I-95 tanker fire was not an accident.

EDIT: Arson - not terrorism.

If anyone has been watching the news and saw the tanker accident on I-95 in Connecticut that destroyed a bridge, I want you all to know that was not an accident.

I am a volunteer firefighter, and the talk amounst our trainers and chiefs is that this was no accident - and they are sure of it. The contents of the tanker can not be ingited by a spark or minor fire. This type of fuel can only ignite under high compression or heated of a period of time at high temperatures. This 'accident' happened right in the middle of a span that was behind on schedule and getting fined heavily for it. In one of our training excercises, we use the same liquid and it takes a torch and 30 seconds to ignite a small container on fire. It takes this long because the liquid has to be heated long enough for it to reach a temperature high enough to create fumes. It is the fumes that burn, not the liquid. To heat up a mass that large would take something hotter than even a torch. This liquid can ignite if under high compression - tankers have more than one method of bleeding air to prevent compression. The tanker did not tip over. The driver walked away. The night and road were cold.

If you tried to light this stuff with a lighter, you'd waste your time. If it was gasoline, it would not get hot enough to hurt the bridge - it would burn up too quickly. This fuel is perfect - if you can get it to ignite, it burns very hot and long and seeps into the oil-based asphalt and cracks to do the damage needed to save the bank accounts of those building the bridge.

[Edited on 29-3-2004 by godservant]

[Edited on 29-3-2004 by godservant]

Why Connectiucut though?

If it was an intended terrorist attack....it would have made much more sense if the truck had driven south. It then could have hit any one of the Throgs Neck, Whitestone, Tri-Borough or George Washington Bridges and would have created much more havoc.

Maybe it could have been a "feeler" or "test" attack or just a plain wacko.

[Edited on 29-3-2004 by Facefirst]

i'm going to stick with saying that it was an accident. just because this stuff takes a while to ignite, doesn't mean it was some terrorist attack.

and don't those tankers carry some liquids in presurised containers so they can get more of it in there? that's what i always thought, at least. maybe the gasoline spilled, that ignited, set other parts of the vehicle on fire, which lead to the liquid igniting? that's my best bet.

accidents happen all the time. if i were to post about how some semi carrying some toxic material spilled in the detroit area, i'd probably put two a month up here.

In the origional post you stated the area of highway was behind schedule and being heavily fined. Instead of terrorism if it was not an accident it seems to make more sense it was arson to stop the fines, etc

Accident - Yes.

Arson - could be, certainley won't rule it out at this time.

Terrorist - I am saying no, there are larger, more "benificial targets" for them to attack, than this highway...

nativeokie seems to be thinking along the right path. Those of you screaming terror, or lack thereof, have been listening to Bush for much too long. godservant never mentioned terrorist(s) in his post.

I trust godservant's judgment because he's a trained fireman with experience. The location of the accident seems a little too convenient.

Originally posted by nativeokie
In the origional post you stated the area of highway was behind schedule and being heavily fined. Instead of terrorism if it was not an accident it seems to make more sense it was arson to stop the fines, etc

That makes the most sense to me.
The contractors would all of a sudden have a "reason" to be behind schedule.

Bangin.... okay, I'll retract my statement for a moment and ask..

nativeokie - what are you implying, if it was not an accident.

I do agree on one thing though, with everything that happens in the world today, we immediately start yelling Terroism.....

Does anyone know how to prove the fines were being levied? And if so, levied against who?

Sorry I didn't make that clearer. I did not mean terroist, but arson by the ones losing the most money. The project is way behind. I was also told that the bridge is not even built for as much traffic as it gets everyday. It is the main vien into New York city from the east.

Also, every phase of the construction was behind schedule - which is automatically major fines.

[Edited on 29-3-2004 by godservant]

very interesting...so not terrorism per say...but domestic terrorism perhaps? even if it was a financially motivated accident...still seemed suspicious....i am sure the truck driver is being thoroughly invesigated.

btw...i was a little paranoid over this incident as you can tell:
Could this be the start of "winds of black death

Did it weaken the asphalt? What are the effects of it? (I know nothing about that sort of thing.)

The Arson theory sounds most plausible to me. Garden variety crime.

Accident and negligence~~

A very similar thing happened in Detroit last fall. A tanker crashed and took out and interchange bridge that was newly rennovated. It was NB I-175 to EB and WB I-94. They claim it will be good to go in late April.
I believe the driver died.
It looked in bad condition when I saw it shortly after the accident/fire.
And, in January, another truck accident severely damaged a section of bridge over the Van Dyke (M-53) freeway.

SHELBY TOWNSHIP � Motorists may be able to use 22 Mile to cross the M-53 expressway as soon as the Fourth of July weekend.

The Michigan Department of Transportation will have the 22 Mile bridge over the expressway rebuilt by then, said Robert Morosi, a spokesman for the state agency.

