• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Major explosion in downtown Nashville

RecoveringYuppy said:
Ah, that's reasonable.

OK, what calculation did you do?
Click to expand...
Estimating air volume in the RV. You know, gas law. Liters per mol at STP. Getting the ratios by combustion products. Stuff I did on occasion as a kid making homemade rockets. Never made bombs except one "rocket" that failed. Not interested in bombs.

Most any bomb material could have been powerful enough to do the damage inflicted. It damaged several fairly flimsy buildings. And from a strictly energy perspective propane is much more energy dense than most explosives on a pound for pound basis. Energy density isn't the key to most explosives, they key is getting all the energy released quickly.
Click to expand...

That's my impression as well. There are some things the guy would have had to have done right. Not going into details but I'm pretty sure the guy could have figured it out. I don't see it as necessary at all for him to have had to "experiment" somewhere first which the former FBI guy seems to think would have been necessary.

But yeah, this isn't exactly high explosive tech. High explosives are far more effective close in. Over a bit of distance they converge to just overpressure wavefronts which correlate to the initial energy. So consistent with the damage.

But then I'm just looking at if from the physics involved.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
It's there. Look under Explosive User Permits-Handler. No middle name.

Could be a different person with the same name. The city is listed as Lafayette. There are a number of people with the same name in Lafayette, including a sheriff's deputy.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I entered the name incorrectly. Duh. No middle name. Nothing in the guy's background/business suggests that it's the same guy. And Lafayette is a good 60+ miles further north. Highly likely a different guy.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
So what's the motivation/evidence for terms like fuel-air bomb and improvised thermobaric device?
Click to expand...

Well, it's just the simplest approach. The guy had an RV that no doubt included propane.

As for motivation, he clearly had something against ATT and parked there. He was also suicidal and wanted to make a splash. What I find the most unusual is that he went to great lengths to avoid killing other people. He picked a time/date that would minimize the number of people there and then went out of his way to warn others. Initially shooting to attract cops then broadcasting the warning. Doing this while setting up the propane/air mix and keeping his own breathable mix requires planning but isn't hard. Who knows what goes through people's heads. Probably sui generis.
 
marting said:
Well, it's just the simplest approach. The guy had an RV that no doubt included propane.
Click to expand...
No, those are not the simplest approaches and you aren't answering the question I'm trying to get at. Let me clarify: I'm not asking "why do you think the guy chose propane". I'm asking why are you labeling it a fuel-air bomb or citing a guy using terms like improvised thermobaric device. What do you see that justifies those terms?

marting said:
As for motivation, he clearly had something against ATT and parked there.
Click to expand...
Hadn't seen this established yet. Do you know if it is established?

And to be clear, the word "motivation" in my post was asking why you are using the terms you are using. What sophistication do you see that warrants those terms?
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
No, those are not the simplest approaches and you aren't answering the question I'm trying to get at. Let me clarify: I'm not asking "why do you think the guy chose propane". I'm asking why are you labeling it a fuel-air bomb or citing a guy using terms like improvised thermobaric device. What do you see that justifies those terms?
Click to expand...
Um, because it would be a "fuel/air" or "propane/air" bomb.

The term "Thermobaric" that the FBI guy used refers generically to fuel air bombs which have been widely used to clear large areas. This is more of an IED based on thermobaric principles. He's just using that presumably familiar terminology which applies somewhat similarly to a propane/air RV bomb. Not my choice of words.

Just pointing out that it seemed reasonably probable that it was a propane/air explosion in a post I made quite long ago.

When I ran across the FBI guy, who has significant experience as outlined, suggesting he thought the same it aligned with my thoughts in that post. I'm not at all sure it was a propane/air bomb. Just that it seemed reasonably likely based on my knowledge of high school chemistry.

At some point the forensic analysis will be completed and released then we will know.

As for the ATT building, the Wall Street Journal reports:

Intelligence officials have considered whether an AT&T Inc. switching station that the RV was parked outside of was targeted in the bombing, according to a person briefed on the investigation.
 
Last edited:
marting said:
As for motivation, he clearly had something against ATT and parked there.
Click to expand...

marting said:
As for the ATT building, the Wall Street Journal reports:

Intelligence officials have considered whether an AT&T Inc. switching station that the RV was parked outside of was targeted in the bombing, according to a person briefed on the investigation.
Click to expand...

The fact that officials 'have considered' whether AT&T was targeted does not establish that AQW 'clearly had something against' AT&T and parked outside their building deliberately. There has speculation that AT&T was targeted - and that was a subject of discussion in this thread - but there has been no official word on the motive and as far as I know no evidence has been released or leaked suggesting that was the case.
 
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy said:
Check this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propane_bomb
Is that what you mean? Was it you that mentioned Columbine previously?
Click to expand...

Yes. I mentioned Columbine as an example of a bad propane bomb. Closer to just using an accelerant than a bomb. Has to be mixed with air before ignition to produce a reasonable overpressure front. Lots of people seem to think just blowing up tanks of propane is going to do a lot of damage. Not much different than igniting a few gallons of gasoline spread around.
 
whoanellie said:
The fact that officials 'have considered' whether AT&T was targeted does not establish that AQW 'clearly had something against' AT&T and parked outside their building deliberately. There has speculation that AT&T was targeted - and that was a subject of discussion in this thread - but there has been no official word on the motive and as far as I know no evidence has been released or leaked suggesting that was the case.
Click to expand...

Right. The established fact is that he parked it outside the ATT building. Of course it could be pure coincidence that he parked it there. I give high odds the location was chosen because it was the ATT building. Not absolutely certain of course. I consider more interesting the question as to why. All sorts of crazy speculations going around. The guy didn't leave much in the way of clues. Interesting that investigators noted that his home was neat and organized. Not typical of most single, depressed, males. OTOH, to do what he did does requires some organization and detail orientation,
 
marting said:
Yes. I mentioned Columbine as an example of a bad propane bomb. Closer to just using an accelerant than a bomb. Has to be mixed with air before ignition to produce a reasonable overpressure front. Lots of people seem to think just blowing up tanks of propane is going to do a lot of damage. Not much different than igniting a few gallons of gasoline spread around.
Click to expand...

Myth Busters had to try a few times before they got it to work.
 
Bob001 said:
So what's your point? Unless you think somebody tied him up in his RV, he killed himself. That would indicate pretty strongly that he was distraught/disturbed. There are videos of the RV exploding. "Family dispute" is a little vague, and maybe subject to interpretation. But there is no dispute about the key facts.

What do you think needs to be challenged, and on what basis?
Click to expand...
Challenge based on facts. Everything you stated is opinion... except for an RV exploding. Even the RV exploding is not conclusive as to how it exploded... only speculation.

You mentioned, I think facetiously, "Unless you think somebody tied him up in his RV..." is that ruled out? Earlier someone mentioned an ANFO bomb... currently, we have not been told the make-up of the explosive device. How can anything be ruled out. In fact, there is nothing but scant "facts" and a whole lot of guessing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom