up. Is that their garage door blown to the side of the house!? I think that's a covered boat and their door is just open.
|
| # ? Nov 18, 2012 16:40 |
|
|
Ireland Sucks posted:Since everything else in that stupid movie was wrong I'll ask: does it actually just sting/burn an open palm or would a firework exploding in your hand send you to hospital either way? I really wouldn't want to be the one to test it. Small firecracker probably would just sting, yes. In the US consumer grade firecrackers are limited to 50 mg of powder now. Generally that's chlorate / aluminum with or without sulfur added. Back when I was a kid there was a much larger limit and one really could get seriously injured with a firecracker in the hand. IIRC classic cherry bombs typically had about 750 mg of charge. Military issue M80 simulators had about 3 grams, but were not really meant for the civilian market. Those bastards would take a hand off at the wrist. In some other countries there are higher limits and watch out!
|
| # ? Nov 18, 2012 18:20 |
|
|
Almost looks like the explosion started in between the two houses.
|
| # ? Nov 18, 2012 18:20 |
|
|
Prettz posted:Not in the way they're doing today for natural gas. Furthermore, they're bringing up so much natural gas these days that they've cratered the price of it so dramatically that a lot of these same fracking companies in the US have just recently gone bankrupt. Sure fraccing has changed, but the same principles remain. The fact that companies are making themselves go out of business because they are using the same idiot practices oil companies did during the oil boom of the late 1800s is damning evidence against the companies themselves and not the actual technology used to extract the natural gas. quote:Let's stick just to natural gas here, not oil. First off, you have no idea whether the fracking fluid is as dangerous as natural gas because all of the companies doing it have claimed "trade secrets" to keep the composition of the fluid a secret from the government. Do you want to take a wild guess why they've done this? You're also downplaying the quantity of liquid they pump down there: their fluid is mixed with gigantic quantities of water (which becomes toxic), making it far more likely that some of it makes it back to the surface (which it has, according to researchers). Jesus Christ do you know what unrefined petroleum and natural gas contains? It's IMMENSELY toxic by itself, contains just about every heavy metal known to man, contains all sorts of incredibly dangerous VOCs (e.g. benzene, H2S, toluene, etc. ). Take a look here: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/gulfoilspill2...uents_table.pdf Crude oil and unrefined natural gas contains all sorts of chemicals that are immediately dangerous to human health. Also the amount of fraccing fluid they pump down is WAY less than the amount of natural gas or crude in the ground. quote:Traditional oil wells have never in modern times been located so close to populated areas, so your point is totally moot. Water is never drawn from any place remotely near an oil field. Oil is located thousands of feet below the water table, with proper industrial practices they should never interact. quote:This is complete and utter horseshit that not even my mother would believe. Ever heard the phrase "regulatory capture"? You do realize the EPA and state regulatory agencies can shut down operations if they aren't in compliance right? I've seen it happen. The old attitude of not following the regulations because they think they are bullshit doesn't fly anymore. Companies cannot get away with that anymore. Also new constructions has vastly more regulation than already constructed sites. Also, I'm specifically talking about environmental regulation. quote:More demonstrably false horseshit. I've seen it happen. The EPA and the state agencies say they are subject to shutdown if they don't comply. Are you saying the environmental agencies don't follow their own rules? Sure there are some shady things going on, but they don't gently caress around about stuff like this. quote:Yeah they do, and you know what? Drilling companies still deliberately flout those rules because managers don't give a poo poo. Every single oil well and pipeline spill comes down to this. American management is obsessed with pinching pennies for no reason other than to be pinching pennies. It's an ideological thing. This attitude is changing as the old guard gets older and leaves. Disasters are PR nightmares to these companies and most of the new people coming in actually do give a poo poo about compliance. I've been on-site as a consultant to plenty of these companies and I can say with certainty that many of them do give a poo poo and these are large companies. I wish people like you could work my job for a week or two just to see how completely wrong you are.
