Skip to comments.
Could Al Qaeda Blow Up LNG Tankers on 2/11?
Blogger.com ^
| 2/3/2010
| eRtwngr
Posted on 02/03/2010 2:20:11 PM PST by eRtwngr
I was listening to a debate on talk radio whether two Liquefied natural gas (LNG) Tankers should be allowed into Boston harbor on 2/11/10. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino had asked that they not be allowed in due to security concerns. But others say it's perfectly safe, that there's plenty of security and so on.
And my first impulse was to think, how likely is it that there would be such an attack on a known target with everyone watching?
(Excerpt) Read more at doiop.com ...
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: alqaeda; boston; energy; eotw; globaljihad; iran; lng; lngtankers; nationalsecurity; portsecurity; terror
1
posted on
02/03/2010 2:20:13 PM PST
by
eRtwngr
To: eRtwngr
..not to worry, Odumbo has called it in,or has he?
2
posted on
02/03/2010 2:21:58 PM PST
by
Doogle
(USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated)
To: eRtwngr
IMO, they want everyone watching so that if they can successfully pull it off, it makes the feeling of being terrorized that much greater to the intended public target, because the public realizes that the governmental agencies can’t protect them from such harm.
3
posted on
02/03/2010 2:23:37 PM PST
by
OB1kNOb
(I'd rather be over the hill than under it.)
To: eRtwngr
You might freeze some fish if it leaks but you are not going to be able to make LNG explode.
4
posted on
02/03/2010 2:26:05 PM PST
by
thackney
(life is fragile, handle with prayer)
To: thackney
For LNG to burn, it must first vaporize, then mix with air in the proper proportions (the flammable range is 5% to 15%), and then be ignited. In the case of a leak, LNG vaporizes rapidly, turning into a gas (methane plus trace gases), and mixing with air. If this mixture is within the flammable range, there is risk of ignition which would create fire and thermal radiation hazards.
5
posted on
02/03/2010 2:34:43 PM PST
by
buccaneer81
(ECOMCON)
To: eRtwngr
To: eRtwngr
Tankers in a harbor would likely not be nearly spectacular enough for bloodthirsty dirtbag terrorists.
Those ships are big and very valuable, yet have tiny crews and contain very sophisticated fire suppression systems.
7
posted on
02/03/2010 2:37:56 PM PST
by
Blue Jays
(Rock Hard, Ride Free)
To: buccaneer81
LNG explodes when it comes into contact with water.
8
posted on
02/03/2010 2:38:15 PM PST
by
massgopguy
(I owe everything to George Bailey)
To: eRtwngr
Relax.
Napolitano has eliminated the threat by outlawing BBQs within 200 miles of the barges.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
9
posted on
02/03/2010 2:40:46 PM PST
by
The Comedian
(Evil can only succeed if good men don't point at it and laugh.)
To: The KG9 Kid
Texas City Disaster -- April 16, 1947 That was ammonium nitrate, in an explosives configuration. Somewhat like what the OK City bombing was done with. It was not LNG.
10
posted on
02/03/2010 2:41:29 PM PST
by
El Gato
("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
To: massgopguy
Are the Dorchester gas tanks still there?
To: buccaneer81
And now that the lighter-than-air gas in a one to ten ratio mixture with ambient temperature air, outside...
Where do you think most of the methane is going to be?
12
posted on
02/03/2010 4:11:51 PM PST
by
thackney
(life is fragile, handle with prayer)
To: thackney
1944, 20 October. The East Ohio Natural Gas Company experienced a failure of an LNG tank in Cleveland, Ohio.[19] 128 people perished in the explosion and fire. The tank did not have a dike retaining wall, and it was made during World War II, when metal rationing was very strict. The steel of the tank was made with an extremely low amount of nickel, which meant the tank was brittle when exposed to the extreme cold of LNG. The tank ruptured, spilling LNG into the city sewer system. The LNG vaporized and turned into gas, which exploded and burned.
To: buccaneer81
I have read the safety reviews of that event.
Sewer gas was also a major factor in the ignition.
Not a lot of sewers on the water.
14
posted on
02/03/2010 4:56:19 PM PST
by
thackney
(life is fragile, handle with prayer)
To: buccaneer81
Also the gas in too rich a mixture and still very cold, was able to accumulate in sewers, where it then was more contained until it further mixed to an ignitable mixture along with the other gases.
15
posted on
02/03/2010 4:58:32 PM PST
by
thackney
(life is fragile, handle with prayer)
To: buccaneer81
16
posted on
02/03/2010 5:04:22 PM PST
by
thackney
(life is fragile, handle with prayer)
To: massgopguy
LNG explodes when it comes into contact with water. No, it does not.
17
posted on
02/03/2010 5:12:57 PM PST
by
thackney
(life is fragile, handle with prayer)
To: thackney
Not a lot of sewers on the water.You've obviously never been to (insert crummy city here.) ;-)
You're right. If there was a real danger from LNG tankers, at least one would have blown by now, and they've been in service for almost 50 years.
To: buccaneer81
Yesterday was noteworthy for its lack of exploding LNG tankers.
19
posted on
02/12/2010 11:08:52 AM PST
by
ArrogantBustard
(Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson