posted
By MARCUS WOHLSEN, Associated Press Writer 37 minutes ago
OAKLAND, Calif. - A section of freeway that funnels traffic onto the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge collapsed early Sunday after a gasoline tanker truck overturned and caught fire, authorities said.
The heat from the fire was intense enough to melt part of the freeway and cause the collapse, but the truck's driver walked away from the scene with second-degree burns.
No other injuries were reported, which officials said was only possible because the accident happened so early on a Sunday morning. The truck driver took a taxi to a nearby hospital, Officer Trent Cross of the California Highway Patrol said.
The tanker carrying 8,600 gallons of gasoline ignited around 3:45 a.m. after crashing into a pylon on the interchange, which connects westbound lanes of Interstate 80 to southbound I-880, about half a mile from the Bay Bridge's toll plaza.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something fishy about this.... I think the government might be involved with this one. A freeway overpass does not collapse from fire. IMO this was a controlled demolition....
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
steel (generic) loses 50% of it's structural strength at 550F..
gasoline and kerosene (jet fuel) both have similar characteristics of combustion....
however, the gasoline tanker would have burnt in a more concentrated area for longer than the jet fuel which was dispersed due to the high speed impact and should have flashed due to the large surface contact area with oxygen...
the towers were built to specs anticipating an aircraft crash and didn't meet spec for some reason....... the steel used was supposed to be spec'ed to higher temp tolerances
posted
The towers were built to specs anticipating a LOW SPEED aircraft crash in which a pilot/plane was lost in fog and not trying to intentionally hit anything, as occured with the Empire State Building in 1945.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tmanfromtexas: Then why did WTC 7 collapse. I dont remember a plane crashing into that one... Sorry for the thread drift. TMAN...
Not really thread drift at all Tman.... I posted this article specifically for this line of discussion.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
not related, but perhaps interesting...many years ago (I was in high school, lol), driver carrying a big propane tank falls asleep going onto what was then called the Poly Freeway...the wreck loosened the tank, which sparked off like a giant bottle rocket, zooming erratically 2-3 hundred yards through the air, finally smashing into the Ranch Style Beans building... the explosion broke glass up and down Lancaster Blvd, shook houses up and down the Trinity River bank, and even rattled the French doors at my house, several miles away...
posted
Tman, from what I've read, WTC 7 and WTC 1 were only 300 feet apart, and much of WTC 7's lower floors were severly damaged by the force of the material hitting it when WTC 1 collapsed. Also, WTC 7 was built straddling a electrical substation and was the city’s emergency command center. There were a number of fuel tanks used to power emergency generators located throughout the building—including two 6000-gal. tanks in the basement that could have contributed to fires that eventually, like WTC 1 & 2, led to it's collapse.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the link Glass, I do not find it disconcerting or a coincidence to see images like the one above. Everybody tends to forget that the WTC towers were attacked in 1993, and many speculated that it would happen again.
IMO there has not been much talk or follow up on the Pentagon because of the sensitive nature of where the event took place. Certianly they are not going to put out blue prints or computer models of how it collapsed or testimony from individuals who were inside at the time... If you follow what I'm getting at...
I do agree with your stance on the whole "conspiracy theory" thing.. The bigger the conspiracy, the more people involved, thus the more that know, thus the more that must be eliminated... etc etc..
I'm not sure why but for some reason certian types find the need to explain every major event, (9/11, Oklahoma City, JFK), as some sort of conspiracy. I wonder how many computer programs at the NSA I just triggered
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
they can tell who the good guys are pretty quick over there...
i don't buy the lone gunman theory on JFK myself... too hard a shot for one man... maybe some of our best snipers could do it with a well ported semi-auto (porting reduces and or compensates for the barrel "jump" from the recoil and the gas escaping) but one average marksamn with a cheezy bolt action rifle? unhunh...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying that a conspiracy isn't possible, and if I had to pick any of the three events that I named, I would agree that the JFK assassination seems the most likely candidate for a conspiracy.
It just seems like the last couple decades, EVERYTHING that happens is somehow a conspiracy.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I attended the 50th reuinion of the class Oswald would have graduated with had he not quit school and joined the Marines last weekend (asuming he made the grades, of course....he wasn't exactly academically capable).
Uniformly, the opinion there was that any one fool enough to believe Lee was capable of performing in a conspiracy was a person that had never know him and had to deal with his complete inability to "participate" in anything that required team work or cooperation.
(Also uniformly, no one of us had any thought prior to the event that Oswald was dangerous, in any way, just egotistical, boring, and irritating. He was mostly, before the assassination, due to that characteristic inability to participate in anything organized, a subject of humor to us that actually knew him. By the way, as he isn't listed as a graduate, most of the conspiracy groups insist that he never attanded high school....also, they misrepresent (from ignorance, I think) where he lived through his life before returning from Russia.)
He acted alone (and invariably irritatingly) just as everything else in his life was done alone because, like is the case with us all, that personality trait was formed way earlier and most indelibly in life.
glass.., having gone "shooting" with Oswald back in those years, I can assure you he was no "passable" shot with a rifle. He wasn't anything special, among us, on standing targets, but may have been the best shot I have ever seen at moving targets with a rifle and at snap shots with a rifle. It was something he was born with I think. (Another class mate, John Powell, may have been able to compete with him.) With Oswald, it did not extrapolate to work with a shotgun, which I could never quite understand.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
glass.., having gone "shooting" with Oswald back in those years, I can assure you he was no "passable" shot with a rifle. He wasn't anything special, among us, on standing targets, but may have been the best shot I have ever seen at moving targets with a rifle and at snap shots with a rifle. It was something he was born with I think. (Another class mate, John Powell, may have been able to compete with him.) With Oswald, it did not extrapolate to work with a shotgun, which I could never quite understand.
it's psychological, the rifleman knows he has to precisely "see" the target, give him a shotgun? and he defocuses to a perceived area (his perception of what the spread is) around the target...
it's not just one "snap shot" tho bdgee... it's the multiples with jacking the round in between, and the stress of knowing that what you are doing really is changing the whole world and it's history to boot..
re-aquisition of a moving target with a scope is not something that most shooters find easy...
having never run the action on that particular model? i don't know how tight the tolerances are, but i have shot cheap bolt actions that had sloppy tolerances and the bolt often jams slightly when you try to rotate, or when you pull it all the way back, it sometimes "rocks" slightly and won't slide forward smoothly....... the shell extractors don't always catch the shell, the cartidges often don't hit the chamber, but catch on the face of the barrel and you have to pull back and adjust the cartridge with your finger, etc... etc.. etc... etc...
Lee may not have knowingly been part of a large conspiracy.... he may have thought he was doing it with only one other
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
