Huge explosion in Indianapolis destroys 2 homes, damages dozens more

[Home Guy]

This one is really off the charts:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/11/11/huge-explosion-in-indianapolis-still-a-mystery-18-hours-later/

The aerial pictures are amazing.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02395/Indianapolis_2395502b.jpg

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/121111-indyexplosion-hmed-11a.photoblog600.jpg

Local gas company says they can find nothing wrong, no reports of gas
leaks. Only two people died.

My theories:

Accidental:

1) Nobody home (maybe on vacation) and problem develops with furnace or
gas water heater. Fills house with natural gas during the day / night.
Turns house into a bomb. Something sets it off - takes out house next
door (probably the two deaths). Easy to confirm if we know the
whereabouts of the occupants of the two homes (not reported yet by media
as far as I know).

Intentional causes:

2) Someone had an reason to kill the occupants of one of the homes.
Drugs, bad debt, divorce/custody, love affair / adultery, etc.

3) Collect on insurance, make it look like a faulty appliance, went
overboard with the amount of natural gas leaked.

4) Owners unemployed, bank about to repo the house, owner decided to
give the bank a smouldering crater instead.

Anyone care to vote?

I vote for 4.

Regardless why or how it happened, I can't see anything other than a
massive buildup of natural gas having enough energy to do this.

[Moe DeLoughan]

I'd go with a gas leak, though it doesn't necessarily have to be
related to a faulty appliance. The city of St. Paul discovered the
hard way that many of the gas lines run by the gas company had crossed
through existing sewer lines. Eventually, some houses blew up as a
result. Apparently the new technology used over the past few decades
by the gas company meant they could run lines without trenching, but
since they didn't see what they were doing, they could inadvertently
bore right through existing structures. Which they did, and in some
cases that eventually meant - kaboom.

[The Daring Dufas]

On 11/12/2012 8:30 AM, Home Guy wrote:

Defective gas heater manufactured in Canada is my guess. ^_^

TDD

[EXT]

"Home Guy" <Ho...@Guy.com> wrote in message news:50A107FA...@Guy.com...

Natural gas will only explode within a narrow range of concentration, plus
it is lighter than air and will drift upwards. It also is a "soft"
explosion, compared to commercial explosives that have a "hard" explosion,
investigators can identify the difference.

In the Toronto, Canada area, we have had a couple of natural gas explosions
over the past decade, at first faulty equipment or leaks were blamed. But
after investigating, it was determined, every one was deliberately set by
loosening a union or cutting a pipe, either for insurance or to kill
someone.

[Cha ching]

"Home Guy" <Ho...@Guy.com> wrote in message
news:50A107FA...@Guy.com...

> Regardless why or how it happened, I can't see anything other than a
> massive buildup of natural gas having enough energy to do this.

Is the result of Willard, Limbaugh, & other republicans when they are in
same place @ the same time. Talk about massive buildup of natural gas!

[HeyBub]

Home Guy wrote:
>
> My theories:
>
> Accidental:
>
> 1) Nobody home (maybe on vacation) and problem develops with furnace
> or gas water heater. Fills house with natural gas during the day /
> night. Turns house into a bomb. Something sets it off - takes out
> house next door (probably the two deaths). Easy to confirm if we
> know the whereabouts of the occupants of the two homes (not reported
> yet by media as far as I know).
>
> Intentional causes:
>
> 2) Someone had an reason to kill the occupants of one of the homes.
> Drugs, bad debt, divorce/custody, love affair / adultery, etc.
>
> 3) Collect on insurance, make it look like a faulty appliance, went
> overboard with the amount of natural gas leaked.
>
> 4) Owners unemployed, bank about to repo the house, owner decided to
> give the bank a smouldering crater instead.
>
> Anyone care to vote?
>
> I vote for 4.
>
> Regardless why or how it happened, I can't see anything other than a
> massive buildup of natural gas having enough energy to do this.

You've obviously put some thought into the possible causes. I discount
natural gas in that a two-story house full of natural gas simply can't make
that big of an explosion.

