If this is a new wave of attacks they've clearly set their targets a bit lower this time.
Next target: SCHOOLS.
The plan: Lower grammar standards so severely that internet becomes 1nt3rw3b5, and coincidence is spelt as coincidents.
Just kidding, ATG, but no, I don't think that it's a new wave of terrorist attacks, as it more creates congestion rather than killing people.
The plan: Lower grammar standards so severely that internet becomes 1nt3rw3b5, and coincidence is spelt as coincidents.
Just kidding, ATG, but no, I don't think that it's a new wave of terrorist attacks, as it more creates congestion rather than killing people.
Sounds like a coincidence to me. Seeing how the Texas accident happened on an off/on ramp, chances are he took the turn too fast. Because if your driving a tanker, you cant go as fast as what the ramp speed limits are because there is still a good chance you can roll the tanker over. I dont know how much you know about semi trucks but any fully loaded semi grossing out to 80000lbs or more in some states, takes alot of room to stop, and a tanker unlike most other types of freight trucks, the product moves around in the tank. For example when you hit your brakes to stop, you feel a pushing motion on your truck. Thats the liquid sloshing foward in the tank and pushes you with its momentum back in the tanker trailer. Same thing applies with sharp turns, except it goes to the side and tankers are a high center of gravity anyway, so they roll. So also another factor that can take extra stopping distance while all this above is happening, is if the ABS (anti lock brake system) back on the trailer kicks in, it adds more of a pushing motion to you too. It does it on regular loaded semis. I've never driven a tanker but all this other im speaking of im talking from experience, because i have some experience driving semis.ATG wrote:
Today in California.
http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/04/30 … se_180.jpg
Yesterday in Texas
http://www.centralmediaserver.com/WOAI/ … losion.jpg
Distant Early Warnings?
Leaked US intelligence document warning of terrorist attacks on London and America using fuel tankersIt just seems a little odd that there have been two freeways taken out over two days by two fuel tankers. What next?On September 11, 2001 terrorists hijacked four airliners laden with full tanks of jet fuel and used them as flying bombs to destroy and create fear. The far-reaching effects directly impacted the operation and economic stability of the airline industry, the on-going cost of enhanced security and preparedness, and the effects on the American economy in general. Financial concerns based on economic instability, job instability, and the issues of insurance and insurance cost weigh heavily on the outcomes. Such a scenario is as realistic a consideration for the trucking industry as it was a reality for the airline industry.
http://www.iags.org/lng.jpg
As for the other crash, I cant figure out why he rolled. There was a slight curve in the road so the same thing might have happened, but its not a sharp curve so thats why its confusing.
So anyway, thats my conclusion. No attacks, just bad timing between two very bad accidents.
Last edited by Drunken_Tankdriver (2007-04-30 02:17:22)
Wait......so the new terrorist plot to bring DEATH TO AMERICA!; is to make rush hour traffic extremely slow by blowing up an empty overpass in the middle of the night?
Quick. Raise the Homeland Security Threat Condition from 'Low/Guarded' to 'Elevated'. Oh wait - it's always been 'Elevated'....
It does seem like a bit of a crap plan.Cougar wrote:
Wait......so the new terrorist plot to bring DEATH TO AMERICA!; is to make rush hour traffic extremely slow by blowing up an empty overpass in the middle of the night?
Looks quite clearly like coincidence to me...
I believe the next threat condition is "Defensively Confused".CameronPoe wrote:
Quick. Raise the Homeland Security Threat Condition from 'Low/Guarded' to 'Elevated'. Oh wait - it's always been 'Elevated'....
Could it be possible to lower standards in US schools, without use of some sort of reality warping artifact?some_random_panda wrote:
Next target: SCHOOLS.
The plan: Lower grammar standards so severely that internet becomes 1nt3rw3b5, and coincidence is spelt as coincidents.
Totaly different situation.Harmor wrote:
Interesting how a gasoline fire can bring down a metal bridge, but when jet fuel in the Twin Towers brings it down on 9/11, people don't believe it and say its a conspiracy.
