Bulldozing US Homeland Defence. [Archive]

Jim McLaughlin

June 7th 04, 10:27 AM

"Tamas Feher" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Central/06/05/bulldozer.rampage/index.html
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5139598/
>
> A home-made armored Caterpillar turns Colorado into Palestine?
>
> One and a half hours is not enough to scramble an A-10 Warthog or an
> Apache attack chopper to knock out that concrete-armored caterpillar?
> What the hell the Colorado ANG was doing?
>
> Damn, if the driver was Musa al-Zarqawi, he could crawl all the way to
> Chicago and razor the Sear Tower with confused cops firing pistols
> at him to no avail!
>
> Don't tell me this scenario was unexpected. Some two years ago a drunken
> guy ran amok with an M-60 tank. He was finally stopped by a static
> obstacle, which just like this case, had nothing to do with law
> enforcement.
>
> The incompetence of namby-pamby US authorities ridiculizes America all
> over the world. Waco, Columbine and many other SWAT or anti-terrorist
> operations have been screwed. No matter which agency, US spec-ops just
> suck. Everyone is so diligent about covering his/her ass
> administratively and kevlar-wise that the job never gets done well and
> civilians and officers are getting killed in the end, not to mention the
> resulting PR disaster. It is time to learn from the Russians and the
> Germans.
>
> The governor and the ANG leadership should be fired with regards to this
> bulldozer incident. Sitting idle is not in-line with best american
> tradition!
>

Ahhh, just maybe the military isn't generally used to enforce domestic
law... Posse Comitatus Act and such, controlling use of army and air force
assets in continental US...sort of the idea that the government actually
follows the law...

Yeah, lets fire 'em all for actually following the law.... no real
"Mercun lets little things like law and constitution get in the way of
shooting up some domestic bad 'un!

-- Jim McLaughlin

Please don't just hit the reply key.
Remove the obvious from the address to reply.

Tamas Feher

June 7th 04, 10:46 AM

>Posse Comitatus Act and such

...do not affect the ANG (Air National Guard), of course. You didn't read
the very post you replied to!

Steven James Forsberg

June 7th 04, 01:05 PM

: The incompetence of namby-pamby US authorities ridiculizes America all
: over the world. Waco, Columbine and many other SWAT or anti-terrorist
: operations have been screwed. No matter which agency, US spec-ops just
: suck. Everyone is so diligent about covering his/her ass
: administratively and kevlar-wise that the job never gets done well and
: civilians and officers are getting killed in the end, not to mention the
: resulting PR disaster. It is time to learn from the Russians and the
: Germans.

Learn from the Russians? Oh, yes, they have certainly defused that
whole Chechnya thing. If the Russians had responded to the above incident,
their artillery would have destroyed 3 times as many buildings as the enemy,
they would have shot down an unsuspecting airliner, and the State of Colorado
would be so enraged as to be on the point of secession. Russian interpretation
of Teddy Roosevelt: Talk big, carry a stick, beat yourself with it...

regards,
-------------------------------------------------------

Nicholas Smid

June 7th 04, 01:14 PM

"Tamas Feher" > wrote in message
...
> >Posse Comitatus Act and such
>
> ..do not affect the ANG (Air National Guard), of course. You didn't read
> the very post you replied to!
>
Well given the common side effects of Israils use of air to serface
missiles, for terminating people who dare to disagree with them, sending in
the ANG to blow **** up might well kill more people than letting the idiot
drive around for a while. And given that if the missile so much as musses a
bystanders hair the county sheriff gets sued for his liver and lungs you can
see how they might be a bit reluctant to let the ANG drop bombs all over
their town.
>

Tamas Feher

June 7th 04, 03:01 PM

>>A home-made armored Caterpillar turns Colorado into Palestine?
>>
>Palestine has dead. The authorities ended this one without public
>deaths.

Pure chance. They had no absolutely contact with the madman whatsoever .
If he decided to target a chemical plant and cause a Bhopal-scale
industrial disaster, the cops simply couldn't stop him. In the end an
entire county could get killed.

Fred J. McCall

June 7th 04, 03:02 PM

"Tamas Feher" > wrote:

:http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Central/06/05/bulldozer.rampage/index.html
:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5139598/
:
:A home-made armored Caterpillar turns Colorado into Palestine?
:
:One and a half hours is not enough to scramble an A-10 Warthog or an
:Apache attack chopper to knock out that concrete-armored caterpillar?
:What the hell the Colorado ANG was doing?

They were staying out of what was essentially a law enforcement
situation, as the law requires.

:The governor and the ANG leadership should be fired with regards to this
:bulldozer incident. Sitting idle is not in-line with best american
:tradition!

Neither is using an air strike by military troops for law enforcement
purposes.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Tamas Feher

June 7th 04, 03:08 PM

>they would have shot down an unsuspecting airliner

You mean the ukrainians, about two years ago? That chartered Tu-154 had
five israeli bioweapon "scientists" on-board en route to Russia. They
were such a grave danger to the whole mankind that they needed to be
eliminated at such a huge price in civilians.

You mean the USSR, with KAL-007? There was an US RC-135 in the air,
using the KAL-007 to hide behind it. The laser gyroscope error that led
the Jumbo to fly over soviet territory and super-secret ICBM sites is
certainly strange. You can blame that Jumbo on the CIA, rather than the
soviets.

Yeff

June 7th 04, 03:09 PM

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:08:40 +0200, Tamas Feher wrote:

> You mean the USSR, with KAL-007? There was an US RC-135 in the air,
> using the KAL-007 to hide behind it.

Cobra Ball was on the ground. What are you talking about?

--

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP

June 7th 04, 03:18 PM

"Tamas Feher" > wrote in message
...
> >Posse Comitatus Act and such
>
> ..do not affect the ANG (Air National Guard), of course. You didn't read
> the very post you replied to!

Indeed it *does* affect the Air National Guard. Internal law enforcement is
left to the civil authorities. The national guard would not be involved
unless the governor of the state orders units to respond.

Keith Willshaw

June 7th 04, 03:33 PM

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:01:14 +0200, "Tamas Feher"
> > wrote:
>
> >>>A home-made armored Caterpillar turns Colorado into Palestine?
> >>>
> >>Palestine has dead. The authorities ended this one without public
> >>deaths.
> >
> >Pure chance. They had no absolutely contact with the madman whatsoever .
> >If he decided to target a chemical plant and cause a Bhopal-scale
> >industrial disaster, the cops simply couldn't stop him. In the end an
> >entire county could get killed.
> >
> Do you know enough about the local geography and plants to say
> that this sort of thing is possible?
>
> I worked fifteen years in the CPI and rubber industries. It would
> not be possible in any plant I was involved with. Three of them
> had the potential to make Bhopal look trivial.
>
> To get a major disaster out of a modern process plant, you pretty
> much have to be in the control room. Bhopal and Chernobyl (sp?)
> are examples.

Tear open a line in the wrong place and you have the
potential for a major accident. For example at the outlet
from the furnaces of a cracking unit the gas is above its
self ignition temperature, a fracture here would be VERY
bad news.

In the case of the Flixborough accident in the UK a pressure
vessel was bypassed by the maintenance dept using pipes and bellows units.
Unfortunately the bypass was not properly anchored
and a slug of liquid caused the bypass to tear loose.

Keith

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Prof. Vincent Brannigan

June 7th 04, 03:59 PM

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> "
> > To get a major disaster out of a modern process plant, you pretty
> > much have to be in the control room. Bhopal and Chernobyl (sp?)
> > are examples.
>
> Tear open a line in the wrong place and you have the
> potential for a major accident. For example at the outlet
> from the furnaces of a cracking unit the gas is above its
> self ignition temperature, a fracture here would be VERY
> bad news.
>
> In the case of the Flixborough accident in the UK a pressure
> vessel was bypassed by the maintenance dept using pipes and bellows units.
> Unfortunately the bypass was not properly anchored
> and a slug of liquid caused the bypass to tear loose.

However the idea of targeting the intruder with an air strike is simply ludicrous.
almost any facility vulnerable to damage by a bulldozer causing a disaster would be
much more vulnerable to stray rounds from an air strike.

Vince

Duke of URL

June 7th 04, 04:47 PM

"Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP" > wrote in message
news:mP_wc.12741$HG.7059@attbi_s53...
> "Tamas Feher" > wrote in message
> ...

> > >Posse Comitatus Act and such
> >
> > ..do not affect the ANG (Air National Guard), of course. You didn't read
> > the very post you replied to!
>
> Indeed it *does* affect the Air National Guard. Internal law enforcement
is
> left to the civil authorities. The national guard would not be involved
> unless the governor of the state orders units to respond.

Very small nit: In the event of a *total* breakdown of law and order and the
*total* inability of *all* local law-enforcement agencies to do their jobs,
the Governor *may* declare Martial Law. At that time, he hands over total
control of everything within his State to the State Commander of the
National Guard (the ANG Commander answers to him).
The situation in Granby didn't even equal a pimple on the ass of that size a
monster, so it didn't happen.
--
The One-and-only Holy Moses™

Keith Willshaw

June 7th 04, 05:03 PM

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 15:33:05 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:

> For the plant it might be, and there might be casualties there,
> but, because the gas is over its ignition temperature, it can't
> BLEVE. You get a fire burning the material in the pipe. There
> wouldn't be effect beyond the fence. If the plant systems
> functioned properly, the outage might be less than two weeks.
>
> BTW, how would you go about breaking this line? A buldozer isn't
> going to get there. These lines are fairly robust and plant's
> just in case defenses against leaks are considerable.
>

Oh come on Peter. There are LPG lines all over the dammed
place on any refinery and a major leak is bloody hard
to contain.

Go and look at the report on what happened at
Flixborough

> (I can think of much worse scenarios, but not ones started by a
> bulldozer that begins outside the fence. They start with operator
> or maintenance error compounded by control room error.)
>
> >In the case of the Flixborough accident in the UK a pressure
> >vessel was bypassed by the maintenance dept using pipes and bellows
units.
> >Unfortunately the bypass was not properly anchored
> >and a slug of liquid caused the bypass to tear loose.
> >
> Flixborough happened in 1974. At that time, I was employed by
> DuPont at Maitland ON, a plant that has a very large Cyane
> oxidation unit so we had passing interest in the event. IIRC,
> they were using a temporary bypass that had been constucted
> without engineering assistance. A slug of process fluid, caused
> by a process upset, tore a bellows that was improperly installed.