My conjecture centers around one of three possibilities:

1. The occupants were making a really big batch of meth - or had the
ingredients for a really big batch of meth - while simultaneously high on
meth (likely).*

2. The persons responsible had a tremendous pile of explosives in
anticipation of a New Year's display (unlikely).

3. Some people collect stamps, others gather canned goods in anticipation of
a disaster. These people, well, who knows?

The level of destruction is indicative of a high explosive (dynamite, C4,
TNT, etc.), not some ordinary substance, such as gasoline or natural gas,
that can go "fizzle-fizzle-pop" if not handled correctly

Whatever the cause, it will be easily determined. ALL explosives leave
sufficient residue behind to identify themselves.

Aside:
I am a "graduate" of the ATF Introductory Bomb School for police officers.
In our week long training, we saw a lot of pictures and films of bomb
damage. None of what we saw was remotely as violent or destructive as what
happened in Philly.

--------
* Ingredients for the manufacture of methamphetimine include:
- Alcohol
- Ether
- Benzene
- Paint thinner
- Acetone
- Camp stove fuel
- Red phosphorous
- Metallic sodium (doesn't explode but will generate hydrogen when exposed
to water)
- Iodine crystals
- Phenylacetone (Phenyl-2-Propanone)

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <JZidnZl7E738wDzN...@earthlink.com>,
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
I'll have to disagree. I have seen natural explosions do as much damage,
even if it wasn't a pipeline (which seems likely).

> 1. The occupants were making a really big batch of meth - or had the
> ingredients for a really big batch of meth - while simultaneously high on
> meth (likely).*

That has been ruled out. Even with Meth I can't see that big of an
explosion.
>

> 2. The persons responsible had a tremendous pile of explosives in
> anticipation of a New Year's display (unlikely).

Well we did have fireworks bans in Indy on July 4th...

> The level of destruction is indicative of a high explosive (dynamite, C4,
> TNT, etc.), not some ordinary substance, such as gasoline or natural gas,
> that can go "fizzle-fizzle-pop" if not handled correctly
>

I worked a few natural gas explosions in the 70s and this is
consistent with what we saw.

> Whatever the cause, it will be easily determined. ALL explosives leave
> sufficient residue behind to identify themselves.
>
> Aside:
> I am a "graduate" of the ATF Introductory Bomb School for police officers.
> In our week long training, we saw a lot of pictures and films of bomb
> damage. None of what we saw was remotely as violent or destructive as what
> happened in Philly.

I graduated from the investigations course at the National Fire
Academy and a week long explosives investigations course at the Redstone
arsenal, albeit in the late 70s and early 80s, and this is consistent
with what we deatl in addition to personal experience over 10 years.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe

[micky]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:07:54 -0500, "EXT"
<noe...@reply.in.this.group> wrote:

>
>
>In the Toronto, Canada area, we have had a couple of natural gas explosions
>over the past decade, at first faulty equipment or leaks were blamed. But
>after investigating, it was determined, every one was deliberately set by
>loosening a union or cutting a pipe, either for insurance or to kill
>someone.
>
>

I think a large number of pet gerbils and guinea pigs were producing a
lot of methane which exploded with intensity 8 on the Ginko scale.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:58:41 -0500, Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
> I worked a few natural gas explosions in the 70s and this is
>consistent with what we saw.

Sees as though the home owners were not at home. They went to a hotel
because the furnace was broken. In spite of all the safeguards built
into gas appliances, someone could have broken a connection and
allowed a large quantity of gas to leak into the house.

[Home Guy]

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> Sees as though the home owners were not at home. They went to a
> hotel because the furnace was broken.

Fucking pansy.

Real men know how to deal with furnaces.

Shit - a furnace is just a glorified barbeque for christ fucking sakes.

> In spite of all the safeguards built into gas appliances,
> someone could have broken a connection and allowed a large
> quantity of gas to leak into the house.

That is one reason my furnace will never see a transistor. Or a draft
inducer, or electronic ignitor.

Just a good old fashioned pilot light.

[The Daring Dufas]

I have a customer, a little old gal about 90 years old who me and my
late friend GB repaired things for. One day I went by to repair
her furnace and some idiot from another service company had bypassed
the flame rollout safety switch. The result was a burned up wiring
harness and she was lucky the house didn't catch fire. It was a PITA
to repair and simple to fix the original problem. She's safe now and I
went by to fix something else for her last week. O_o

TDD

[HeyBub]

Kurt Ullman wrote:
>
> I worked a few natural gas explosions in the 70s and this is
> consistent with what we saw.
>> Whatever the cause, it will be easily determined. ALL explosives
>> leave sufficient residue behind to identify themselves.
>>

I stand corrected. After looking at contemporary pictures of NG explosions,
I agree with you.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <3-SdnVtuBvc5qD_N...@earthlink.com>,

The part that fascinates me is the debris field looks like it went
mostly out the front of the house and the scorched areas went almost
entirely side to side. The fire was also very low as you can tell by the
fact the houses next to the source are the sides of the V.

[The Daring Dufas]

On 11/13/2012 6:16 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <3-SdnVtuBvc5qD_N...@earthlink.com>,
> "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Kurt Ullman wrote:
>>>
>>> I worked a few natural gas explosions in the 70s and this is
>>> consistent with what we saw.
>>>> Whatever the cause, it will be easily determined. ALL explosives
>>>> leave sufficient residue behind to identify themselves.
>>>>
>>
>> I stand corrected. After looking at contemporary pictures of NG explosions,
>> I agree with you.
>
> The part that fascinates me is the debris field looks like it went
> mostly out the front of the house and the scorched areas went almost
> entirely side to side. The fire was also very low as you can tell by the
> fact the houses next to the source are the sides of the V.
>

I recall something about a fellow leaving a barbeque grill propane tank
leaking by accident or purposely at a house and when the heavier than
air propane reached the pilot light in some gas appliance, the house
blew up like the one in the pictures. It happened back in the last
century so I don't recall the what/when/where but I seem to remember a
suspicion of revenge involved in da big boom. O_o

TDD

[TimR]

I saw damage just like this in Fond du Lac WI during the late 70s.

A car hit the gas meter on a house. The driver thought there was no damage and left the scene.

Later that night the house exploded taking the house on each side with it.

Nobody was home at any of the houses by sheer luck. The explosion was heard 17 miles away, IIRC.

[Jim Elbrecht]

The article I read had the home *owner* was the estranged husband who
lived in another state. Wife, boyfriend, and daughter lived in the
house. [but no-one home]

House had been on the market for an extended amount of time, but had
recently been taken off.

That might be why the authorities aren't making any guesses.

Jim

[HeyBub]

Kurt Ullman wrote:
>
> The part that fascinates me is the debris field looks like it went
> mostly out the front of the house and the scorched areas went almost
> entirely side to side. The fire was also very low as you can tell by
> the fact the houses next to the source are the sides of the V.

Natural gas is heavier than air and it concentrates near the floor level.
One characteristic of NG explosions is that the walls are punched outward
from the bottom.

[dpb]

On 11/13/2012 12:57 PM, HeyBub wrote:
...

> Natural gas is heavier than air and it concentrates near the floor level.

...

Wrong.

That would be propane/butane but not natural gas (which is generally 90%
or thereabouts methane).

--

[DerbyDad03]

On Nov 12, 9:28 am, Home Guy <H...@Guy.com> wrote:
> This one is really off the charts:
>

> http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/11/11/huge-explosion-in-indianapolis...

>
> The aerial pictures are amazing.
>

> http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02395/Indianapolis_239550...
>
> http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/121111-indyex...

>
> Local gas company says they can find nothing wrong, no reports of gas
> leaks.  Only two people died.
>
> My theories:
>
> Accidental:
>
> 1) Nobody home (maybe on vacation) and problem develops with furnace or
> gas water heater.  Fills house with natural gas during the day / night.
> Turns house into a bomb.  Something sets it off - takes out house next
> door (probably the two deaths).  Easy to confirm if we know the
> whereabouts of the occupants of the two homes (not reported yet by media
> as far as I know).
>
> Intentional causes:
>
> 2) Someone had an reason to kill the occupants of one of the homes.
> Drugs, bad debt, divorce/custody, love affair / adultery, etc.
>
> 3) Collect on insurance, make it look like a faulty appliance, went
> overboard with the amount of natural gas leaked.
>
> 4) Owners unemployed, bank about to repo the house, owner decided to
> give the bank a smouldering crater instead.
>
> Anyone care to vote?
>
> I vote for 4.
>
> Regardless why or how it happened, I can't see anything other than a
> massive buildup of natural gas having enough energy to do this.

Here's what I don't get:

"Officials found two homes totally destroyed with further damage to
dozens more."

Then...

"A local gas utility said an initial inspection found no gas leaks in
the area."

What did they do...take a walk around the destruction and state "Nope,
no leaks here."?

Basically I don't see how that statement has any meaning. If there's
nothing left to a house (or two) what would you check when looking for
a "leak"?

[Stormin Mormon]

I'm with you, makes you wonder. Homes left as debris, and all at the same
moment. What else, except gas, could do that? Regulator failure, and
pressure surge, maybe? Anyone geiger counting for tac nuke remains?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"DerbyDad03" <teama...@eznet.net> wrote in message
news:cb4aec8c-c521-47c3...@b19g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/11/11/huge-explosion-in-indianapolis...

[dpb]

On 11/13/2012 3:05 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...

> "A local gas utility said an initial inspection found no gas leaks in
> the area."
>
> What did they do...take a walk around the destruction and state "Nope,
> no leaks here."?
>
> Basically I don't see how that statement has any meaning. If there's
> nothing left to a house (or two) what would you check when looking for
> a "leak"?

Use a sniffer---the piping has to still be there. Of course, if it's a
small leak and buried under the rubble there may not be enough
concentration to have found it (yet).

I'm sure if folks will just calm down and let the forensics folks do
their thing they'll find the root cause...

--

[DerbyDad03]

That wasn't what I meant. I read that statement to mean that the local
utility does not think that a gas leak caused the explosion.

"Yes, the houses blew up but we didn't find a gas leak afterwards, so
as of now, we don't think that that was the cause."

When read that way, you can see why it doesn't make any sense. Once
the houses blew up and the pipes were busted everywhere, I'd be very
surprised if they found a leak since I assume they would shut the gas
off at the nearest (farthest?) point which would prevent any gas from
coming out of the busted pipes.

[denni...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 4:35:42 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:

> Use a sniffer---the piping has to still be there. Of course, if it's a
> small leak and buried under the rubble there may not be enough
> concentration to have found it (yet).

Um, if you blow the f*ck out of a house, it would stand to reason that some gas supply lines got ripped loose in the blast. Whether the house blew up from a gas leak or a pile of TNT, there *WILL* be a gas leak now.

> I'm sure if folks will just calm down and let the forensics folks do
> their thing they'll find the root cause...

Maybe. There have been a lot of "mysterious" house explosions across the country lately. Nobody seems to know exactly why they happened. Gas leak is just a guess.

[dpb]

On 11/13/2012 3:51 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...

> That wasn't what I meant. I read that statement to mean that the local
> utility does not think that a gas leak caused the explosion.
>
> "Yes, the houses blew up but we didn't find a gas leak afterwards, so
> as of now, we don't think that that was the cause."

...

Well, I think you're reading far more into it that is there. What are
they supposed to say before they have had time to do anything but the
most cursory of inspection? That's what's generally wrong w/
reporting--they expect answers immediately on things that are simply not
doable immediately.

I think one can safely ignore essentially any press reporting on
cause(s) at this point as they simply don't know for sure yet.

Again, let the forensics people do their thing in their own time--it may
take some significant time if it isn't completely obvious at the git-go
which apparently it isn't.

That there was apparently a furnace malfunction makes one suspicious at
a minimum, however that it is pretty likely a culprit. Who know, maybe
there was a pile of old unused fertilizer in the basement next to the
furnace...

--

[Stormin Mormon]

I sense that dpb hasn't seen the picture. With the houses exploded, the gas
company isn't likely to know what's a new leak, or a previous leak.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"dpb" <no...@non.net> wrote in message news:k7uef8$sns$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

On 11/13/2012 3:05 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...
>

[Stormin Mormon]

We can assign the same people who are
investigatiing the deaths in Benghazi?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

<denni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6af041b-46e9-4403...@googlegroups.com...

[Ed Pawlowski]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:57:37 -0600, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

You must be thinking of propane.

Natural gas has a relative density range of .58 - .72. Air is
considered to be 1.0.

[Steve B]

"dpb" <no...@non.net> wrote in

>

> I'm sure if folks will just calm down and let the forensics folks do their
> thing they'll find the root cause...

But it is so much more fun to blather opinions and play what if. This is
common on Usenet. People commenting on building codes in someone else's zip
code ........ etc. Like you, I prefer to read the final report, and then
commenting. Although to me, it sounds like an accidental intentional act.

Steve

[Steve B]

"dpb" <no...@non.net> wrote in message news:k7ugoh$2v1$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

We all know how the modern press loves to rush in, ala Nancy Grace, and
establish blame so they can get on to the good stuff, the guilt.

Facts be damned. The press don't need no steenking facts. And don't want
any, either. Nothing that would upset their foregone conclusions.

Lots of people sit in jail, and are getting out regularly that were put
there by the press, and people of their ilk in all public offices.

Steve

[dpb]

...

Certainly a possibility--does sound like some circumstances may have
been in play that might lead to foul play if those 'facts' are indeed
factual.

[Doug Miller]

"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in news:9NCdnR528-
O_BT_NnZ2dn...@earthlink.com:

> Kurt Ullman wrote:
>>
>> The part that fascinates me is the debris field looks like it went
>> mostly out the front of the house and the scorched areas went almost
>> entirely side to side. The fire was also very low as you can tell by
>> the fact the houses next to the source are the sides of the V.
>
> Natural gas is heavier than air and it concentrates near the floor level.

No, it's not, and no, it doesn't. Natural gas is just slightly more than *half* as dense as air.

> One characteristic of NG explosions is that the walls are punched outward
> from the bottom.

Nonsense.

[Robert Green]

"DerbyDad03" <teama...@eznet.net> wrote in message

news:cb4aec8c-c521-47c3-985f-
<stuff snipped>

<Here's what I don't get:

"Officials found two homes totally destroyed with further damage to
dozens more."

Then...

"A local gas utility said an initial inspection found no gas leaks in
the area.">

That's legalese for "We are denying responsibility early." (-:

--
Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

"DerbyDad03" <teama...@eznet.net> wrote in message

news:ad13aa23-841b-4c5e-a172-

<stuff snipped>

<When read that way, you can see why it doesn't make any sense. Once
the houses blew up and the pipes were busted everywhere, I'd be very
surprised if they found a leak since I assume they would shut the gas
off at the nearest (farthest?) point which would prevent any gas from
coming out of the busted pipes.>

Excellent point. With the gas turned off to the entire area, finding an
existing leak would be pretty damn hard. These incidents are bad for the
gas company because for the next year or so, anyone near that area getting
the slightest whiff of the embedded odor will ride them mercilessly.
Speaking of embedding, you've heard the joke about Broadwell being an
embedded journalist (by Petraeus)?

(-:

--
Bobby G.

[DerbyDad03]

dpb <no...@non.net> wrote:
> On 11/13/2012 3:51 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> ...
>
>> That wasn't what I meant. I read that statement to mean that the local
>> utility does not think that a gas leak caused the explosion.
>>
>> "Yes, the houses blew up but we didn't find a gas leak afterwards, so
>> as of now, we don't think that that was the cause."
> ...
>
> Well, I think you're reading far more into it that is there. What are
> they supposed to say before they have had time to do anything but the
> most cursory of inspection? That's what's generally wrong w/
> reporting--they expect answers immediately on things that are simply not
> doable immediately.
>

That was exactly my point. The statement made no sense...I found it hard to
believe that they actually published it.