|
| # ? Nov 18, 2012 18:35 |
|
|
ryan8723 posted:I've been on-site as a consultant to plenty of these companies and I can say with certainty that many of them do give a poo poo and these are large companies. Yes, because when a business brings in a consultant (or gets visited by a regulator) they definitely share with them every little detail and secret about their operations. Just like with this explosion, where if there was any shady or incompetent dealings, it definitely got found out already because whoever was doing bad stuff totally just fessed up to the cops right away  N.B. I'm not saying anything shady is going on with this explosion, I'm just using it hypothetically to help illustrate how stupid the above quote is. Lutha Mahtin fucked around with this message at Nov 18, 2012 around 19:25 |
| # ? Nov 18, 2012 19:20 |
|
|
ryan8723 posted:Oil is located thousands of feet below the water table, with proper industrial practices they should never interact. Last, natural gas hydrofracking is using the same techniques as in oil, but in oil it's a "booster", here it's a constant operation. The quantity and scale is much larger. I think it can be done safely, but there was pretty much zero testing done before they started operations in PA and WV. quote:You do realize the EPA and state regulatory agencies can shut down operations if they aren't in compliance right? I've seen it happen. The old attitude of not following the regulations because they think they are bullshit doesn't fly anymore. Companies cannot get away with that anymore. Also new constructions has vastly more regulation than already constructed sites. quote:This attitude is changing as the old guard gets older and leaves. Disasters are PR nightmares to these companies and most of the new people coming in actually do give a poo poo about compliance. I've been on-site as a consultant to plenty of these companies and I can say with certainty that many of them do give a poo poo and these are large companies. I wish people like you could work my job for a week or two just to see how completely wrong you are. Maybe you're good at your job, and maybe you care about safety of both the people you work with and the locals. I wish I could trust that the current fracking operations cared, but I haven't seen much evidence of it.
|
| # ? Nov 18, 2012 20:31 |
|
|
I'd like to apologize to everyone for initially bringing up the subject of fracking in this thread. I only did so to bring up a story about pressure causing old oil wells in PA to explode on people's property. Now this moron has hijacked a thought of mine for his own personal soapbox that nobody gives a poo poo about.  We've already determined it was ancient aliens working for the CIA. Please stop posting about fracking. Nobody cares about your day job.
|
| # ? Nov 19, 2012 13:17 |
|
|
Sagebrush posted:The drone bombing theory is the most retarded theory though. I really gotta ask how did that get started. I mean, even the supposed reasoning behind the theory, that the drone was scrambled to take out a resource and payroll office for the military, is complete unsourced speculation that has no basis in reality.
|
| # ? Nov 19, 2012 13:43 |
|
|
Young Freud posted:I really gotta ask how did that get started. I mean, even the supposed reasoning behind the theory, that the drone was scrambled to take out a resource and payroll office for the military, is complete unsourced speculation that has no basis in reality. That's the best kind of theory, with absolutely no proof you have proof of a massive conspiracy to cover it up.
|
| # ? Nov 19, 2012 14:16 |
|
|
Backweb posted:I'd like to apologize to everyone for initially bringing up the subject of fracking in this thread. I only did so to bring up a story about pressure causing old oil wells in PA to explode on people's property. To be honest, what he had to say was considerably more interesting than what you had to say. Go ahead and apologize about bringing up fracking, though--that I don't mind, so long as we're talking about personal soapboxes.
|
| # ? Nov 19, 2012 18:13 |
|
|
Misleading thread title there. It was two/three houses not a neighbourhood. You can clearly make out the epicentre too. And the explosion looks like it was very horizontally focused rather than upwards. Almost like a boiler was laying on its side then exploded towards the front and back of the house. WastedJoker fucked around with this message at Nov 19, 2012 around 18:23 |
| # ? Nov 19, 2012 18:17 |
|
|
WastedJoker posted:Misleading thread title there. 60 houses were damaged, and that's not really how explosions work... To my knowledge, while a blast can be directed, pressure is pressure, and that pressure acting on the inside of a building will cause it to explode in pretty much all directions. I am curious why you think it looks "horizontally focused" without seeing the blast itself...
|
| # ? Nov 19, 2012 18:29 |
|
|
Snak posted:60 houses were damaged, and that's not really how explosions work... To my knowledge, while a blast can be directed, pressure is pressure, and that pressure acting on the inside of a building will cause it to explode in pretty much all directions. Damaged it not destroyed! /pedant but yes, my initial reading of the damage was pretty wrong. Just realised that while this:  looks like where most of the energy was directed, I didn't take into account it was suppressed in the other axis by the houses either side which are charred and absorbed the impact compared to the less congested path out front/back.
|
| # ? Nov 19, 2012 18:35 |
|
|
WastedJoker posted:Damaged it not destroyed! /pedant The world destroyed is rarely used to mean "complete and total" destruction. It is generally used to mean "ruined" e.g. your dog destroyed my couch, water damage destroyed valuable documents, people's lives have been destroyed, etc. I will admit that when I read "neighborhood destroyed," I expected more houses to be totally demolished. edit: While you have corrected your assessment of the explosion, my comment was more towards your idea that it was "more horizontally focused than upwards" where there is no basically way to tell the blast's vertical component and no reason to assume it wasn't semi-spherical. I.e. it's easy to see the aftermath of the blast horizontally because of the damage inflicted, while there was nothing floating above the house to be damaged and therefor very little visual cues as to the vertical nature of the blast. One can hardly extrapolate the probably trajectories of the debris from the photographs we've been given, but I'm sure forensics experts at the scene can tell which pieces were blown more upward than sideways... Snak fucked around with this message at Nov 19, 2012 around 18:52 |
| # ? Nov 19, 2012 18:47 |
|
|
Walls will collapse in the direction perpendicular to the direction they travel. Or in lamens terms, directly outwards. Corners are the weakest parts of a structure, so they will break at the lowest pressures, generally speaking (not including windows and stuff like that). The reason it may seem so directional is because the direction that most of the debris went in wasn't blocked by house. I'd be willing to say there is a proportional amount of debris in each direction where there used to be house.
rcman50166 fucked around with this message at Nov 19, 2012 around 18:51 |
| # ? Nov 19, 2012 18:48 |
|
|
News is now reporting this is now a criminal double homicide case now.
|
| # ? Nov 19, 2012 22:00 |
|
|
http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-poli...0,839314.columnArticle posted:Fox59 News has learned that Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department homicide detectives have determined that the Nov. 10 explosion at the Richmond Hill subdivision was an intentional act. “A criminal homicide investigation” is how police are referring to the probe. The Indianapolis Fire Department still considers this a fire investigation. Richmond Hill residents will be advised of the decision Monday during a 6 p.m. meeting at Southport Presbyterian Church. A bunch of locals have suggested the boyfriend (Mark Leonard) was a con artist who has tried insurance scams in the past. Two weeks before the explosion there were posts on a dating website that said he has a reputation for using people for money, that he was working with another guy who ditched a woman after her insurance check came in and that they still owe her money, that he would take ladies to casinos and pretend his wallet was stolen so his dates would give him more cash to gamble, etc. That page has been removed but it is still on google cache from November 3rd. "Mark is truly a freak. He uses date sites to scam woman out of money,and leverage what credit you may have. Him and his friends are all about what they can con still and take of any value, just to line there pockets. They have nothing, This one avoid at all cost .. He will cost you lots of debt." "If you dont give him money he leaves you at the casino". "WOW love this site. This guy is a real rear end in a top hat. First date took me to a casino and thought i was going to give him money to gamble away. Get a job loser". "Ladies this fucker is nothing but a con man he is what you call a date site con artist. I wish this site was around be for my mother met this fucker. He loving took all she had. Nice fun caring man my loving rear end." Also there were posts on Facebook from a neighbor about seeing appliances and furniture being removed from the house in the week before the explosion, now the investigators are focusing on finding these things in the rubble. article posted:When Shirley listed her home for sale in March 2011, a real estate agent took pictures of the property and its contents. Shown in the photos are tables, chairs, couches, beds and kitchen appliances— items investigators are now looking for as they comb through the debris at Shirley’s home.
|
| # ? Nov 19, 2012 22:07 |
|
|
Ireland Sucks posted:Since everything else in that stupid movie was wrong I'll ask: does it actually just sting/burn an open palm or would a firework exploding in your hand send you to hospital either way? I really wouldn't want to be the one to test it. It would just sting, a single firecracker like you see in those chain of 10k or whatever wouldn't do much at all unless it was in an area where it couldn't expand (your fist). What an complete shame about how it turned out, though I wasn't expecting anything different given the cat/ history / other things. What a poo poo way to die because your con artist neighbors wanted a quick buck.
|
| # ? Nov 19, 2012 22:16 |
|
|
WastedJoker posted:Damaged it not destroyed! /pedant Hey just wanted to say that your picture makes you look blatantly wrong. Have a nice day!
|
| # ? Nov 19, 2012 22:20 |
|
|
The plot thickens!! http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-poli...0,839314.column
|
| # ? Nov 19, 2012 22:24 |
|
|
Those houses were literally decimated.
|
| # ? Nov 19, 2012 22:36 |
|
|
Decrepus posted:Those houses were literally decimated. Every tenth man of them were killed?
|
| # ? Nov 19, 2012 22:46 |
|
|
op updated with new information. Good info Kaiser Soze, added to the op.
stewdiny fucked around with this message at Nov 20, 2012 around 00:39 |
| # ? Nov 20, 2012 00:33 |
|
|
Aggressive pricing posted:Every tenth man of them were killed? 2 out of 20 houses destroyed, sure.
|
| # ? Nov 20, 2012 01:14 |
|
|
Are the two likely suspects in custody? I'm a big fan of the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, but with the chatter about the boyfriend it would seem a poor choice to give him a bunch of lead time to skip town.