I don't think so.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Totaly different situation.Harmor wrote:
Interesting how a gasoline fire can bring down a metal bridge, but when jet fuel in the Twin Towers brings it down on 9/11, people don't believe it and say its a conspiracy.
Fire meets steel, steel loses.
No it isn't.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Totaly different situation.Harmor wrote:
Interesting how a gasoline fire can bring down a metal bridge, but when jet fuel in the Twin Towers brings it down on 9/11, people don't believe it and say its a conspiracy.
Anyone from California knows all to well what happens when an overpass feeding to the bay bridge collapses.
Anyone remember or alive when the Battle of the Bay (1989 world series) earthquake happened and a section of the bay bridge and cyphrus structure collapsed? took about a year to fix the Overpass section, and almost 2 years to fix the bay bridge. By far it did not just cause traffic backups. Esp when back then the golden gate bridge charged 3 bucks to cross. Its gonna be a while before the bay bridge is working, BART/Muni and other public transit is also going to feel the squeeze. I have to give it to the govanator... Free public transit for a few days... Hopefully it will be like 89 when they charged a flat rate of 20 bucks for a month long unlimited pass. These public transportation facilities have to have some sort of income, we know it will take a few monthes for the state to cough up the fiunds to support them enough to continue free trips.
Anyone remember or alive when the Battle of the Bay (1989 world series) earthquake happened and a section of the bay bridge and cyphrus structure collapsed? took about a year to fix the Overpass section, and almost 2 years to fix the bay bridge. By far it did not just cause traffic backups. Esp when back then the golden gate bridge charged 3 bucks to cross. Its gonna be a while before the bay bridge is working, BART/Muni and other public transit is also going to feel the squeeze. I have to give it to the govanator... Free public transit for a few days... Hopefully it will be like 89 when they charged a flat rate of 20 bucks for a month long unlimited pass. These public transportation facilities have to have some sort of income, we know it will take a few monthes for the state to cough up the fiunds to support them enough to continue free trips.
WTF? Yes it is. Kerosene is not gasoline. Gasoline not only burns hotter, but it is more volatile. Add to that completely different structures. Not only could the steel be vastly different, but the physics and weight distributions involved are completely different. And yet, you don't think it's completely unreasonable to draw an analogy between the two? So much for education in the western world.Bertster7 wrote:
No it isn't.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Totaly different situation.Harmor wrote:
Interesting how a gasoline fire can bring down a metal bridge, but when jet fuel in the Twin Towers brings it down on 9/11, people don't believe it and say its a conspiracy.
You've also got to think about containment. The fuel in the trucks would have been contained by the tanker. It would have continued to burn and could have created very high temperatures in the super-structure of the bridge. In the case of the WTC the aviation fuel was not contained. It poured straight down the lift shafts and burnt off in a huge fireball. The effects of which can be clearly seen in 9/11.jonsimon wrote:
WTF? Yes it is. Kerosene is not gasoline. Gasoline not only burns hotter, but it is more volatile. Add to that completely different structures. Not only could the steel be vastly different, but the physics and weight distributions involved are completely different. And yet, you don't think it's completely unreasonable to draw an analogy between the two? So much for education in the western world.Bertster7 wrote:
No it isn't.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Totaly different situation.