[harry]

Something goes wrong whilst local/foreign terrorists are constructing
a bomb?
Gas leak from fraccing operation?
Petrol store explosion due to "preparing for doom" believers having
hundreds of gallons on site in dodgy containers.
Leaking propane gas from similar.

[harry]

On Nov 12, 5:10 pm, "EXT" <noem...@reply.in.this.group> wrote:
> "Home Guy" <H...@Guy.com> wrote in messagenews:50A107FA...@Guy.com...

> Natural gas will only explode within a narrow range of concentration, plus
> it is lighter than air and will drift upwards. It also is a "soft"
> explosion, compared to commercial explosives that have a "hard" explosion,
> investigators can identify the difference.
>
> In the Toronto, Canada area, we have had a couple of natural gas explosions
> over the past decade, at first faulty equipment or leaks were blamed. But
> after investigating, it was determined, every one was deliberately set by
> loosening a union or cutting a pipe, either for insurance or to kill
> someone.

There has been quite a few natural gas explosions in the UK have
leveled buildings.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18600446

[harry]

On Nov 13, 3:54 am, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:58:41 -0500, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
> >   I worked a few natural gas explosions in the 70s and this is
> >consistent with what we saw.
>
> Sees as though the home owners were not at home.  They went to a hotel
> because the furnace was broken.  In spite of all the safeguards built
> into gas appliances, someone could have broken a connection and
> allowed a large quantity of gas to leak into the house.

It doesn't take much gas to level a house.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <k7v8cr$6dk$1...@dont-email.me>,

At least in one of the paper's stories, the next sentence was reminder
that the homeowner is responsible after the meter (g)

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <k7v8ct$6dk$2...@dont-email.me>,

Not really. At that point the gas company was looking for leaks in
the mains and laterals.. where they are responsible. The explosion
likely wouldn't have damaged them.

[Robert Green]

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:AMKdnQckqb57GT7N...@earthlink.com...

> In article <k7v8ct$6dk$2...@dont-email.me>,
> "Robert Green" <robert_g...@yah00.com> wrote:
>
> > "DerbyDad03" <teama...@eznet.net> wrote in message
> > news:ad13aa23-841b-4c5e-a172-
> >
> > <stuff snipped>
> >
> > <When read that way, you can see why it doesn't make any sense. Once
> > the houses blew up and the pipes were busted everywhere, I'd be very
> > surprised if they found a leak since I assume they would shut the gas
> > off at the nearest (farthest?) point which would prevent any gas from
> > coming out of the busted pipes.>
> >
> > Excellent point. With the gas turned off to the entire area, finding an
> > existing leak would be pretty damn hard. These incidents are bad for
the
> > gas company because for the next year or so, anyone near that area
getting
> > the slightest whiff of the embedded odor will ride them mercilessly.
> > Speaking of embedding, you've heard the joke about Broadwell being an
> > embedded journalist (by Petraeus)?
> >
>
> Not really. At that point the gas company was looking for leaks in
> the mains and laterals.. where they are responsible. The explosion
> likely wouldn't have damaged them.

Are you saying that they didn't shut down the gas lines feeding into the
area surrounding the blast? That's pretty standard stuff and without gas
flowing through the gas pipes in the neighborhood I don't see how they could
have said there were no gas leaks. You can only locate leaks when the whole
system is pressurized. I think Derby's right when he implies that the
statement was way too early in the investigation to be credible.

--
Bobby G.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <k8068p$ovq$1...@dont-email.me>,

Not at all. They could (and will be able to) pressurize the lines in
the area using plain old air or air mixed with the smelly agent or air
mixed with a smoke agent and tell if there are leaks. They don't have to
pressurize it with gas to check for leaks. YOu can tell just from the
pressure responses. They might have had a couple of meters that they
needed to cap off to keep the pressure up, but it isn't really rocket
science to figure out if a main or the laterals were leaking.

[dpb]

The conclusion you put into their mouths above wasn't anything at all
like what the actual quote was. They didn't say anything about any
conclusion as to what caused it; only that there were no apparent leaks
at that time.