Gee I just said that

> There was no automatic shut-off upstream. The plant lacked modern
> process controllers[3] and was, even by standards of the day, not
> centrally controlled.
>

Quite so , not that it would have helped much

> The explosion was 15 tons equivalent of the BLEVE [1] type, the
> fire lasted days becuase about 10% of the plant inventory had to
> be allowed to burn out [2]. There was minimal effect past the
> fence.
>

Wrong. Even though the explosion occurred on a rural site
53 members of the public received major injuries and
hundreds more sustained minor injuries. The plant was
destroyed as were several others on the same site and
close to two thousand houses, shops, and factories
were damaged with some 3000 residents being left homeless

> No part of the plant met modern standards.

There are plenty of 1970's pterochem plants
still out there and the best control system in the
world doesnt help when you dump 50 tons of
Cyclohexane into the environment.

> The causes of the
> event were internal to the plant. The process affected was
> obsolete and hazardous at the time and recognized as such.
>

A bulldozer tearing open a line would have
had the same effect.

> The situation you describe is nothing like this. In your case
> vapour burns as soon as it finds an oxidizer, mixing is not
> possible. Shut-offs would function automatically and limit the
> amount of fuel. There will be no big bang, although there would
> be one hell of a whoosh.
>

You are assuming no coincident or consequential damage occurs, this
is a POOR assumption. What structures are being weakened
by that flame and what happens when they fail.

It is such risks that are rarely analysed and often
provide the nasty shock when an incident occurs

One of the worst industrial Bleve's happened on a
french plant where a small fire started at a faulty valve.
Trouble is the flame impinged on a LPG storage sphere

BANG

Keith

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Peter Skelton

June 7th 04, 06:19 PM

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:03:49 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 15:33:05 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>> > wrote:
>
>> For the plant it might be, and there might be casualties there,
>> but, because the gas is over its ignition temperature, it can't
>> BLEVE. You get a fire burning the material in the pipe. There
>> wouldn't be effect beyond the fence. If the plant systems
>> functioned properly, the outage might be less than two weeks.
>>
>> BTW, how would you go about breaking this line? A buldozer isn't
>> going to get there. These lines are fairly robust and plant's
>> just in case defenses against leaks are considerable.
>>
>
>Oh come on Peter. There are LPG lines all over the dammed
>place on any refinery and a major leak is bloody hard
>to contain.
>
The regulations must be drastically different over there.

>Go and look at the report on what happened at
>Flixborough
>
I have, in detail, often, with access to a lot that isn't
generally available.

>> (I can think of much worse scenarios, but not ones started by a
>> bulldozer that begins outside the fence. They start with operator
>> or maintenance error compounded by control room error.)
>>
>> >In the case of the Flixborough accident in the UK a pressure
>> >vessel was bypassed by the maintenance dept using pipes and bellows
>units.
>> >Unfortunately the bypass was not properly anchored
>> >and a slug of liquid caused the bypass to tear loose.
>> >
>> Flixborough happened in 1974. At that time, I was employed by
>> DuPont at Maitland ON, a plant that has a very large Cyane
>> oxidation unit so we had passing interest in the event. IIRC,
>> they were using a temporary bypass that had been constucted
>> without engineering assistance. A slug of process fluid, caused
>> by a process upset, tore a bellows that was improperly installed.
>
>
>Gee I just said that

No, you blamed the accident on failure to anchor a bypass.
>
>> There was no automatic shut-off upstream. The plant lacked modern
>> process controllers[3] and was, even by standards of the day, not
>> centrally controlled.
>>
>
>Quite so , not that it would have helped much
>
It would have ended the fire within fifteen minutes.

>
>> The explosion was 15 tons equivalent of the BLEVE [1] type, the
>> fire lasted days becuase about 10% of the plant inventory had to
>> be allowed to burn out [2]. There was minimal effect past the
>> fence.
>>
>
>Wrong. Even though the explosion occurred on a rural site
>53 members of the public received major injuries and
>hundreds more sustained minor injuries. The plant was
>destroyed as were several others on the same site and
>close to two thousand houses, shops, and factories
>were damaged with some 3000 residents being left homeless
>
>
>> No part of the plant met modern standards.
>
>There are plenty of 1970's pterochem plants
>still out there and the best control system in the
>world doesnt help when you dump 50 tons of
>Cyclohexane into the environment.
>
There aren't may fifties plants out there and there aren't any at
all that will dump fifty tons of cyane from a pipe rupture.

> > The causes of the
>> event were internal to the plant. The process affected was
>> obsolete and hazardous at the time and recognized as such.
>>
>
>A bulldozer tearing open a line would have
>had the same effect.
>
How do you get the bulldozer to the line? Then how do you get the
line to dump much more than its contents? And who still oxidizes
cyane outside a collum?

>> The situation you describe is nothing like this. In your case
>> vapour burns as soon as it finds an oxidizer, mixing is not
>> possible. Shut-offs would function automatically and limit the
>> amount of fuel. There will be no big bang, although there would
>> be one hell of a whoosh.
>>
>
>You are assuming no coincident or consequential damage occurs, this
>is a POOR assumption. What structures are being weakened
>by that flame and what happens when they fail.

No an awfull lot. That's what the controlls are about.

BTW, I'm assuming the builldozer doesn't get far into the plant.
It's not all that easy to do here.

>It is such risks that are rarely analysed and often
>provide the nasty shock when an incident occurs
>
>One of the worst industrial Bleve's happened on a
>french plant where a small fire started at a faulty valve.
>Trouble is the flame impinged on a LPG storage sphere
>
>BANG
>

You've still not dealt with the basic question. Which is whether
there was a chemical plant near the incident that was so grossly
mis-constructed and mis-managed as to be vulnerable to such an
attack.

The furnace scenario you chose shows little understanding of
explosions or chemical plants. The plant you chose is ludicrously
different from existing types.

The CPI is not immune to accident. There have been many, there
will be more but this is a low-probablility scenario. In the case
at question, calling in an air strike because of the possibility
that the bulldozer might enter a chemical plant and do mischief,
I'll stick with what they decided to do.

Peter Skelton

Jim McLaughlin

June 7th 04, 07:58 PM

"Tamas Feher" > wrote in message
...
> >Posse Comitatus Act and such
>
> ..do not affect the ANG (Air National Guard), of course. You didn't read
> the very post you replied to!
>
>

Thank you for confirming that you haven't the faintest idea what you are
talking about.

--
Jim McLaughlin

Please don't just hit the reply key.
Remove the obvious from the address to reply.

************************************************** *************************

Kevin Brooks

June 7th 04, 07:59 PM

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:03:49 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:

<snip>

> >Go and look at the report on what happened at
> >Flixborough
> >
> I have, in detail, often, with access to a lot that isn't
> generally available.

Bingo. Another claim of access to information not available to the rest of
us--to go along with prior claims of attending sensitive briefings on what
US personnel were doing with the contras in Nicaragua, and battle update
briefings with a command that had troops engaged in Afghanistan? And you
wonder why more and more folks don't believe you?

<snip>

> >> The explosion was 15 tons equivalent of the BLEVE [1] type, the
> >> fire lasted days becuase about 10% of the plant inventory had to
> >> be allowed to burn out [2]. There was minimal effect past the
> >> fence.

Gee, with all that access to information, you did not realize the true
extent of offsite damage and injury, as we can see from Keith's response
below...amazing, huh?

> >>
> >
> >Wrong. Even though the explosion occurred on a rural site
> >53 members of the public received major injuries and
> >hundreds more sustained minor injuries. The plant was
> >destroyed as were several others on the same site and
> >close to two thousand houses, shops, and factories
> >were damaged with some 3000 residents being left homeless
> >

<snip>

Brooks

Keith Willshaw

June 7th 04, 08:31 PM

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:03:49 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>

> >
> >Oh come on Peter. There are LPG lines all over the dammed
> >place on any refinery and a major leak is bloody hard
> >to contain.
> >
> The regulations must be drastically different over there.
>

LPG cant read

> >Go and look at the report on what happened at
> >Flixborough
> >
> I have, in detail, often, with access to a lot that isn't
> generally available.
>

Yeah right, I only read the official report and work
on reliability and failure studies for a living, what would
I know ?

More than you it seems since I knew the full extent of the
damage.

> >> (I can think of much worse scenarios, but not ones started by a
> >> bulldozer that begins outside the fence. They start with operator
> >> or maintenance error compounded by control room error.)
> >>
> >> >In the case of the Flixborough accident in the UK a pressure
> >> >vessel was bypassed by the maintenance dept using pipes and bellows
> >units.
> >> >Unfortunately the bypass was not properly anchored
> >> >and a slug of liquid caused the bypass to tear loose.
> >> >
> >> Flixborough happened in 1974. At that time, I was employed by
> >> DuPont at Maitland ON, a plant that has a very large Cyane
> >> oxidation unit so we had passing interest in the event. IIRC,
> >> they were using a temporary bypass that had been constucted
> >> without engineering assistance. A slug of process fluid, caused
> >> by a process upset, tore a bellows that was improperly installed.
> >
> >
> >Gee I just said that
>
> No, you blamed the accident on failure to anchor a bypass.

Which is functionally identical to what you posted.

Did you even read it ?

> >
> >> There was no automatic shut-off upstream. The plant lacked modern
> >> process controllers[3] and was, even by standards of the day, not
> >> centrally controlled.
> >>
> >
> >Quite so , not that it would have helped much
> >
> It would have ended the fire within fifteen minutes.
>

Only if it were still functional after the initial explosion, given the
scale of the damage done by what was to all intents a 50 ton
FAE thats unlikely. The issue is moot however since the major
damage was done by the initial explosion

> >
> >> The explosion was 15 tons equivalent of the BLEVE [1] type, the
> >> fire lasted days becuase about 10% of the plant inventory had to
> >> be allowed to burn out [2]. There was minimal effect past the
> >> fence.
> >>
> >
> >Wrong. Even though the explosion occurred on a rural site
> >53 members of the public received major injuries and
> >hundreds more sustained minor injuries. The plant was
> >destroyed as were several others on the same site and
> >close to two thousand houses, shops, and factories
> >were damaged with some 3000 residents being left homeless
> >
> >
> >> No part of the plant met modern standards.
> >
> >There are plenty of 1970's pterochem plants
> >still out there and the best control system in the
> >world doesnt help when you dump 50 tons of
> >Cyclohexane into the environment.
> >
> There aren't may fifties plants out there and there aren't any at
> all that will dump fifty tons of cyane from a pipe rupture.
>

There are lots of plants built in 60's and 70's

> > > The causes of the
> >> event were internal to the plant. The process affected was
> >> obsolete and hazardous at the time and recognized as such.
> >>
> >
> >A bulldozer tearing open a line would have
> >had the same effect.
> >
> How do you get the bulldozer to the line?

How you ever actually seen a pipe trench ?

> Then how do you get the
> line to dump much more than its contents?

Have you ever calculated how much Cyclohexane
a 14" line 1000 m long contains ?

Try it , just for kicks.

> And who still oxidizes
> cyane outside a collum?
>

It was cyclohexane and its widely used in the production
of Nylon, and any leak is highly likely to oxidise externally.

> >> The situation you describe is nothing like this. In your case
> >> vapour burns as soon as it finds an oxidizer, mixing is not
> >> possible. Shut-offs would function automatically and limit the
> >> amount of fuel. There will be no big bang, although there would
> >> be one hell of a whoosh.
> >>
> >
> >You are assuming no coincident or consequential damage occurs, this
> >is a POOR assumption. What structures are being weakened
> >by that flame and what happens when they fail.
>
> No an awfull lot. That's what the controlls are about.
>

Controls dont stop steel losing its structural strength
in a fire

> BTW, I'm assuming the builldozer doesn't get far into the plant.
> It's not all that easy to do here.
>

Bull**** Peter, all that protects most plant are earth bunds and
chain link wire fences

> >It is such risks that are rarely analysed and often
> >provide the nasty shock when an incident occurs
> >
> >One of the worst industrial Bleve's happened on a
> >french plant where a small fire started at a faulty valve.
> >Trouble is the flame impinged on a LPG storage sphere
> >
> >BANG
> >
>
> You've still not dealt with the basic question. Which is whether
> there was a chemical plant near the incident that was so grossly
> mis-constructed and mis-managed as to be vulnerable to such an
> attack.
>

I responded to a claim that it couldnt happen - IT CAN

> The furnace scenario you chose shows little understanding of
> explosions or chemical plants.

Really , care to dispute the facts ?

> The plant you chose is ludicrously
> different from existing types.
>

Peter I have worked in this industry since I was 16, I have
seen 2 major Petrochemical incidents and investigated many
others. One of those included a major fire and explosion
caused by a mobile crane striking a pipe bridge.

Go find your Granny and teach her to suck eggs.

> The CPI is not immune to accident. There have been many, there
> will be more but this is a low-probablility scenario. In the case
> at question, calling in an air strike because of the possibility
> that the bulldozer might enter a chemical plant and do mischief,
> I'll stick with what they decided to do.
>

So will I but that doesnt eliminate the potential risk from a
bulldozer or any other piece of heavy plant.

Keith

Peter Skelton

June 7th 04, 09:37 PM

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:59:36 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:03:49 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>> > wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >Go and look at the report on what happened at
>> >Flixborough
>> >
>> I have, in detail, often, with access to a lot that isn't
>> generally available.
>
>Bingo. Another claim of access to information not available to the rest of
>us--to go along with prior claims of attending sensitive briefings on what
>US personnel were doing with the contras in Nicaragua, and battle update
>briefings with a command that had troops engaged in Afghanistan? And you
>wonder why more and more folks don't believe you?
>

I expalined quite directly why I had deeper knowledge than
generally available. Anybody who worked at Maitland or the Texas
plant (Victoria?) had the same. As you snipped that, I conclude
you're up to your old bull again, removing context so that you
can invent some. You've recently proven yourself grossly
dishonest three times, isn't that enough?

><snip>
>
>> >> The explosion was 15 tons equivalent of the BLEVE [1] type, the
>> >> fire lasted days becuase about 10% of the plant inventory had to
>> >> be allowed to burn out [2]. There was minimal effect past the
>> >> fence.
>
>Gee, with all that access to information, you did not realize the true
>extent of offsite damage and injury, as we can see from Keith's response
>below...amazing, huh?
>
I certainly had a senior moment there. Kieth handled it nicely.
Do you have anything to contribute?

>> >>
>> >
>> >Wrong. Even though the explosion occurred on a rural site
>> >53 members of the public received major injuries and
>> >hundreds more sustained minor injuries. The plant was
>> >destroyed as were several others on the same site and
>> >close to two thousand houses, shops, and factories
>> >were damaged with some 3000 residents being left homeless
>> >
>

Peter Skelton

Steven James Forsberg

June 7th 04, 10:04 PM

: You mean the ukrainians, about two years ago? That chartered Tu-154 had
: five israeli bioweapon "scientists" on-board en route to Russia. They
: were such a grave danger to the whole mankind that they needed to be
: eliminated at such a huge price in civilians.

: You mean the USSR, with KAL-007? There was an US RC-135 in the air,
: using the KAL-007 to hide behind it. The laser gyroscope error that led
: the Jumbo to fly over soviet territory and super-secret ICBM sites is
: certainly strange. You can blame that Jumbo on the CIA, rather than the
: soviets.

Actually I was thinking about Israel (a nation filled with Russians)
shooting down an Egyptian airliner. And no doubt the rooskies had a hand in
that whole 'Vincennes' thing... :-)

regards,
---------------------------------------------------

Keith Willshaw

June 7th 04, 11:57 PM

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 20:31:42 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>

> >> >Gee I just said that
> >>
> >> No, you blamed the accident on failure to anchor a bypass.
> >
> >Which is functionally identical to what you posted.
> >
> >Did you even read it ?
> >
> Yes, the functional equivalency is only at the level of escaped
> material. This is not a crucial point, can we move on?

No we cant

The acident happened because when a Reactor was
taken out of service a bypass consisting of sections of pipe
and bellows units was put in its place. This rested on temporary
scaffolding and the load from the liquid slug ruptured the bellows.

http://www.cheresources.com/procacc.shtml

> >
> >> >
> >> >> There was no automatic shut-off upstream. The plant lacked modern
> >> >> process controllers[3] and was, even by standards of the day, not
> >> >> centrally controlled.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Quite so , not that it would have helped much
> >> >
> >> It would have ended the fire within fifteen minutes.
> >>
>
> >Only if it were still functional after the initial explosion, given the
> >scale of the damage done by what was to all intents a 50 ton
> >FAE thats unlikely. The issue is moot however since the major
> >damage was done by the initial explosion
> >
> I doubt there'd have been an explosion of anythihg like that
> magnitude.

There was , read the bloody report.

> A lot of material had to leak fast.

It did, , read the bloody report.

> A leak of that
> size should automatically close both the upstream and downstream
> valves.
>

What upstream and downstream valves ?

> >> >
> >> >> The explosion was 15 tons equivalent of the BLEVE [1] type, the
> >> >> fire lasted days becuase about 10% of the plant inventory had to
> >> >> be allowed to burn out [2]. There was minimal effect past the
> >> >> fence.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Wrong. Even though the explosion occurred on a rural site
> >> >53 members of the public received major injuries and
> >> >hundreds more sustained minor injuries. The plant was
> >> >destroyed as were several others on the same site and
> >> >close to two thousand houses, shops, and factories
> >> >were damaged with some 3000 residents being left homeless
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> No part of the plant met modern standards.
> >> >
> >> >There are plenty of 1970's pterochem plants
> >> >still out there and the best control system in the
> >> >world doesnt help when you dump 50 tons of
> >> >Cyclohexane into the environment.
> >> >
> >> There aren't may fifties plants out there and there aren't any at
> >> all that will dump fifty tons of cyane from a pipe rupture.
> >>
> >
> >There are lots of plants built in 60's and 70's
> >
> Certainly. When was this one built?

You mean your sekrit info didnt include that fact ?

Funny the official report did,

> Incidentally there are lots
> of fifties plants still running but few of them have any original
> process equipment still running. Fewer still use original
> controll equipment. (I should have phrased my original comment
> better.)
>

You should have kept quiet,

> >
> >> > > The causes of the
> >> >> event were internal to the plant. The process affected was
> >> >> obsolete and hazardous at the time and recognized as such.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >A bulldozer tearing open a line would have
> >> >had the same effect.
> >> >
> >> How do you get the bulldozer to the line?
> >
> >How you ever actually seen a pipe trench ?
> >
> We use bridges over here. The reason is frost, or so I was told,
> but they use bridges in the southern states too.
>

Bull****, trenches and bridges are used everywhere. Bridges
are used to cross stuuf like roads, thats why they call em bridges

> I think I'd better explain a bit. To aproach Maitland Works, or
> Polysar, you've pretty much got to go in at a gate because the
> ditches at the road are substantial. The gate is no real barrier
> (and I've used a loose definition of "at" because the fencing
> between the parking lot and the plant is ordinary chain link.)
> Most plants are similar.
>

So no real barrier at all in fact

> The plants are pretty spread out. At Miatland, it's about a
> fifteen minute walk from the gate to the Cyane tower, and farther
> to the other nasty processes and the tank farm. Ten minutes would
> suffice (in 1975) to render the tower (really the associated
> piping) safe, so even if the event started in the parking lot,
> they should be able to handle the situation. Polysar is more
> spread out and easier to shut down.
>

A LOT can happen in 10 seconds let alone 10 minutes

> >> Then how do you get the
> >> line to dump much more than its contents?
> >
> >Have you ever calculated how much Cyclohexane
> >a 14" line 1000 m long contains ?
> >
> >Try it , just for kicks.
> >
> Try to find an continuous kilometer long pipe in a modern,
> North-American plant. Besides, without the pressure, you don't
> get the explosion.
>

Jeesus Petey you've just been telling us how big the plants
you worked on were, get a grip will ya.

> >> And who still oxidizes
> >> cyane outside a collum?
> >>
> >
> >It was cyclohexane and its widely used in the production
> >of Nylon, and any leak is highly likely to oxidise externally.
> >
> Maitland Words is nylon intermediates plant. Cyane and
> cyclohexane are synonyms here (is it different in Europe?).
> Cyclohexane is slighjtly less nasty than high test gasoline.
>

Which is like saying arsenic isnt as bad as cyanide.

> >> >> The situation you describe is nothing like this. In your case
> >> >> vapour burns as soon as it finds an oxidizer, mixing is not
> >> >> possible. Shut-offs would function automatically and limit the
> >> >> amount of fuel. There will be no big bang, although there would
> >> >> be one hell of a whoosh.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >You are assuming no coincident or consequential damage occurs, this
> >> >is a POOR assumption. What structures are being weakened
> >> >by that flame and what happens when they fail.
> >>
> >> No an awfull lot. That's what the controlls are about.
> >>
> >
> >Controls dont stop steel losing its structural strength
> >in a fire
> >
> No, they limit the duration and intensity of the fire.
>

Maybe, maybe not.

> >> BTW, I'm assuming the builldozer doesn't get far into the plant.
> >> It's not all that easy to do here.
> >>
> >
> >Bull**** Peter, all that protects most plant are earth bunds and
> >chain link wire fences
> >
> Not bull****, as I explained above.
>

Quote "The gate is no real barrier"

> >> >It is such risks that are rarely analysed and often
> >> >provide the nasty shock when an incident occurs
> >> >
> >> >One of the worst industrial Bleve's happened on a
> >> >french plant where a small fire started at a faulty valve.
> >> >Trouble is the flame impinged on a LPG storage sphere
> >> >
> >> >BANG
> >> >
> >>
> >> You've still not dealt with the basic question. Which is whether
> >> there was a chemical plant near the incident that was so grossly
> >> mis-constructed and mis-managed as to be vulnerable to such an
> >> attack.
> >>
> >
> >I responded to a claim that it couldnt happen - IT CAN
> >
> I think you might have misread the claim or I might have mistyped
> it.
>
> >> The furnace scenario you chose shows little understanding of
> >> explosions or chemical plants.
> >
> >Really , care to dispute the facts ?
> >
> I did. You snipped it without comment.
>

I'll take that as a no

> >> The plant you chose is ludicrously
> >> different from existing types.
> >>
> >
> >Peter I have worked in this industry since I was 16, I have
> >seen 2 major Petrochemical incidents and investigated many
> >others. One of those included a major fire and explosion
> >caused by a mobile crane striking a pipe bridge.
> >
> >Go find your Granny and teach her to suck eggs.
> >
> You too. Care to try to tell me that F was like a modern plant?

It had cyclohexane lines, so do modern plants.

> I've already dealt with that at some length.
>

Evasion doesnt count

Keith

Peter Skelton

June 8th 04, 03:01 AM

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:57:31 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 20:31:42 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>> > wrote:
>>
>
>> >> >Gee I just said that
>> >>
>> >> No, you blamed the accident on failure to anchor a bypass.
>> >
>> >Which is functionally identical to what you posted.
>> >
>> >Did you even read it ?
>> >
>> Yes, the functional equivalency is only at the level of escaped
>> material. This is not a crucial point, can we move on?
>
>No we cant
>
>The acident happened because when a Reactor was
>taken out of service a bypass consisting of sections of pipe
>and bellows units was put in its place. This rested on temporary
>scaffolding and the load from the liquid slug ruptured the bellows.
>
>http://www.cheresources.com/procacc.shtml
>
>
>
>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> There was no automatic shut-off upstream. The plant lacked modern
>> >> >> process controllers[3] and was, even by standards of the day, not
>> >> >> centrally controlled.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Quite so , not that it would have helped much
>> >> >
>> >> It would have ended the fire within fifteen minutes.
>> >>
>>
>> >Only if it were still functional after the initial explosion, given the
>> >scale of the damage done by what was to all intents a 50 ton
>> >FAE thats unlikely. The issue is moot however since the major
>> >damage was done by the initial explosion
>> >
>> I doubt there'd have been an explosion of anythihg like that
>> magnitude.
>
>There was , read the bloody report.
>
??????? There was? this is a sequence that did *not* happen. You
might argue that there would have been, but what you typed is
nonsense.

>> A lot of material had to leak fast.
>
>It did, , read the bloody report.
>
See above

>> A leak of that
>> size should automatically close both the upstream and downstream
>> valves.
>>
>
>What upstream and downstream valves ?
>
We're talking here about the effect of valves that were not in
the system. Here's the important text, copied from above:
---
>> >> >> There was no automatic shut-off upstream. The plant lacked modern
>> >> >> process controllers[3] and was, even by standards of the day, not
>> >> >> centrally controlled.
>> >> >>
----
>> >> >
>> >> >> The explosion was 15 tons equivalent of the BLEVE [1] type, the
>> >> >> fire lasted days becuase about 10% of the plant inventory had to
>> >> >> be allowed to burn out [2]. There was minimal effect past the
>> >> >> fence.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Wrong. Even though the explosion occurred on a rural site
>> >> >53 members of the public received major injuries and
>> >> >hundreds more sustained minor injuries. The plant was
>> >> >destroyed as were several others on the same site and
>> >> >close to two thousand houses, shops, and factories
>> >> >were damaged with some 3000 residents being left homeless
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> No part of the plant met modern standards.
>> >> >
>> >> >There are plenty of 1970's pterochem plants
>> >> >still out there and the best control system in the
>> >> >world doesnt help when you dump 50 tons of
>> >> >Cyclohexane into the environment.
>> >> >
>> >> There aren't may fifties plants out there and there aren't any at
>> >> all that will dump fifty tons of cyane from a pipe rupture.
>> >>
>> >
>> >There are lots of plants built in 60's and 70's
>> >
>> Certainly. When was this one built?
>
>You mean your sekrit info didnt include that fact ?
>
I did not say secret. Go back and look.

>Funny the official report did,
>
Sure it did. As you refuse to answer the question I am free to
assume that you've never seen it. (Sauce for the goose. . .)

>> Incidentally there are lots
>> of fifties plants still running but few of them have any original
>> process equipment still running. Fewer still use original
>> controll equipment. (I should have phrased my original comment
>> better.)
>>
>
>You should have kept quiet,
>
I can't see why. So far I've not been corrected on anything
except for a major brain fart I long since admitted.

>> >
>> >> > > The causes of the
>> >> >> event were internal to the plant. The process affected was
>> >> >> obsolete and hazardous at the time and recognized as such.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >A bulldozer tearing open a line would have
>> >> >had the same effect.
>> >> >
>> >> How do you get the bulldozer to the line?
>> >
>> >How you ever actually seen a pipe trench ?
>> >
>> We use bridges over here. The reason is frost, or so I was told,
>> but they use bridges in the southern states too.
>>
>
>Bull****, trenches and bridges are used everywhere. Bridges
>are used to cross stuuf like roads, thats why they call em bridges
>
Have you seen a North American plant?

>
>> I think I'd better explain a bit. To aproach Maitland Works, or
>> Polysar, you've pretty much got to go in at a gate because the
>> ditches at the road are substantial. The gate is no real barrier
>> (and I've used a loose definition of "at" because the fencing
>> between the parking lot and the plant is ordinary chain link.)
>> Most plants are similar.
>>
>
>So no real barrier at all in fact
>
Certainly, read on.

>
>> The plants are pretty spread out. At Miatland, it's about a
>> fifteen minute walk from the gate to the Cyane tower, and farther
>> to the other nasty processes and the tank farm. Ten minutes would
>> suffice (in 1975) to render the tower (really the associated
>> piping) safe, so even if the event started in the parking lot,
>> they should be able to handle the situation. Polysar is more
>> spread out and easier to shut down.
>>
>
>A LOT can happen in 10 seconds let alone 10 minutes
>
Yes but there's clearly time to deal with this sort of incursion
which is the point. An air-strike is clearly not called for.

>
>> >> Then how do you get the
>> >> line to dump much more than its contents?
>> >
>> >Have you ever calculated how much Cyclohexane
>> >a 14" line 1000 m long contains ?
>> >
>> >Try it , just for kicks.
>> >
>> Try to find an continuous kilometer long pipe in a modern,
>> North-American plant. Besides, without the pressure, you don't
>> get the explosion.
>>
>
>Jeesus Petey you've just been telling us how big the plants
>you worked on were, get a grip will ya.
>
They just don't run lines (at least of hazardous stuff) that far
inside a plant without valving these days. There was a lot of
retrofitting in the eighties, I doubt many plants still need it.

>> >> And who still oxidizes
>> >> cyane outside a collum?
>> >>
>> >
>> >It was cyclohexane and its widely used in the production
>> >of Nylon, and any leak is highly likely to oxidise externally.
>> >
>> Maitland Words is nylon intermediates plant. Cyane and
>> cyclohexane are synonyms here (is it different in Europe?).
>> Cyclohexane is slighjtly less nasty than high test gasoline.
>>
>
>Which is like saying arsenic isnt as bad as cyanide.
>
So you admit cyane and cyclohexane are the same. Now tell us how
gasoline (or cyane) is likely to oxidize externally.

You shudda kept your trap shut.
>
>> >> >> The situation you describe is nothing like this. In your case
>> >> >> vapour burns as soon as it finds an oxidizer, mixing is not
>> >> >> possible. Shut-offs would function automatically and limit the
>> >> >> amount of fuel. There will be no big bang, although there would
>> >> >> be one hell of a whoosh.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >You are assuming no coincident or consequential damage occurs, this
>> >> >is a POOR assumption. What structures are being weakened
>> >> >by that flame and what happens when they fail.
>> >>
>> >> No an awfull lot. That's what the controlls are about.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Controls dont stop steel losing its structural strength
>> >in a fire
>> >
>> No, they limit the duration and intensity of the fire.
>>
>Maybe, maybe not.
>
That's life. Would you call an air strike in a populated area on
the chance they won'r function?

>> >> BTW, I'm assuming the builldozer doesn't get far into the plant.
>> >> It's not all that easy to do here.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Bull**** Peter, all that protects most plant are earth bunds and
>> >chain link wire fences
>> >
>> Not bull****, as I explained above.
>>
>
>Quote "The gate is no real barrier"
>
Quote "Certainly, read on." I made the point about no real
barrier myself and clearly. That's because barrier isn't the
issue, distance/time is.

>> >> >It is such risks that are rarely analysed and often
>> >> >provide the nasty shock when an incident occurs
>> >> >
>> >> >One of the worst industrial Bleve's happened on a
>> >> >french plant where a small fire started at a faulty valve.
>> >> >Trouble is the flame impinged on a LPG storage sphere
>> >> >
>> >> >BANG
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> You've still not dealt with the basic question. Which is whether
>> >> there was a chemical plant near the incident that was so grossly
>> >> mis-constructed and mis-managed as to be vulnerable to such an
>> >> attack.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I responded to a claim that it couldnt happen - IT CAN
>> >
>> I think you might have misread the claim or I might have mistyped
>> it.
>>
>> >> The furnace scenario you chose shows little understanding of
>> >> explosions or chemical plants.
>> >
>> >Really , care to dispute the facts ?
>> >
>> I did. You snipped it without comment.
>>
>
>I'll take that as a no
>
Given that what I said is an explicit "yes", I think you're
erring.

>> >> The plant you chose is ludicrously
>> >> different from existing types.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Peter I have worked in this industry since I was 16, I have
>> >seen 2 major Petrochemical incidents and investigated many
>> >others. One of those included a major fire and explosion
>> >caused by a mobile crane striking a pipe bridge.
>> >
>> >Go find your Granny and teach her to suck eggs.
>> >
>> You too. Care to try to tell me that F was like a modern plant?
>
>It had cyclohexane lines, so do modern plants.
>
DOH
>
>> I've already dealt with that at some length.
>>
>
>Evasion doesnt count
>
Evasion ot what?

Peter Skelton

Paul J. Adam

June 8th 04, 03:04 AM

In message >, Keith Willshaw
> writes
>In the case of the Flixborough accident in the UK a pressure
>vessel was bypassed by the maintenance dept using pipes and bellows units.
>Unfortunately the bypass was not properly anchored
>and a slug of liquid caused the bypass to tear loose.

How do you prevent this with an air strike?

(FWIW I was too young to remember, but I lived on the edge of S****horpe
at the time: I'm told I was playing outside when my father heard the
explosion, heard the windows rattle, and ran out to see a mushroom cloud
rising. It left quite a mark on him mentally, as he gladly admits, but
did him no physical harm whatsoever)

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Nicholas Smid

June 8th 04, 04:43 AM

"Tamas Feher" > wrote in message
...
> >>A home-made armored Caterpillar turns Colorado into Palestine?
> >>
> >Palestine has dead. The authorities ended this one without public
> >deaths.
>
> Pure chance. They had no absolutely contact with the madman whatsoever .
> If he decided to target a chemical plant and cause a Bhopal-scale
> industrial disaster, the cops simply couldn't stop him. In the end an
> entire county could get killed.
>
Even if it was possible at a few MPH it will take a long time for an
armoured Bulldozer to get to the plant. Well the cops might well let you
drive around a low rise part of town they have evacuated untill you brake
down, get bored or cap yourself if you are heading for a major chem plant
they will stop you. And no need to call in air strikes, a cop in a truck
crashing into the rear idler/drive sproket will stop any Bulldozer just
fine. Failing that a few petrol bombs will do the job at no risk to a cop.
>

Kevin Brooks

June 8th 04, 05:44 AM

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:59:36 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:03:49 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> >> > wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> >Go and look at the report on what happened at
> >> >Flixborough
> >> >
> >> I have, in detail, often, with access to a lot that isn't
> >> generally available.
> >
> >Bingo. Another claim of access to information not available to the rest
of
> >us--to go along with prior claims of attending sensitive briefings on
what
> >US personnel were doing with the contras in Nicaragua, and battle update
> >briefings with a command that had troops engaged in Afghanistan? And you
> >wonder why more and more folks don't believe you?
> >
>
> I expalined quite directly why I had deeper knowledge than
> generally available. Anybody who worked at Maitland or the Texas
> plant (Victoria?) had the same. As you snipped that, I conclude
> you're up to your old bull again, removing context so that you
> can invent some. You've recently proven yourself grossly
> dishonest three times, isn't that enough?

No, Keith has demonstrated quite amply that you are clueless regarding the
incident at hand, not to mention of questionable veracity regarding the
subject in general, despite your, as he put it "sekret" information...
Sounds like just another example of your trying to pad your background a bit
too much, and as I noted, it ain't the first time you have been caught out
like this.

>
> ><snip>
> >
> >> >> The explosion was 15 tons equivalent of the BLEVE [1] type, the
> >> >> fire lasted days becuase about 10% of the plant inventory had to
> >> >> be allowed to burn out [2]. There was minimal effect past the
> >> >> fence.
> >
> >Gee, with all that access to information, you did not realize the true
> >extent of offsite damage and injury, as we can see from Keith's response
> >below...amazing, huh?
> >
> I certainly had a senior moment there. Kieth handled it nicely.
> Do you have anything to contribute?

Yeah. Keith did indeed "handle it nicely"; he made you out to be full of
bovine fecal materiel in spite of all that "sekret" stuff you have lying
about and you apparently haven't caught on to it as of yet.

Brooks

>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Wrong. Even though the explosion occurred on a rural site
> >> >53 members of the public received major injuries and
> >> >hundreds more sustained minor injuries. The plant was
> >> >destroyed as were several others on the same site and
> >> >close to two thousand houses, shops, and factories
> >> >were damaged with some 3000 residents being left homeless
> >> >
> >
>
>
> Peter Skelton

Keith Willshaw

June 8th 04, 09:19 AM

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:57:31 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>

> >> >Only if it were still functional after the initial explosion, given
the
> >> >scale of the damage done by what was to all intents a 50 ton
> >> >FAE thats unlikely. The issue is moot however since the major
> >> >damage was done by the initial explosion
> >> >
> >> I doubt there'd have been an explosion of anythihg like that
> >> magnitude.
> >
> >There was , read the bloody report.
> >
> ??????? There was? this is a sequence that did *not* happen. You
> might argue that there would have been, but what you typed is
> nonsense.
>

From the report

"Approximately 50 tons of cyclohexane was released, mixed with air, and
exploded"

> >> A lot of material had to leak fast.
> >
> >It did, , read the bloody report.
> >
> See above
>

I repeat from the report
"Approximately 50 tons of cyclohexane was released, mixed with air, and
exploded"

Are you going to turn into Tarver now ?

Continually denying that a large explosion occurred
is not smart given the incontrovertible evidence that
it did.

Keith

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Keith Willshaw

June 8th 04, 09:19 AM

Keith Willshaw

June 8th 04, 09:19 AM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Keith Willshaw
> > writes
> >In the case of the Flixborough accident in the UK a pressure
> >vessel was bypassed by the maintenance dept using pipes and bellows
units.
> >Unfortunately the bypass was not properly anchored
> >and a slug of liquid caused the bypass to tear loose.
>
> How do you prevent this with an air strike?
>

You dont and I have never suggested otherwise

Keith

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Peter Skelton

June 8th 04, 11:24 AM

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 00:44:39 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:59:36 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:03:49 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> >Go and look at the report on what happened at
>> >> >Flixborough
>> >> >
>> >> I have, in detail, often, with access to a lot that isn't
>> >> generally available.
>> >
>> >Bingo. Another claim of access to information not available to the rest
>of
>> >us--to go along with prior claims of attending sensitive briefings on
>what
>> >US personnel were doing with the contras in Nicaragua, and battle update
>> >briefings with a command that had troops engaged in Afghanistan? And you
>> >wonder why more and more folks don't believe you?
>> >
>>
>> I expalined quite directly why I had deeper knowledge than
>> generally available. Anybody who worked at Maitland or the Texas
>> plant (Victoria?) had the same. As you snipped that, I conclude
>> you're up to your old bull again, removing context so that you
>> can invent some. You've recently proven yourself grossly
>> dishonest three times, isn't that enough?
>
>No, Keith has demonstrated quite amply that you are clueless regarding the
>incident at hand, not to mention of questionable veracity regarding the
>subject in general, despite your, as he put it "sekret" information...
>Sounds like just another example of your trying to pad your background a bit
>too much, and as I noted, it ain't the first time you have been caught out
>like this.
>
I'm not going to argue about Kieth with you. You've been caught
yourself more than once recently, as I said. As usual, you have
nothing to contribute. I have two choices, switch things back to
one of your idiot statements, like the bit about artillery
hitting without knowing where the target is, or ignoring you.
I'll take the second.
>>

Peter Skelton

June 8th 04, 12:54 PM

Disagree with them? ROFLOL if you call sending people to blow up busses
and all that are in them disagreements then you need to get to some anger
management classes fast!

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com

and

http://www.stopfcc.com

"Nicholas Smid" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tamas Feher" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Posse Comitatus Act and such
> >
> > ..do not affect the ANG (Air National Guard), of course. You didn't read
> > the very post you replied to!
> >
> Well given the common side effects of Israils use of air to serface
> missiles, for terminating people who dare to disagree with them, sending
in
> the ANG to blow **** up might well kill more people than letting the idiot
> drive around for a while. And given that if the missile so much as musses
a
> bystanders hair the county sheriff gets sued for his liver and lungs you
can
> see how they might be a bit reluctant to let the ANG drop bombs all over
> their town.
> >
>
>

June 8th 04, 12:56 PM

you mean Israeli tourists and Russians living in Israel returning home!

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com

and

http://www.stopfcc.com

"Tamas Feher" > wrote in message
...
> >they would have shot down an unsuspecting airliner
>
> You mean the ukrainians, about two years ago? That chartered Tu-154 had
> five israeli bioweapon "scientists" on-board en route to Russia. They
> were such a grave danger to the whole mankind that they needed to be
> eliminated at such a huge price in civilians.
>
> You mean the USSR, with KAL-007? There was an US RC-135 in the air,
> using the KAL-007 to hide behind it. The laser gyroscope error that led
> the Jumbo to fly over soviet territory and super-secret ICBM sites is
> certainly strange. You can blame that Jumbo on the CIA, rather than the
> soviets.
>
>

Keith Willshaw

June 8th 04, 01:15 PM

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:19:06 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:

> >
> Keithe, you snipped the relevant passage abovve, and snipped the
> spot where I repeated it below in explanation. That is bloody
> well not honest. Are you Brooks or Fred?
>

I responded to your claim that no such explosion
occurred with an excerpt from the report

> (Keith knows damn well ther wasn't a fifty to vapour cloud.

From the report

"Conditions at point of rupture : 8 bar pressure, 150 degrees Celsius. Some
40-50 tonnes of cyclohexane escaped in about one minute. There had been a
state of alert for nearly an hour, since the detection of the fire on the 8"
main, but the second and catastrophic failure proceeded rapidly. Detonation
appears to have taken place before any alarm was raised."

> that's the total lost in teh accident, including the fires which
> lasted days.

From the report

"The feedstuff for the process was a highly combustible cyclic hydrocarbon,
some four hundred tonnes of which would fuel the subsequent fire"

> He also knows that proper valving would hav limited
> the loss, there's still quite of material in the pipe, but
> nothing like fifty tons and there woldn't be pressure to drive
> it.

The report states otherwise

> I think he's also ware that fitting a bellows at all is now
> considered to be the main problem, the DuPont reports (public
> domain BTW and a professional would have seen them) suggest that
> a three angle loop would be much more secure.

I'm aware that fitting an incorrectly anchored bypass
was the problem, as the report states

"The bypass pipe was fixed at either end to the bellows, but the scaffolding
was used to support the bypass pipe proved to be inadequate, and the pipe
was free to squirm when the pressure increased. "

> D. doesn't use
> bellows. His suggestion that the line fence is important compared
> to distance is ludicrous, as is his suggestion that Cyane would
> probably oxidize in contact with air. I doubt any chamical
> engineer would not be aware that cyane and cyclohexane are the
> same thing. I could continue, but that's enough on this sequence/
>

If you believe cyclohexane wont oxidise how do you explain
the fact that it did do so ? (hint the process is commonly called burning).

Osha disagrees with you about it anyway
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/cyclohexane/recognition.html

> He misread my original comment, has neither supported his
> reading, nor answered my call on that subject. He stays
> resolutely away from the subject.
>

This is a flat lie

> His original furnace suggestion remains ludicrous. I explained
> why, he snipped the explanation then, a few posts later, came
> basck asking for a discussion. When I mentioned that I'd already
> explained, he simply lied.
>

The comment about a furnace line was a simple example of the
hazards of ruptured lines. You are twisting and turning like Tarver
at his worst

> Keith, you might be a pro, but you didn't show it here.)

And now the Ad Hominem a la Tarver

I hope you enjoy your new status

Keith

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Kevin Brooks

June 8th 04, 01:27 PM

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 00:44:39 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:59:36 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:03:49 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><snip>
> >> >
> >> >> >Go and look at the report on what happened at
> >> >> >Flixborough
> >> >> >
> >> >> I have, in detail, often, with access to a lot that isn't
> >> >> generally available.
> >> >
> >> >Bingo. Another claim of access to information not available to the
rest
> >of
> >> >us--to go along with prior claims of attending sensitive briefings on
> >what
> >> >US personnel were doing with the contras in Nicaragua, and battle
update
> >> >briefings with a command that had troops engaged in Afghanistan? And
you
> >> >wonder why more and more folks don't believe you?
> >> >
> >>
> >> I expalined quite directly why I had deeper knowledge than
> >> generally available. Anybody who worked at Maitland or the Texas
> >> plant (Victoria?) had the same. As you snipped that, I conclude
> >> you're up to your old bull again, removing context so that you
> >> can invent some. You've recently proven yourself grossly
> >> dishonest three times, isn't that enough?
> >
> >No, Keith has demonstrated quite amply that you are clueless regarding
the
> >incident at hand, not to mention of questionable veracity regarding the
> >subject in general, despite your, as he put it "sekret" information...
> >Sounds like just another example of your trying to pad your background a
bit
> >too much, and as I noted, it ain't the first time you have been caught
out
> >like this.
> >
> I'm not going to argue about Kieth with you. You've been caught
> yourself more than once recently, as I said.

Please specify. I have a complete list iof your falsifications; the ones you
always hate to answer and usually resort to just snipping away before
hurling your own utterly baseless allegations.

As usual, you have
> nothing to contribute.

Except for the observation that you have again apparently stepped into the
trap of claiming you have some sort of restricted "insider" information
(about a truly wide ranging field of subjects, too!), and when questioned
further on it, this time by Keith, you wilt like a three day old cut-flower
on the sidewalk.

I have two choices, switch things back to
> one of your idiot statements, like the bit about artillery
> hitting without knowing where the target is, or ignoring you.
> I'll take the second.

Give it your best shot--and while you are at it, can you refresh us as to
what it was you were supposedly teaching those marines who were part of the
spearhead into Afghanistan? You remember--you said quite clearly that your
involvement with their preparation over the "past year" (a year where you
also acknowledged that in fact you were working in that call center...)
would have been "wasted" if they had seen fit to follow the Patton Approach
to making the other poor SOB die for his country? Or was that another
"sekret" thing? If so, you are not too good at keeping "sekrets", are you,
Mr. Mitty? I believe this was all offered shortly before you claimed to have
"been there, done that" in regards to your supposedly being fully squared
away with the "meeting engagement", having never worn a uniform but having
maybe worked for the same conglomerate that produced some kind of simulator?
Did you even work in the same division that produced samesaid simulator, or
did you make *all* of that up? And speaking of "division", that does remind
one of your last (before this one) claim to have been in on "sekret"
information, what with all of those briefings you claimed to be attending
about ongoing actions in Afghanistan (again, at the same time that you
elsewhere acknowledged you were actually working in that call center, though
you later tried to claim that you were not doing so concurrently, forgetting
that you had made the contradicting claims on *the same day* and both were
set in the present tense) given by that "Mountain Division major"--have you
figured out which division is known as the "Mountain Division" in the US
Army yet?

Gee, all them "sekrets", and nary a clue... amazing.

Brooks

> >>
>
>
> Peter Skelton

Peter Skelton

June 8th 04, 02:04 PM

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:15:39 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:19:06 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>> > wrote:
>
>> >
>> Keithe, you snipped the relevant passage abovve, and snipped the
>> spot where I repeated it below in explanation. That is bloody
>> well not honest. Are you Brooks or Fred?
>>
>
>I responded to your claim that no such explosion
>occurred with an excerpt from the report
>
No, you did not. You did exactly what I claimed you did. Go on
back and look.
>
>> (Keith knows damn well ther wasn't a fifty to vapour cloud.
>
>From the report
>
>"Conditions at point of rupture : 8 bar pressure, 150 degrees Celsius. Some
>40-50 tonnes of cyclohexane escaped in about one minute. There had been a
>state of alert for nearly an hour, since the detection of the fire on the 8"
>main, but the second and catastrophic failure proceeded rapidly. Detonation
>appears to have taken place before any alarm was raised."
>
That's long since been discredited. The total loss form the
process including the fire was 50 tonnes. You should know this.
>
>> that's the total lost in teh accident, including the fires which
>> lasted days.
>
>From the report
>
>"The feedstuff for the process was a highly combustible cyclic hydrocarbon,
>some four hundred tonnes of which would fuel the subsequent fire"
>
>> He also knows that proper valving would hav limited
>> the loss, there's still quite of material in the pipe, but
>> nothing like fifty tons and there woldn't be pressure to drive
>> it.
>
>The report states otherwise
>
>
>> I think he's also ware that fitting a bellows at all is now
>> considered to be the main problem, the DuPont reports (public
>> domain BTW and a professional would have seen them) suggest that
>> a three angle loop would be much more secure.
>
>I'm aware that fitting an incorrectly anchored bypass
>was the problem, as the report states
>
>"The bypass pipe was fixed at either end to the bellows, but the scaffolding
>was used to support the bypass pipe proved to be inadequate, and the pipe
>was free to squirm when the pressure increased. "
>
I see you're single-sourced on this. Shall we explore the
controversy surrounding the decision not to investigate further?
>
>> D. doesn't use
>> bellows. His suggestion that the line fence is important compared
>> to distance is ludicrous, as is his suggestion that Cyane would
>> probably oxidize in contact with air. I doubt any chamical
>> engineer would not be aware that cyane and cyclohexane are the
>> same thing. I could continue, but that's enough on this sequence/
>>
>
>If you believe cyclohexane wont oxidise how do you explain
>the fact that it did do so ? (hint the process is commonly called burning).
>
Oxidize is your term, I did you te courtesy of using it. Cyane,
as you certainly should know, does not burn spontaneously at 150
C). It requires an ignition source. (The autoignition temperature
is 250 celcius)

>Osha disagrees with you about it anyway
>http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/cyclohexane/recognition.html
>
quote from your source:

2. Autoignition temperature: 245 degrees C (473 degrees F)

If you're going to use a source to disagree with me, you should
select one that does not agree with me.

>> He misread my original comment, has neither supported his
>> reading, nor answered my call on that subject. He stays
>> resolutely away from the subject.
>>
>
>This is a flat lie

Is it? Then tell me where you answered.
>
>> His original furnace suggestion remains ludicrous. I explained
>> why, he snipped the explanation then, a few posts later, came
>> basck asking for a discussion. When I mentioned that I'd already
>> explained, he simply lied.
>>
>
>The comment about a furnace line was a simple example of the
>hazards of ruptured lines. You are twisting and turning like Tarver
>at his worst
>
???? It happened exactly the way I said it happened. YOu tried to
twist something and got called on it.