They are similiar, both cases involve steel structures weakened by fire. Of course there are diferences, the fuel, the method, the types of structures, the type of steels, but you can't deny that both disasters were caused by fires in steel supported structures.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
You've also got to think about containment. The fuel in the trucks would have been contained by the tanker. It would have continued to burn and could have created very high temperatures in the super-structure of the bridge. In the case of the WTC the aviation fuel was not contained. It poured straight down the lift shafts and burnt off in a huge fireball. The effects of which can be clearly seen in 9/11.jonsimon wrote:
WTF? Yes it is. Kerosene is not gasoline. Gasoline not only burns hotter, but it is more volatile. Add to that completely different structures. Not only could the steel be vastly different, but the physics and weight distributions involved are completely different. And yet, you don't think it's completely unreasonable to draw an analogy between the two? So much for education in the western world.Bertster7 wrote:
No it isn't.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Das right.EVieira wrote:
They are similiar, both cases involve steel structures weakened by fire. Of course there are diferences, the fuel, the method, the types of structures, the type of steels, but you can't deny that both disasters were caused by fires in steel supported structures.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
You've also got to think about containment. The fuel in the trucks would have been contained by the tanker. It would have continued to burn and could have created very high temperatures in the super-structure of the bridge. In the case of the WTC the aviation fuel was not contained. It poured straight down the lift shafts and burnt off in a huge fireball. The effects of which can be clearly seen in 9/11.jonsimon wrote:
WTF? Yes it is. Kerosene is not gasoline. Gasoline not only burns hotter, but it is more volatile. Add to that completely different structures. Not only could the steel be vastly different, but the physics and weight distributions involved are completely different. And yet, you don't think it's completely unreasonable to draw an analogy between the two? So much for education in the western world.
All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?EVieira wrote:
They are similiar, both cases involve steel structures weakened by fire. Of course there are diferences, the fuel, the method, the types of structures, the type of steels, but you can't deny that both disasters were caused by fires in steel supported structures.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
You've also got to think about containment. The fuel in the trucks would have been contained by the tanker. It would have continued to burn and could have created very high temperatures in the super-structure of the bridge. In the case of the WTC the aviation fuel was not contained. It poured straight down the lift shafts and burnt off in a huge fireball. The effects of which can be clearly seen in 9/11.jonsimon wrote:
WTF? Yes it is. Kerosene is not gasoline. Gasoline not only burns hotter, but it is more volatile. Add to that completely different structures. Not only could the steel be vastly different, but the physics and weight distributions involved are completely different. And yet, you don't think it's completely unreasonable to draw an analogy between the two? So much for education in the western world.
more seriously: the physics involved in the two cases are totaly different.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2007-04-30 14:01:34)
Sure, if you are a supporter of the official 911 theory you could make the sweeping generalization that they are similar in that both involved fire and the integrity of steel. Aside from that, completely different sets of physics. If you're the kind of person that's prone to make inherently faulty assumptions, I guess you would make that generalization.EVieira wrote:
They are similiar, both cases involve steel structures weakened by fire. Of course there are diferences, the fuel, the method, the types of structures, the type of steels, but you can't deny that both disasters were caused by fires in steel supported structures.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
You've also got to think about containment. The fuel in the trucks would have been contained by the tanker. It would have continued to burn and could have created very high temperatures in the super-structure of the bridge. In the case of the WTC the aviation fuel was not contained. It poured straight down the lift shafts and burnt off in a huge fireball. The effects of which can be clearly seen in 9/11.jonsimon wrote:
WTF? Yes it is. Kerosene is not gasoline. Gasoline not only burns hotter, but it is more volatile. Add to that completely different structures. Not only could the steel be vastly different, but the physics and weight distributions involved are completely different. And yet, you don't think it's completely unreasonable to draw an analogy between the two? So much for education in the western world.
As I am a guy who lives and works in the Bay Area, I DONT think this was AT ALL a terrorist attack.
I watch the local news everyday, and in no circumstance havw the broadcasters declared "fowl play" in regards to this crash. . . . More like get your commute shit worked out!! The Govenator has declared today to be a "free" public transportation day around the Bay Area to help those affected.
The company that is involved is based out of South City (for you non locals its South San Francisco), and is in no way under investigation for criminal activity.
So conspiracy theorists need to end the assault because this is an isolated incident that is more a "pain in the ass" than a terrorist threat/plot!
I watch the local news everyday, and in no circumstance havw the broadcasters declared "fowl play" in regards to this crash. . . . More like get your commute shit worked out!! The Govenator has declared today to be a "free" public transportation day around the Bay Area to help those affected.
The company that is involved is based out of South City (for you non locals its South San Francisco), and is in no way under investigation for criminal activity.
So conspiracy theorists need to end the assault because this is an isolated incident that is more a "pain in the ass" than a terrorist threat/plot!
In addition to spelling one words wrong in the OP title ( thanks Bubs ) I placed a question mark.
This is no assault.
This is no assault.
From Associated Press:
OAKLAND, Calif. - The driver who crashed a tanker loaded with gasoline and brought down a heavily trafficked highway overpass had a history of criminal activity, including drug and burglary arrests, yet was given a commercial trucker's license.
James Mosqueda, 51, served two years and eight months in prison following a 1996 arrest for heroin possession in Sacramento County, court records show. His criminal rap sheet stretching back to 1981 includes arrests for burglary, felony drug charges and possession of stolen property, according to the California Department of Corrections and the Sacramento County District Attorney's office.
Yet Mosqueda was able to get his commercial truck driver's license because there is nothing in the state's vehicle code that prevents a convicted felon who has served his sentence from working as a truck driver — so long as he has a clear driving record, California Highway Patrol Chief Steve Vaughn said.
The elevated section of highway that funnels traffic from the Bay Bridge to a number of key freeways was destroyed early Sunday after flames from Mosqueda's overturned gasoline truck caused part of that overpass to buckle and collapse onto a roadway below. The driver walked away with only second-degree burns and remained hospitalized Monday in San Francisco.
A predicted traffic nightmare failed to materialize Monday as workers heeded the dire warnings and stayed home, or seized on free public transportation. But transit officials cautioned that it will be months before things return to normal for Bay Area commuters.
OAKLAND, Calif. - The driver who crashed a tanker loaded with gasoline and brought down a heavily trafficked highway overpass had a history of criminal activity, including drug and burglary arrests, yet was given a commercial trucker's license.
James Mosqueda, 51, served two years and eight months in prison following a 1996 arrest for heroin possession in Sacramento County, court records show. His criminal rap sheet stretching back to 1981 includes arrests for burglary, felony drug charges and possession of stolen property, according to the California Department of Corrections and the Sacramento County District Attorney's office.
Yet Mosqueda was able to get his commercial truck driver's license because there is nothing in the state's vehicle code that prevents a convicted felon who has served his sentence from working as a truck driver — so long as he has a clear driving record, California Highway Patrol Chief Steve Vaughn said.
The elevated section of highway that funnels traffic from the Bay Bridge to a number of key freeways was destroyed early Sunday after flames from Mosqueda's overturned gasoline truck caused part of that overpass to buckle and collapse onto a roadway below. The driver walked away with only second-degree burns and remained hospitalized Monday in San Francisco.
A predicted traffic nightmare failed to materialize Monday as workers heeded the dire warnings and stayed home, or seized on free public transportation. But transit officials cautioned that it will be months before things return to normal for Bay Area commuters.
Maybe the terrorists planted the guard rail?Bubbalo wrote:
Seriously, who has ever called it that? The only people I've heard using that term are Conservatives trying to make fun of their opponents.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
The religion of peace strikes again.
Apart from that:San Francisco Chronicle wrote:
The single-vehicle crash occurred on the lower roadway when the tanker, loaded with 8,600 gallons of unleaded gasoline and heading from a refinery in Benicia to a gas station on Hegenberger Road in Oakland, hit a guardrail at 3:41 a.m.So, what, terrorists have now been reduced to putting themselves in dangerous situations and hoping for an accident? You honestly think they wouldn't have planted a bomb if they wanted to blow up an oil tanker?WOAI.com wrote:
Investigators say the rig apparently taking the ramp too fast this morning.
Seriously tho, listen to yourselves, paranoid, generalizing and irrational. Giving the real terrorists what they want.
It was panda, but feel free to heap praise upon me anyway.ATG wrote:
In addition to spelling one words wrong in the OP title ( thanks Bubs )
But the title implied that you though it was possible.ATG wrote:
I placed a question mark.
This is no assault.
Clever bastards! Quick, we need safter rails, better rails, PATRIOT rails.JahManRed wrote:
Maybe the terrorists planted the guard rail?
Actually, ATG, you should have looked this one up. Coincidents is a valid spelling of coincidence. I even checked before posting something about it.ATG wrote:
In addition to spelling one words wrong in the OP title ( thanks Bubs ) I placed a question mark.
This is no assault.