The quote you posted again--"A local gas utility said an initial

inspection found no gas leaks in the area."

It said they found no leaks in an initial inspection. That's fine and
was undoubtedly so. Drawing any other conclusions beyond what it says
is where the problem lies.

At the point when asked and after an "initial" inspection they didn't
have a leak to point a finger at. Doesn't say there wasn't something
prior; doesn't say anything at all about probable cause. Period.

It's making assumptions beyond that that doesn't make any sense.

--

[DerbyDad03]

On Nov 14, 11:09 am, dpb <n...@non.net> wrote:
> On 11/13/2012 11:09 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > dpb<n...@non.net>  wrote:

> --- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Once again, I ask:

What was the point of even making/publishing that statement?

It's akin to the fireman stating - after all of the fires were put out
- "After an initial inspection, nothing was burning" or the electric
utility stating "After an initial inspection, there was no sparking".

It was a pointless statement and served no purpose except to cause
others to make assumptions about why it was said.

[dpb]

On 11/14/2012 3:47 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...

> What was the point of even making/publishing that statement?

...

Well, it was a logical question to ask and it was the response.

It still seems perfectly clear to me on both fronts.

One clearly would wonder if there were evidence of a leak--so the
company rep was asked. At the time, the answer was "no".

If the account isn't published at all you're left wondering when reading
the news account "well, why didn't they ask about gas leaks"? The
answer is they did--that there's just nothing particular to report at
the moment is also worth reporting.

One can only
a) report what is know at the time it is known and then
b) take the content of a statement at what it says and no more.

That it reports no knowledge at a point in time is still some knowledge
of what is and isn't known.

--

[Vic Smith]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:47:10 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
<teama...@eznet.net> wrote:


>
>It was a pointless statement and served no purpose except to cause
>others to make assumptions about why it was said.

You misread the meaning. Though I haven't paid attention to this
incident, when I hear a utility say something like this, my assumption
is it only applies to their mains and service feeds.
IOW, they were able to shut off the entry feeds, tested for leaks in
main and service feeds, and found none.
Sort of saying, "Relax. The sewers aren't about to explode, and the
local area isn't about to become a raging inferno."
That's my read, anyway.

[dpb]

On 11/14/2012 4:29 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
...

> You misread the meaning. Though I haven't paid attention to this
> incident, when I hear a utility say something like this, my assumption
> is it only applies to their mains and service feeds.
> IOW, they were able to shut off the entry feeds, tested for leaks in
> main and service feeds, and found none.
> Sort of saying, "Relax. The sewers aren't about to explode, and the
> local area isn't about to become a raging inferno."
> That's my read, anyway.

+1 Should've probably expounded on that point of reference
earlier--they can't possibly have done forensic-type investigation on
the house in question at the moment...

A situation such as that where can isolate any source as compared to one
out this way where a large salt-cavern storage field leaked from some
injection/retrieval well sites unknownst to operators (for apparently
years). The escaping gas as well as some apparently just lost in the
air migrated along the paths of various pipelines owing to less dense
ground packing around the trenches and air gaps from settling and
eventually there was a big boom in downtown Hutchinson, KS, as several
others including in a mobile home park as well. No way to stop that
supply until it burned out--they actually drilled and lit several
release/flare wells to hasten the process...

--

[Wes Groleau]

On 11-14-2012 16:47, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> What was the point of even making/publishing that statement?

It prevented having two blank lines at the bottom of the column.

--
Wes Groleau

Nobody believes a theoretical analysis — except the guy who did it.
Everybody believes an experimental analysis — except the guy who did it.
— Unknown

[Robert Green]

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:VL6dnd8BMrIiOD7N...@earthlink.com...

Then I would have expected them to say "we found no leaks in the mains"
which is a different animal than saying "we found no leaks." In any event,
it seems premature to exclude the possibility of a leak but completely
within modern legal thinking to disclaim responsibility early and often. (-"

--
Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:AMKdnQQkqb7LGT7N...@earthlink.com...

> In article <k7v8cr$6dk$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Robert Green" <robert_g...@yah00.com> wrote:
>
> > "DerbyDad03" <teama...@eznet.net> wrote in message
> > news:cb4aec8c-c521-47c3-985f-
> > <stuff snipped>
> >
> > <Here's what I don't get:
> >
> > "Officials found two homes totally destroyed with further damage to
> > dozens more."
> >
> > Then...
> >
> > "A local gas utility said an initial inspection found no gas leaks in
> > the area.">
> >
> > That's legalese for "We are denying responsibility early." (-:
> >
> At least in one of the paper's stories, the next sentence was reminder
> that the homeowner is responsible after the meter (g)

That certainly makes sense, with most homeowners being well-equipped to deal
with gas-related issues. NOT.

A few years ago, security cameras captured a live gas explosion at a nearby
shopping center. The explosion here was consistent with the enormous amount
of damage that explosion caused. Oddly enough, the intensity (at least
compared to TNT) was low enough to cause massive property damage but not any
serious injury to people.

--
Bobby G.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <k83vas$hr5$1...@dont-email.me>,

They said exactly that in the local paper. That explains the
difference.

[Steve B]

>> Then I would have expected them to say "we found no leaks in the mains"
>> which is a different animal than saying "we found no leaks." In any
>> event,
>> it seems premature to exclude the possibility of a leak but completely
>> within modern legal thinking to disclaim responsibility early and often.
>> (-"

It seems to me that if there had been a leak in the main, there would have
been a huge conflagration, or at least hundreds or more people complaining
of the smell. Seeing the damage, it seems to be contianed to one house,
with collateral damage caused from that explosion. I do agree that
premature statements both to and by the press are only a symptom of our
current state of affairs among the press, the bringing of "news" to the
public being somewhere waaaaaaaay back there in priorities. Used to be that
people would wait until they got the facts, lest they were sued. Now, it's
jump up there with any old thing to fill the screen.

Steve

[Wes Groleau]

>> > At least in one of the paper's stories, the next sentence was reminder
>> >that the homeowner is responsible after the meter (g)

> That certainly makes sense, with most homeowners being well-equipped to deal
> with gas-related issues. NOT.

In most places I've lived, if you call and say you smell gas,
someone will be there fast.

--
Wes Groleau

“A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and as a
firm and unalterable experience has established these laws,
the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact,
is as entire as could possibly be imagined.”
— David Hume, age 37
“There's no such thing of that, 'cause I never heard of it.”
— Becky Groleau, age 4

[Robert Green]

<denni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6af041b-46e9-4403...@googlegroups.com...
> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 4:35:42 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
>
> > Use a sniffer---the piping has to still be there. Of course, if it's a
> > small leak and buried under the rubble there may not be enough
> > concentration to have found it (yet).
>
> Um, if you blow the f*ck out of a house, it would stand to reason that
some gas supply lines got ripped loose in the blast. Whether the house blew
up from a gas leak or a pile of TNT, there *WILL* be a gas leak now.

>
> > I'm sure if folks will just calm down and let the forensics folks do
> > their thing they'll find the root cause...
>

> Maybe. There have been a lot of "mysterious" house explosions across the
country lately.
> Nobody seems to know exactly why they happened. Gas leak is just a guess.

A lot of the gas delivery infrastructure is getting very old. Shortcuts
that may have been taken during the original installation of the pipe are
now beginning to result in failures, some pretty horrific.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion

<<In January 2011, federal investigators reported that they found numerous
defective welds in the pipeline. The thickness of the pipe varied, and some
welds did not penetrate the pipes completely. As PG&E increased the pressure
in the pipes to meet growing energy demand, the defective welds were further
weakened until their failure. As the pipeline was installed in 1956, modern
testing methods such as X-rays were not available to detect the problem at
that time . . .
On January 13, 2012, an independent audit from the State of California
issued a report stating that PG&E had illegally diverted over $100 million
from a fund used for safety operations, and instead used it for executive
compensation and bonuses.>>

Lots of people don't know they are living very close to 30" high pressure
gas mains that may be over 50 years old.

--
Bobby G.