|
| # ? Nov 20, 2012 01:33 |
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Are the two likely suspects in custody? I'm a big fan of the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, but with the chatter about the boyfriend it would seem a poor choice to give him a bunch of lead time to skip town. If they're saying that this is a criminal investigation, I would certainly hope so at this point. Otherwise they're going to get the owners of 32 to-be-torn-down-houses coming after them.
|
| # ? Nov 20, 2012 01:34 |
|
|
WastedJoker posted:Damaged it not destroyed! /pedant You're not seeing the foundation damage. Easily more than a dozen of those houses are now uninhabitable and might as well be destroyed (and will probably get bulldozed as a result). e: apparently OP says 32 will need to be torn down. So yeah, you're wrong.
|
| # ? Nov 20, 2012 01:39 |
|
|
Also, it says in the article that the DHS is describing it as a natural gas explosion now too, and looking for appliances that might have been been altered. So the "insurance fraud scheme that got out of hand" theory fits pretty well.
|
| # ? Nov 20, 2012 01:39 |
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Are the two likely suspects in custody? I'm a big fan of the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, but with the chatter about the boyfriend it would seem a poor choice to give him a bunch of lead time to skip town. Its been reported that both of them are in FBI custody. Wonder who will talk first? stewdiny fucked around with this message at Nov 20, 2012 around 01:47 |
| # ? Nov 20, 2012 01:41 |
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:I'm a big fan of the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, but This sounds way too much like "I'm not a racist but" to me. The thread already declared the woman guilty on account of her being at a casino while also dating a dude with a criminal record. The most disappointing part is they will likely be proven guilty eventually and everyone who jumped to conclusions will feel entirely justified.
|
| # ? Nov 20, 2012 02:14 |
|
|
counterfeitsaint posted:This sounds way too much like "I'm not a racist but" to me. The thread already declared the woman guilty on account of her being at a casino while also dating a dude with a criminal record. Isn't confirmation bias how the American justice system works?
|
| # ? Nov 20, 2012 02:19 |
|
|
counterfeitsaint posted:This sounds way too much like "I'm not a racist but" to me. The thread already declared the woman guilty on account of her being at a casino while also dating a dude with a criminal record. Actually the most disappointing part is the 2 dead people unless you're a sociopath.
|
| # ? Nov 20, 2012 02:26 |
|
|
counterfeitsaint posted:This sounds way too much like "I'm not a racist but" to me. The thread already declared the woman guilty on account of her being at a casino while also dating a dude with a criminal record. While I think they did it because their actions and history are incredibly suspect, I'm a firm believer that it's not my place to make that kind of call, and that the courts and media should keep an objective mind. If they are proven innocent, and not because of a court procedural error, then they shouldn't have anyone treat them as anything but innocent. Sadly that's not how society works mostly because of our media plastering every suspect all over the news and being accusational. I'd much rather them say they have suspects, or suspects are in custody and keep who they are/specific details private until the case reaches its conclusion where we find out their identity only on them being declared guilty. Sadly it'll reek of secret courts and people will never be able to handle it responsibly but but a man can dream a perfect world where the courts were truly objective and the media doesn't ruin someone who may in fact be innocent. Maybe in another few hundred years.
|
| # ? Nov 20, 2012 02:27 |
|
|
counterfeitsaint posted:This sounds way too much like "I'm not a racist but" to me. The thread already declared the woman guilty on account of her being at a casino while also dating a dude with a criminal record. You know what, I can come to whatever conclusions I want about a woman who had financial troubles and had been unable to sell a home she couldn't afford and her boyfriend with a history of insurance and other scams, having their house explode in a giant natural gas explosion that occurred due to something inside their house on the weekend that they happened to head to a casino after dropping their kid off at a friends house and leaving their at a kennel (seriously who the gently caress kennels a cat over a weekend, you just leave it some extra food and make sure the box is clean). Why? Because I'm not a judge or on the jury.
|
| # ? Nov 20, 2012 17:56 |
|
|
Ahhh there's nothing sadder than giving people the benefit of the doubt and then they turn out to be terrible anyway. Oh well. I still don't think you should jump to conclusions about someone just because they make poor financial decisions or have a bad past. Also, I will murder the next person who brings up that loving cat and how wacky insane it is to kennel one.
|
| # ? Nov 20, 2012 18:45 |
|
|
Telemaze posted:Ahhh there's nothing sadder than giving people the benefit of the doubt and then they turn out to be terrible anyway. Oh well. I still don't think you should jump to conclusions about someone just because they make poor financial decisions or have a bad past. Strange how they put the cat in the kennel..
|
| # ? Nov 20, 2012 20:31 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 03:24 |
|
|
stewdiny posted:Strange how they put the cat in the kennel.. Seriously, who the gently caress kennels a cat.
|
| # ? Nov 20, 2012 20:35 |
|