>> Keith, you might be a pro, but you didn't show it here.)
>
>And now the Ad Hominem a la Tarver
>
Tell me how you showed your professionalism. (Incidentally you've
been in mode as hominem for a while.)

Peter Skelton

Tamas Feher

June 8th 04, 02:18 PM

>>>>A home-made armored Caterpillar turns Colorado into Palestine?
>>>>
>>>Palestine has dead. The authorities ended this one without public
>>>deaths.
>>
>>Pure chance. They had no absolutely contact with the madman whatsoever
..
>>If he decided to target a chemical plant and cause a Bhopal-scale
>>industrial disaster, the cops simply couldn't stop him. In the end an
>>entire county could get killed.
>>
>Do you know enough about the local geography and plants to say
>that this sort of thing is possible?

Very detailed description:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_2940309,00.html

....During the attack, according to officials, Heemeyer shot repeatedly
at a number of propane storage tanks at a distributorship with a
..50-caliber weapon. The apparent attempt to trigger a massive explosion
failed....This is just domestic terrorism is what it is....

Fred J. McCall

June 8th 04, 02:25 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

:"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
.. .
:>
:> Keithe, you snipped the relevant passage abovve, and snipped the
:> spot where I repeated it below in explanation. That is bloody
:> well not honest. Are you Brooks or Fred?
:
:I responded to your claim that no such explosion
:occurred with an excerpt from the report
:
:> (Keith knows damn well ther wasn't a fifty to vapour cloud.
:
:From the report
:
:"Conditions at point of rupture : 8 bar pressure, 150 degrees Celsius. Some
:40-50 tonnes of cyclohexane escaped in about one minute. There had been a
:state of alert for nearly an hour, since the detection of the fire on the 8"
:main, but the second and catastrophic failure proceeded rapidly. Detonation
:appears to have taken place before any alarm was raised."
:
:> that's the total lost in teh accident, including the fires which
:> lasted days.
:
:From the report
:
:"The feedstuff for the process was a highly combustible cyclic hydrocarbon,
:some four hundred tonnes of which would fuel the subsequent fire"
:
:> He also knows that proper valving would hav limited
:> the loss, there's still quite of material in the pipe, but
:> nothing like fifty tons and there woldn't be pressure to drive
:> it.
:
:The report states otherwise
:
:> I think he's also ware that fitting a bellows at all is now
:> considered to be the main problem, the DuPont reports (public
:> domain BTW and a professional would have seen them) suggest that
:> a three angle loop would be much more secure.
:
:I'm aware that fitting an incorrectly anchored bypass
:was the problem, as the report states
:
:"The bypass pipe was fixed at either end to the bellows, but the scaffolding
:was used to support the bypass pipe proved to be inadequate, and the pipe
:was free to squirm when the pressure increased. "
:
:> D. doesn't use
:> bellows. His suggestion that the line fence is important compared
:> to distance is ludicrous, as is his suggestion that Cyane would
:> probably oxidize in contact with air. I doubt any chamical
:> engineer would not be aware that cyane and cyclohexane are the
:> same thing. I could continue, but that's enough on this sequence/
:
:If you believe cyclohexane wont oxidise how do you explain
:the fact that it did do so ? (hint the process is commonly called burning).
:
:Osha disagrees with you about it anyway
:http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/cyclohexane/recognition.html
:
:> He misread my original comment, has neither supported his
:> reading, nor answered my call on that subject. He stays
:> resolutely away from the subject.
:
:This is a flat lie
:
:> His original furnace suggestion remains ludicrous. I explained
:> why, he snipped the explanation then, a few posts later, came
:> basck asking for a discussion. When I mentioned that I'd already
:> explained, he simply lied.
:
:The comment about a furnace line was a simple example of the
:hazards of ruptured lines. You are twisting and turning like Tarver
:at his worst
:
:> Keith, you might be a pro, but you didn't show it here.)
:
:And now the Ad Hominem a la Tarver
:
:I hope you enjoy your new status

The problem, Keith, is that you're trying to argue with Peter Skelton
by acting as if the facts matter to him. He's manifestly shown many
times that they do not.

He's also demonstrated time and again that the sure way to tell when
he realizes he is in the wrong is to watch for when he starts the
insults.

So, when Peter starts in with the personal insults and attempts to
twist things, you know you've won.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

Dr. George O. Bizzigotti

June 8th 04, 02:45 PM

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:01:14 +0200, "Tamas Feher" >
wrote:

>>>A home-made armored Caterpillar turns Colorado into Palestine?

>>Palestine has dead. The authorities ended this one without public
>>deaths.

>Pure chance. They had no absolutely contact with the madman whatsoever .
>If he decided to target a chemical plant and cause a Bhopal-scale
>industrial disaster, the cops simply couldn't stop him. In the end an
>entire county could get killed.

Has Mr. Feher consulted a map to find out the location of Granby,
Colorado? Hint: it's 75 miles (and at least one mountain pass) to the
Denver suburbs, where one might first encounter any sort of chemical
plant. Perhaps the authorities were confident he wasn't targeting a
chemical plant because there aren't many chemical plants in a Rocky
Mountain tourist town with a population of a few thousand.

Regards,

George
************************************************** ********************
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558
3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail:
Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519
************************************************** ********************

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Keith Willshaw

June 8th 04, 02:50 PM

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:15:39 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:19:06 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> >> > wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> Keithe, you snipped the relevant passage abovve, and snipped the
> >> spot where I repeated it below in explanation. That is bloody
> >> well not honest. Are you Brooks or Fred?
> >>
> >
> >I responded to your claim that no such explosion
> >occurred with an excerpt from the report
> >
> No, you did not. You did exactly what I claimed you did. Go on
> back and look.
> >
> >> (Keith knows damn well ther wasn't a fifty to vapour cloud.
> >
> >From the report
> >
> >"Conditions at point of rupture : 8 bar pressure, 150 degrees Celsius.
Some
> >40-50 tonnes of cyclohexane escaped in about one minute. There had been a
> >state of alert for nearly an hour, since the detection of the fire on the
8"
> >main, but the second and catastrophic failure proceeded rapidly.
Detonation
> >appears to have taken place before any alarm was raised."
> >
> That's long since been discredited. The total loss form the
> process including the fire was 50 tonnes. You should know this.

Cite please - you keep claiming you have
some special knowledge of this event beyond
that of the various reports in the literature.

I suggest you present it.

Meanwhile I suggest you read the report published
in the journal of Hazardous Materials in 2000
http://hugin.aue.auc.dk/publ/hoiset2000.pdf

<Quote>
w x Sadee et al. 1 have made an estimation of the explosive cyclohexane-air
mixture to
be a total volume of about 400 000 m3, shaped like a banana or boomerang in
its
footprint, containing 30 tons of cyclohexane at a concentration of 2% per
volume. The
authors also pointed out that a likely source of ignition was the reformer
furnace of the
w x nearby hydrogen plant. Gugan 3 stated 36 tons as a likely cyclohexane
mass. Marshall
w x 4 also stated the hydrogen plant as a probable point of ignition.
Generally, there seems
to be an agreement with respect to the general conditions of the leakage and
the location
of ignition in most reports of the Flixborough accident.
</Quote>

Perhaps you prefer the report prpeared by Anthony Joseph PhD, PE
for Indiana University of Pennsylvania in 2002

<Quote>
The dog-leg assembly ruptured at about 4:51PM and allowed the escape of
30-50 tons of cyclohexane well above its normal boiling point. A flammable
cloud of about 14 million ft3 (about 400,000 m3) was formed from the vapor
and mist issuing from an initial jet about 600ft (about 185 m) long.
</Quote>

> >
> >> that's the total lost in teh accident, including the fires which
> >> lasted days.
> >
> >From the report
> >
> >"The feedstuff for the process was a highly combustible cyclic
hydrocarbon,
> >some four hundred tonnes of which would fuel the subsequent fire"
> >
> >> He also knows that proper valving would hav limited
> >> the loss, there's still quite of material in the pipe, but
> >> nothing like fifty tons and there woldn't be pressure to drive
> >> it.
> >
> >The report states otherwise
> >
> >
> >> I think he's also ware that fitting a bellows at all is now
> >> considered to be the main problem, the DuPont reports (public
> >> domain BTW and a professional would have seen them) suggest that
> >> a three angle loop would be much more secure.
> >
> >I'm aware that fitting an incorrectly anchored bypass
> >was the problem, as the report states
> >
> >"The bypass pipe was fixed at either end to the bellows, but the
scaffolding
> >was used to support the bypass pipe proved to be inadequate, and the pipe
> >was free to squirm when the pressure increased. "
> >
> I see you're single-sourced on this. Shall we explore the
> controversy surrounding the decision not to investigate further?
> >
> >> D. doesn't use
> >> bellows. His suggestion that the line fence is important compared
> >> to distance is ludicrous, as is his suggestion that Cyane would
> >> probably oxidize in contact with air. I doubt any chamical
> >> engineer would not be aware that cyane and cyclohexane are the
> >> same thing. I could continue, but that's enough on this sequence/
> >>
> >
> >If you believe cyclohexane wont oxidise how do you explain
> >the fact that it did do so ? (hint the process is commonly called
burning).
> >
> Oxidize is your term, I did you te courtesy of using it. Cyane,
> as you certainly should know, does not burn spontaneously at 150
> C). It requires an ignition source. (The autoignition temperature
> is 250 celcius)
>

I am aware of that , an ignition source for such a large release
is usually available, as it was in this case.

Keith

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Peter Skelton

June 8th 04, 03:00 PM

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 14:50:02 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:15:39 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:19:06 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> Keithe, you snipped the relevant passage abovve, and snipped the
>> >> spot where I repeated it below in explanation. That is bloody
>> >> well not honest. Are you Brooks or Fred?
>> >>
>> >
>> >I responded to your claim that no such explosion
>> >occurred with an excerpt from the report
>> >
>> No, you did not. You did exactly what I claimed you did. Go on
>> back and look.

No answer?
<s>
>> >"The bypass pipe was fixed at either end to the bellows, but the
>scaffolding
>> >was used to support the bypass pipe proved to be inadequate, and the pipe
>> >was free to squirm when the pressure increased. "
>> >
>> I see you're single-sourced on this. Shall we explore the
>> controversy surrounding the decision not to investigate further?

Care to answer? A bellows in such a syatem is a poor idea.
Failure to anchor it makes it worse, but you're quoting very
selectively.

>> >
>> >> D. doesn't use
>> >> bellows. His suggestion that the line fence is important compared
>> >> to distance is ludicrous, as is his suggestion that Cyane would
>> >> probably oxidize in contact with air. I doubt any chamical
>> >> engineer would not be aware that cyane and cyclohexane are the
>> >> same thing. I could continue, but that's enough on this sequence/
>> >>
>> >
>> >If you believe cyclohexane wont oxidise how do you explain
>> >the fact that it did do so ? (hint the process is commonly called
>burning).
>> >
>> Oxidize is your term, I did you te courtesy of using it. Cyane,
>> as you certainly should know, does not burn spontaneously at 150
>> C). It requires an ignition source. (The autoignition temperature
>> is 250 celcius)
>>
>
>I am aware of that , an ignition source for such a large release
>is usually available, as it was in this case.
>
Sure but that is not what you claimed. Probably oxidizing in air
does not bring fire on contact with an ignition source to mind.
>

Peter Skelton

Keith Willshaw

June 8th 04, 03:30 PM

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 14:50:02 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:15:39 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:19:06 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> Keithe, you snipped the relevant passage abovve, and snipped the
> >> >> spot where I repeated it below in explanation. That is bloody
> >> >> well not honest. Are you Brooks or Fred?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I responded to your claim that no such explosion
> >> >occurred with an excerpt from the report
> >> >
> >> No, you did not. You did exactly what I claimed you did. Go on
> >> back and look.
>
> No answer?

Your evasion of estimates of the size of the explosion
from 3 separate quoted sources is noted.

> <s>
> >> >"The bypass pipe was fixed at either end to the bellows, but the
> >scaffolding
> >> >was used to support the bypass pipe proved to be inadequate, and the
pipe
> >> >was free to squirm when the pressure increased. "
> >> >
> >> I see you're single-sourced on this. Shall we explore the
> >> controversy surrounding the decision not to investigate further?
>
> Care to answer? A bellows in such a syatem is a poor idea.
> Failure to anchor it makes it worse, but you're quoting very
> selectively.
>

No I'm quoting accurately.

There is nothing wrong per se with using a bellows
provided the system is correctly constrained. It was
the lack of such constraint that caused the failure
as the quote from the report accurately showed.

Note further that far from being single sourced
I have provided references to several other studies.

You on the other hand have claimed unspecified
privileged information.

This is not exactly a compelling argument.

> >> >
> >> >> D. doesn't use
> >> >> bellows. His suggestion that the line fence is important compared
> >> >> to distance is ludicrous, as is his suggestion that Cyane would
> >> >> probably oxidize in contact with air. I doubt any chamical
> >> >> engineer would not be aware that cyane and cyclohexane are the
> >> >> same thing. I could continue, but that's enough on this sequence/
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >If you believe cyclohexane wont oxidise how do you explain
> >> >the fact that it did do so ? (hint the process is commonly called
> >burning).
> >> >
> >> Oxidize is your term, I did you te courtesy of using it. Cyane,
> >> as you certainly should know, does not burn spontaneously at 150
> >> C). It requires an ignition source. (The autoignition temperature
> >> is 250 celcius)
> >>
> >
> >I am aware of that , an ignition source for such a large release
> >is usually available, as it was in this case.
> >
> Sure but that is not what you claimed.

My claim was that Cyclohexane would probably oxidise
when released into the air, the risk of that happening
is described in the literature as high.

The NFPA rating is 3 = SEVERE: Can be ignited at all temperatures

The European Safety Database states

Cyclohexane is very flammable and may be ignited by contact with a hot
surface - a naked flame is not necessary.

As you accurately pointed out it has an autognition temperature
of only 260 C meaning devices as varied as a vehicle exhaust
or steam pipe can initiate combustion

> Probably oxidizing in air
> does not bring fire on contact with an ignition source to mind.

It does to anyone who understands what it means, let me
give you a nice definition from one of my chemistry
textbooks

burning - A rapid oxidation reaction between a fuel and oxygen that produces
heat

Keith

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Kevin Brooks

June 8th 04, 03:43 PM

Kevin Brooks

June 8th 04, 05:16 PM

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:43:05 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 14:50:02 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:15:39 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:19:06 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Keithe, you snipped the relevant passage abovve, and snipped the
> >> >> >> spot where I repeated it below in explanation. That is bloody
> >> >> >> well not honest. Are you Brooks or Fred?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I responded to your claim that no such explosion
> >> >> >occurred with an excerpt from the report
> >> >> >
> >> >> No, you did not. You did exactly what I claimed you did. Go on
> >> >> back and look.
> >>
> >> No answer?
> >
> >Odd how you yourself managed to snip Keith's bit about (the part you
snipped
> >follows):
> >
> I marked the snip too. I treat pelople the way they treat me.
> Keith has been indulging in inconvenient snips, why shouldn't I?

Because in Keith's case they are justified, and in your's they are just
another typical attempt to run away from facts that prove your buffoonery
to be exactly that? He has proven quite conclusively that you are talking
through your hat (as usual) about this subject, and has offered numerous
sources to back up his assertions--you OTOH puff up and refer to "sekret"
resources that don't exist. Yep, looks like Keith has also pegged you for
what you are--there appears to be a growing list of folks in that category,
if you have not noticed.

Brooks

>
>
>
> Peter Skelton

Keith Willshaw

June 8th 04, 07:40 PM

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 15:30:18 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:

>
> I did not say inaccurately, I said selectively.
> >
> >There is nothing wrong per se with using a bellows
> >provided the system is correctly constrained.
>
> This is not a sensible contention. A bellows is inheritly less
> robust than other options. You contention here is that a
> difficult solution, well implemented is the same thing as a
> robust system well implemented. I don't buy it.
>

Tough - bellow system are widely used to absorb thermal
movements when there is inadequate space for alternate
options such as an expansion loop.

Correctly implemented such system comply with design
codes in place in the industry. Indeed in the type
of installation concerned, the bypass being between
2 reactors more or less in line its hard to see what
other solution was possible.

> It was
> >the lack of such constraint that caused the failure
> >as the quote from the report accurately showed.
> >
> >Note further that far from being single sourced
> >I have provided references to several other studies.
> >
> On this point?
>

Yes, all the sources posted refer to the 'squirming'
of the pipe.

> >You on the other hand have claimed unspecified
> >privileged information.
> >
> >This is not exactly a compelling argument.
> >
> Your argument rerduces to absurdity very quickly. Anybody with
> any experience at all will understand how material like that you
> quoted can get into a report. Up to 2002 (?) there were still
> attempts to get this thing reopened.
>

Sure , Trevor Kletz for example has always maintained that
there was insufficient focus on the excessive plant inventory
of 400 tons of cyclohexane and others have claimed the
initial failure was of just one of the 2 bellows units but the
fact that the piping bypass was badly designed and implemented
has not been challenged.

Your failure to provide the requested cite is noted.

> >> >> >
> >> >> >> D. doesn't use
> >> >> >> bellows. His suggestion that the line fence is important compared
> >> >> >> to distance is ludicrous, as is his suggestion that Cyane would
> >> >> >> probably oxidize in contact with air. I doubt any chamical
> >> >> >> engineer would not be aware that cyane and cyclohexane are the
> >> >> >> same thing. I could continue, but that's enough on this sequence/
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >If you believe cyclohexane wont oxidise how do you explain
> >> >> >the fact that it did do so ? (hint the process is commonly called
> >> >burning).
> >> >> >
> >> >> Oxidize is your term, I did you te courtesy of using it. Cyane,
> >> >> as you certainly should know, does not burn spontaneously at 150
> >> >> C). It requires an ignition source. (The autoignition temperature
> >> >> is 250 celcius)
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I am aware of that , an ignition source for such a large release
> >> >is usually available, as it was in this case.
> >> >
> >> Sure but that is not what you claimed.
> >
> >My claim was that Cyclohexane would probably oxidise
> >when released into the air, the risk of that happening
> >is described in the literature as high.
> >
> No. it is not. The literature describes the risk of ignition when
> reaching a source of uingnition as high.
>

In fact it clearly states no flame is needed

>
> >The NFPA rating is 3 = SEVERE: Can be ignited at all temperatures
> >
> A source is needed, release is not sufficient.
>
> >The European Safety Database states
> >
> >Cyclohexane is very flammable and may be ignited by contact with a hot
> >surface - a naked flame is not necessary.
> >
> Certainly.
>
> >As you accurately pointed out it has an autognition temperature
> >of only 260 C meaning devices as varied as a vehicle exhaust
> >or steam pipe can initiate combustion
> >
> Yes. We used 250# steam in the Cyane area (rather than 460)
> partly for this reason. (Incidentally, we used to believe that
> cyane was not quite as dangerous as gasoline. When I looked the
> autoignition table up, gasoline was about 20 C higher than cyane.
> Live & learn.)
>

In other words no flame is required

> >> Probably oxidizing in air
> >> does not bring fire on contact with an ignition source to mind.
> >
> >It does to anyone who understands what it means, let me
> >give you a nice definition from one of my chemistry
> >textbooks
> >
> >burning - A rapid oxidation reaction between a fuel and oxygen that
produces
> >heat
> >
> People who know what it means should not be so imprecise. Burning
> is oxidation, oxidation is not necessarily burning. Your
> definition proves you incorrect. (I have a lot of non-burning
> oxidation sitting in my son's driveway.)
>

The meaning was clear.

> I'm being a bit bitchy on this because, in your furnace example,
> autoignition on excape to atmosphere would be inevitable,
> regardless of an ignition source.

This was another example of hazards that may occur.

Keith