Posted on 01/14/2011 6:35:50 AM PST by Gabrial
Even the post thinks it’s strange, Lobbyist Ashley Turton’s sudden death shakes Capitol Hill again - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/10/AR2011011006810.html
Update on the Pelosi aide found dead in burning car/ garage.
Thought you folks might like to read this utterly preposterous trial balloon story.
It it either the SORRIEST cover story or the WORST case of investigative journalism, or both.
Essentially, the premise is that hot headlights ignited radiator fluid.
Yeah. Right. In all my years I NEVER had to extinguish burning radiator fluid.
“autopsy still pending”
uh, sure
toxicology reports?
they know whether she burned alive or was dead before
The longer this goes the more it stinks of cover up
BTW, I encourage you to read the two posts (79 & 81) above with links to “interesting articles”
Note well that even the WAPO was a bit incredulous, calling it “an inconceivably freakish accident”
Something happened. We haven’t read ‘the truth’ yet.
Clearly the AUTOPSY is not still pending, as she was buried some weeks ago. (more sloppy journalism?)
Perhaps Cause of Death is not yet fully established, but that is hard to believe as well.
An autopsy would virtually immediately reveal if she suffered (and died from) smoke inhalation.
Did a deploying airbag cause a cervical or skull/brain injury that disabled her? Was she still belted in? and so on and so on.
Blood and tissue tox screens could take six weeks, and she passed on 1/10/2011 ... so it could be legit ‘they’ don’t have that data.
But the fire scene investigators probably knew within two or three hours where/ how/ why a FIRE started. Point of origin, cause of ignition, propagation, fuel source, presence of any accelerants would all be ‘known’ within a few hours.
Weird.
1) E-Glycol is flammable under certain conditions, but is NOT explosive. It is a slow burnning thing, with a lot of smoke, NOT raging flames.
2) She was BACKING OUT of the garage, so “puncturing the radiator by rolling INTO a workbench” is highly implausible.
3) The halogen bulb in a BMW X-5 sits in a sealed assembly behind a thick focusing lens. The assembly and the lens shield it from anything.
IMHO the radiator was punctured by an explosive device (specifically a firebomb) that went off in front of the car as the car was slowing moving out of the garage.
More than 30 days have passed and the autopsy is pending? Riiiiggghhhtttt.
Thank you BF for posting the link to the Fox article.
I don't think I'd want to be the coroner these days.
He might get real depressed pretty soon...
I think all we need here is a better rendition of the ATF report where every question was answered, and every answer questioned.
Actually I seriously doubt foul play.
I *personally* doubt there was a firebomb. If for no other reason than the car (and structure) was not consumed by fire, and neither was the structure. From the looks of things, the structure was not much involved in the fire. IOW, The pic (small as it was) didn’t look like the result of an explosion and fire. IMHO. [Also, incendiary devices ALWAYS leave evidence behind. Always]
Go with the simplest explanation — the woman was incapacitated (aneurism, alcohol, other) and ‘drove’ (meaning it rolled on its own) her car into the side of the structure of the garage. It idled there in gear for a long time until something in the garage ignited, probably a leaking flammable fluid (coming from a container in the garage).
Since the lower rear of the car was not charred or even soot covered in the photo, one could reasonably conclude the fire did not start or propagate there. If you look closely the headrests in the rear seats are not even melted/blackened, but the glass is broken out — likely something the firefighters did to ascertain how MANY people were in the car when they found it (dark garage/ tinted windows/ no interior lights).
It’s a weird one. WHY would a coherent adult stay in a car ‘on fire’? It doesn’t LOOK at all like a suicide. (again IMHO) I’ll stick with the scenario of an incapacitated driver whose car had a low-speed, minimal impact collision with a structure and its contents, and SOMEHOW a fire ensued.
NET: she was dead, dying or otherwise incapacitated with the car in gear. A NON-PENDING autopsy and COD would be VERY revealing.
You pose another possible scenario. AND also that the fire Marshall’s or ATF report (factually completed and submitted) is where the answers will lie.
But to follow your thinking ...
The night before when the vehicle is parked, somehow a flammable substance leaks to the floor of garage.
SOMEHOW that ignites when she starts the vehicle and she is so startled that she hits the wall? Maybe an explosive vapor was inside the car???
I will say that a puddle of radiator fluid is NOT much of a risk of fire— even if all the water evaporated out of the solution, leaving behind a little ethylene glycol goo. Even leaked OIL is not a fire risk really. Leaking gas is of course a big fire risk.
But why does she stay in the car once a fire started? Too scared to get out perhaps? Blinded? dunno.
If you look at the Flash Point you get 111°C (231.8°F) (closed cup), and, startlingly an AUTOIGNITION temperature of a mere 410°C (770° F).
That would allow her radiator to spew antifreeze/coolant all over the interior of the engine housing, as well as the all important catalytic converter ~ BMW has had a converter in use that uses a heating coil at start up so that it works more efficiently.
That brings it up to operating temperatures well over 770° F.
So, she drives in, punches a hole in the radiator, has all kinds of evaporate fogging under the vehicle, then diddly bops out in the morning, turns on the ignition and the car bounces a little as the explosive mixture fires up when the catalytic converter housing reaches the autoignition temperature.
Not to be funny here but if you were ATF and had a choice between blaming the UNPOPULAR high intensity lights or the ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBYIST POPULAR catalytic converter with the special electrical coil that makes it even more Catalytic and Environmental friendly than lesser designs, who would a smart ATF director blame?
Hmm ~ a political decision ~ so few directions to go. Do they blame Catalyticalism or Lightbulbism?
Blame the lightbulb so you can sue BMW.
They ARE lawyers after all!
But kidding aside, even *IF* there was ethylene glycol liquid ON the CAT, ANDIF there was a (magically) explosive or flammable mixture of ethylene glycol vapour in the air under the vehicle ... I doubt seriously that would be a hot enough flame front to ignite other car parts et al. It doesn’t add up.
Plus, how does the radiator fluid flow out and UP to the lightbulb housing AND get inside it. These housing are specifically (German) engineered to keep liquids and vapors OUT to prolong bulb life.
Still doesn’t add up.
BTW, do you know the explosive limits of E-glycol vapour (open air, not closed container)? In other words, *COULD* E-glycol form an explosive or flammable mixture in the air under/around/in a vehicle?
Interesting — E-glycol has explosive limits from 3% - 22%, broader than gasoline.
hmmmmm.
Still the lightbulb theory is tough.
Remember, when it comes to perfect seals 90% of the German submarine fleet personnel were killed in WWII ~ and usually by nothing more complex than an oil drum filled with dynamite and a proximity fuse driven detonation system.
So much for the Germans.
What I'd like to focus on is the condition of the car before the "explosion" bounced the car in the air!
That's where the answer to our question of why she didn't get out of the car is going to be answered.
In the Wiki article about ethylene glycol (coolant/antifreeze) the ONLY automotive manufacturer named is BMW.
Of particular interest BMW has sought, almost alone, to make the existing catalytic converters more efficient. They used the highly risky ELECTRIC HEATING COIL or "RING" technology. That's the one you can use on gasoline anyway ~ just heat it up before mixing and it will mix better (discovered during WWII as a way to enable planes to fly higher where gasoline has difficulty evaporating due to the low temperatures).
So, anyway, it's risky enough to put a hot ring in the presence gasoline that it's not done for general use automobiles (like the ones we drive). But here we find that BMW used that technology to HEAT the catalytic converter, also full of flammable and explosive gases, so that it could "start"earlier than ordinary non heated catalytic converters.
(NOTE: current technological advances suggest that low temperature conversion is now possible).
Given the idea that she managed to punch a hole in her radiator, we then know that she spilled HOT antifreeze under pressure out underneath the vehicle. It must have gone everywhere, and it was hot, and it evaporated ~ with the volatile distillates being freed to just kinda' linger around under the vehicle, in the vehicle, in the garage, etc. It was just there everywhere ~ with a 711 degree F "autoignition" temperature ~ all it needed was the presence of that much heat and BANG.
Well, things went BANG shortly after she turned the ignition switch and started heating that Catalytic Converter.
That would have ignited all the volatiles in the garage, under her vehicle, inside her vehicle ~ and there you have it, a simple suffocation ~
You don't need anything but a BMW and coolant to pull this one off ~ oh, yeah, and a work bench to smack into on your way into the garage.
The ATF guys probably filled out a preliminary accident form used for federal employees due to the wife's former employment and her husband's current employment. There'd be a note somewhere in there about the catalytic converter ~ be interesting to see what it says.
Angela Merkel probably got called on this one!
FYI , I am sure you all saw the thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2670840/posts?q=1&;page=235#235
OK, I can buy the broken headlight housing theory. Makes sense.
So, the fire starts shortly after she starts the car, she tries to back out, hits the wall, gets stuck, fire visible outside the car, panics and dies of smoke inhalation/hypoxia inside the vehicle.
Plausible.
I think the piece you may be overlooking is the fire was very hot and very fast. The time-line was EXTREMELY compressed.
Reports were the husband said she left the house to go to work at 4:45 AM. The fire was called in at 4:55 AM and the trucks were there at 5:00 AM. When the trucks arrived the flames had completely engulfed the front of the car and were coming through the roof of the garage. The fire was put out by 5:10 AM.
Somehow within 10 minutes, the front of the car was engulfed in flames. Now they are saying the victim was unconscious prior to the fire. All this in ten minutes?
The Police, Fire, FBI, and ATFE investigators all are still refusing to comment on the “investigation”. The car remains impounded after 30 days.
As you say, a firebomb always leaves evidence. I would venture to guess that is why there is no comment from any investigating agency.
Also at age 37, slim, with no known health issues, leaving for work early on the day of the big merger announcement, I find it hard to believe alcohol or a health issue would render her unconscious immediately before her car ignites.
But then, I could always be wrong!
That's when all the hot antifreeze leaked out and evaporated into the garage and into the automobile's interior.
It was everywhere.
Then, she came downstairs in the morning to go to the airport. Hopped in the car, put her key in the ignition (or maybe this had one of those chip controlled ignitions that starts up when your "key thing" gets in proximity. So it starts up. She puts it in reverse. As soon as that heating element in the catalytic device kicked up to 711 degrees (what, 20 seconds tops?) everything blew up. She would have been both burned and suffocated simultaneously, and probably knocked unconscious.
If it was that easy, wouldn’t it be happening a lot?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.