The bridge has been shut since a semitrailer carrying construction equipment slammed into it in January.

Drivers on 22 Mile have been unable to take the road across M-53. About 14,000 vehicles use the bridge per day.

www.detnews.com...



The number of trucker accidents is increasing dramatically. Many of these accidents seem to be damaging roads as well as killing and maiming people.
I don't know if drivers are more poorly trained, working too many hours on the road, or whatever. Whether it is the truck driver, other drivers bad driving or the trucking company, it is negligence---not terrorism.

nativeokie - what are you implying, if it was not an accident.

Insurance fraud? Getting out of trouble over the fines, etc by intentinally damaging it. Happens all the time with businesses suddenly catching fire when the owner is financially in trouble, new homes being build suddenly burning when the builder is running out of money, etc.

Often refered to as "jewish lightning". Not my phrase mind you.

I work for a bridge company and the fines that the government impose for being behind on a contract can be pretty high. It depends on who owns the project. Seeing as how it is an expressway, it would be the federal government. Those fines can be high.

I can totally see how a contractor wanting to get out of his contract would do this. Luckily, most contractors hash out the reasons for delays and in most cases fines are waived or reduced, but this guy might be a dumb ass who wants to take the easy way out.

Could it just be an ignorant driver going too fast for the turns? When I lived in Tampa we always heard about tanker drivers tanking turns too fast. Here's one of the latest, very similar in nature except the overpass was completed.

Here's the Tampa story: www.sptimes.com...

And yes, metal will bend and melt.

"I am a volunteer firefighter, and the talk amounst our trainers and chiefs is that this was no accident - and they are sure of it. The contents of the tanker can not be ingited by a spark or minor fire. This type of fuel can only ignite under high compression or heated of a period of time at high temperatures. This 'accident' happened right in the middle of a span that was behind on schedule and getting fined heavily for it. In one of our training excercises, we use the same liquid and it takes a torch and 30 seconds to ignite a small container on fire. It takes this long because the liquid has to be heated long enough for it to reach a temperature high enough to create fumes. It is the fumes that burn, not the liquid. To heat up a mass that large would take something hotter than even a torch. This liquid can ignite if under high compression - tankers have more than one method of bleeding air to prevent compression. The tanker did not tip over. The driver walked away. The night and road were cold.

If you tried to light this stuff with a lighter, you'd waste your time. If it was gasoline, it would not get hot enough to hurt the bridge - it would burn up too quickly. This fuel is perfect - if you can get it to ignite, it burns very hot and long and seeps into the oil-based asphalt and cracks to do the damage needed to save the bank accounts of those building the bridge."

So what kind of fuel was it?

We had a wood chip filled 18 wheeeler crash last year on a fairly busy interstate. The wood chips burning along with perhaps 100 gal of diesel the truck was fueled with melted the asphalt and closed the the highway for nearly 12 hours. A concrete overpass nearly 50 feet from the site was damaged by the heat. My understanding was that the damage was caused by the rapid expansion of one section of the structure not by the actual temprature of the fire. The overpass was designed to expand together and as only a small portion actually expanded causing buckling and related structural issues.
I live in a busy container port and let me assure you truckers aren't the best drivers on the road--we rarely get through a rush hour without one on its' side somewhere. Conspiracy? I'd need a lot more...

I'm not sure if you all consider Zetatalk to be a great resource, but I found this yesterday while browsing through the interesting site.

www.zetatalk.com...


[Edited on 29-3-2004 by The Quiet Storm]

The more I look into this the more I am convinced that this was not an accident. I do not think it was terrorism either. I actually do not have an opinion on what might have happened. I did read the zetatalk link and have found some logic in the reasoning. Maybe not for planet x, but it does seem reasonable that the gov't would run a test of this nature. The possibilites are out there. But looking more & more into it, one thing seems extremely shady. The location of the "accident". It just happened to happen on that small section of bridge. For whatever reason, be it insurance fraud, test whatever.
Also, I was traveling to NY on friday for a visit to my family, (I was born & raised on Long Island. Lived there for 22 years). I am know living in Ohio. I took I-80 to the G.W. then I-95 north to the Throgs Neck and onto the Cross Island to the L.I.E., then home. We arrived at the G.W. at about 3:30 (the start of rush hour). We had just found out about the accident at about 2:45 or so and heard reports of delays all the way to NY. But when we arrived the only thing that held us up were some stupid sheeple that couldn't read the ez-pass signs and at the last seconds dartrs across 4 lanes of toll booth traffic to get to the cash lanes. we made it to the cross island in about 20 minutes. Which is quick for that time of day. We were home in no time.

I do think that we need to research more of this a bring to light similar stories & compare them. Try to find links. Maybe if we dig a little we could find out if it is really an accident or not. Here is a similar story I found that I never knew happened. Apparently 4 killed. This was back in January. The link: [url=http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/news/2762201/detail.html]

It was carrying heating oil - BTW.