Terrorist Steam rocks Manhattan

[Superlative]

A steam pipe explosion beneath a street near Grand Central Terminal yesterday propelled a giant scalding jet of brownish steam toward the sky, sending commuters who had been heading home stampeding to safety.

Officials said that one person died and more than 30 were hurt, two of them critically. The city said that three firefighters and one police officer were among the injured.

The blast, near 41st Street and Lexington Avenue, raised fears of terrorism, but officials were quick to dismiss that possibility. “There is no reason to believe this is anything other than a failure of our infrastructure,” Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said.

The explosion sent up a foul cloud of hot steam mixed with mud, rust-colored gunk and pieces of pavement just before 6 p.m. in one of the busiest parts of the city. The mayor said that some telephone lines had been knocked out, but that electric power had not been.

As people on the sidewalks scrambled to flee and office workers in the buildings above looked down in horror, debris from the geyser pelted nearby skyscrapers. Then it rained on the streets like a sudden hailstorm. Some witnesses said the jet of steam roared like Niagara Falls.

Some people ran so fast their shoes came off. Others dropped their briefcases and purses. Men in tailored suits were caught in a lapel-singeing cloud. At a health club high up in the Grand Hyatt hotel next to Grand Central Terminal, people working out on the treadmills said the explosion was so powerful they worried the building would collapse. The steam shot up from a crater that looked like that of a volcano, with orange flames and bubbling mud around the edges. The explosion packed enough force to flip over a tow truck that ended up in the crater, which was about 35 by 40 feet. Several hours after the blast, officials said the crater could grow even larger because pavement at the edges was in danger of collapse.

The cloud of steam — and the hail of debris that followed — lasted more than two hours and raised concerns about asbestos, which was used when the pipe was laid in the 1920s. Officials advised people who had been in the neighborhood to discard their clothes and bathe carefully.

The mayor said the explosion appeared to have been caused by cold water that reached the pipe, which measured more than a foot and half in diameter and dated to 1924. “Cold water apparently causes these to explode,” he said.

Con Edison, which maintains the steam pipes beneath the city’s streets, said the pipe ruptured at 5:56 p.m. Kevin Burke, the chairman of Con Edison, said crews had checked the pipe after the thunderstorm that soaked the city in the morning. He said a heavy rain can cause a “vapor condition” if rainwater seeps onto a steam pipe, causing the steam to condense. He said the inspection earlier in the day had given no indication that anything was amiss.

Michael S. Clendenin, a spokesman for the utility, said tests would be conducted for asbestos. “We always assume there’s asbestos in a steam pipe,” he said, “so we are treating these materials sent up by the rupture, including piping, as if asbestos were in them.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/nyregion/19explode.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

 

[dmp]

Why is this in the War on Terrorism forum?

 

[Superlative]

Why is this in the War on Terrorism forum?

Because I find it amusing that everyone is so primed and full of fear that anything and everything is assumed first, to be Terrorism.

To the extent that there is obviously nothing else that could occur, but terrorism.

There have been more than a dozen steam pipe explosions in the city in the last 20 years.

 

[theHawk]

Because I find it amusing that everyone is so primed and full of fear that anything and everything is assumed first, to be Terrorism.

To the extent that there is obviously nothing else that could occur, but terrorism.

I'm sure you would of calmly walked off in that situation.

I guess this is proof all of New York lives in "fear" because of Bush.

 

[Superlative]

I guess this is proof all of New York lives in "fear" because of Bush.

As long as all the "Fair and Balanced" news networks keep screaming about imminent threats, the entire country will continue to be afraid, letting the government do as they wish.

 

[theHawk]

As long as all the "Fair and Balanced" news networks keep screaming about imminent threats, the entire country will continue to be afraid, letting the government do as they wish.

Ah, because the entire population is to stupid to come up with their own thoughts. I can see that being true for half the population (liberals), but not the whole population.

 

[Larkinn]

Ah, because the entire population is to stupid to come up with their own thoughts. I can see that being true for half the population (liberals), but not the whole population.

You expect me to come up with my own thoughts about how/when/the likelihood of terrorists attacking the nation is? What, do you think I have some covert intelligence agency that scours the globe that I can get information from? No. I am left to listen to what other people say who DO have that access to that information. Which is actually fairly scary because I don't trust them and hence I really have little idea how imminent a terrorist attack may be.

As to your asinine attack on liberals, tell me, which side is it that buys into the Bush Administrations warnings, red flags, and constantly exhorts us to be scared of the muslims/terrorists/people different than us?

 

[Bern80]

Because I find it amusing that everyone is so primed and full of fear that anything and everything is assumed first, to be Terrorism.

To the extent that there is obviously nothing else that could occur, but terrorism.

One ever couple years. why thats almost commone place. If you were living in post 9/11 New York and you looked down the street and all you saw was big cloud of debris what would honestly be the first thing that went through your mind?

It isn't exactley an unrealistc fear

 

[Bern80]

As to your asinine attack on liberals, tell me, which side is it that buys into the Bush Administrations warnings, red flags, and constantly exhorts us to be scared of the muslims/terrorists/people different than us?

Specifically show where the admin has said you must be afraid of Muslims or where they even implied it? this is a flat out lie.

It's just another excuse the left makes. You constantly tell people the administration is doing things they aren't. What red flag did they recently tell you were suppossed to be scared of? When/where did they tell you to be afraid of all Muslims?

 

[ReillyT]

As to your asinine attack on liberals, tell me, which side is it that buys into the Bush Administrations warnings, red flags, and constantly exhorts us to be scared of the muslims/terrorists/people different than us?

Specifically show where the admin has said you must be afraid of Muslims or where they even implied it? this is a flat out lie.

It's just another excuse the left makes. You constantly tell people the administration is doing things they aren't. What red flag did they recently tell you were suppossed to be scared of? When/where did they tell you to be afraid of all Muslims?

He didn't actually say that the administration said we must be afraid of Muslims, although on quick reading it may seem that way. It is the "which side" that "buys into the Bush Administrations warnings, red flags, and constantly exhorts us to be..."

 

[Bern80]

He didn't actually say that the administration said we must be afraid of Muslims, although on quick reading it may seem that way. It is the "which side" that "buys into the Bush Administrations warnings, red flags, and constantly exhorts us to be..."

into the Bush Administrations warnings, red flags, and constantly exhorts us to be..."

yes he did

 

[ReillyT]

yes he did

Not in that post, he didn't, at least, not grammatically speaking.

As to your asinine attack on liberals, tell me, which side is it that buys into the Bush Administrations warnings, red flags, and constantly exhorts us to be scared of the muslims/terrorists/people different than us?

As you can see, the subject for the verbs "buy" and "exhort" is "which side." So, at least with respect to this post, he did not say that the Bush Administration "exhorts us to be scared..." It was presumably republicans (or some subset thereof) that he was referring to.

He may believe what you said he said, but he did not say it here, unless I have become completely confused about grammar.

 

[Bern80]

Not in that post, he didn't, at least, not grammatically speaking.




As you can see, the subject for the verbs "buy" and "exhort" is "which side." So, at least with respect to this post, he did not say that the Bush Administration "exhorts us to be scared..." It was presumably republicans (or some subset thereof) that he was referring to.

He may believe what you said he said, but he did not say it here, unless I have become completely confused about grammar.

You may be. here is how you dissect that sentence:

which side is it that buys into the Bush Administrations warnings, red flags, and constantly exhorts us to be scared of the muslims/terrorists/people different than us?

So what his real belief in sentence for is "The right buys into the Bush Administrations warnings, red flags, and constantly exhorts us to be scared of the muslims/terrorists/people different than us?

First you have "The right buys into...."

Buys into what? the right buys into; the Bush Administrations warnings, red flags, and constantly exhorts us to be scared of the muslims/terrorists/people different than us?

It doesn't say the right thinks the administration is saying these things and buying into them. he says they are saying those things. Specifically he is saying the admistration is saying two thing:

"the Bush Administrations warnings, red flags"

and

"the Bush Administrations exhorts us to be scared of the muslims/terrorists/people different than us"

If Larkinn had said something like the right believes the admin is saying these things then you would be right, but he isn't saying that. he saying the Bush administration is is saying these things, which they aren't and that was the point

 

[ReillyT]

Buys into what? the right buys into; the Bush Administrations warnings, red flags, and constantly exhorts us to be scared of the muslims/terrorists/people different than us?

That is where you make your mistake. The right "buys into" and "constantly exhorts."

It is not the case that the "Bush Administration's" "constantly exhorts," if for no other reason than that the "Bush Administration's" is a possessive which cannot be followed by a verb.

"the Bush Administrations warnings, red flags" is a direct object. It is not the subject of the sentence. The verb exhort does not refer to the direct object, it refers to the subject, which in this case is "which side."

Bottom line: A possessive like "Bush administration's" (he obviously left out a apostrophe) cannot be the noun to a verb. It would be like saying "Sandy's eats." That doesn't work.

I will highlight the mistake again in your second portion of the post.

It doesn't say the right thinks the administration is saying these things and buying into them. he says they are saying those things. Specifically he is saying the admistration is saying two thing:

"the Bush Administrations warnings, red flags"

and

"the Bush Administrations exhorts us to be scared of the muslims/terrorists/people different than us"

If Larkinn had said something like the right believes the admin is saying these things then you would be right, but he isn't saying that. he saying the Bush administration is is saying these things, which they aren't and that was the point

 

[ReillyT]

It is actually easier to pick out the subject of the sentence first and then follow the verbs.

 

[ReillyT]

Larkin. It would be easier, assuming you may still be on the board, if you would just tell us what you meant (regardless of what you wrote).

 

[Bern80]

He is saying two things quite clearly.

the Bush administration is giveing the people red flags, warnings, etc. and teh right buys into them

the exhorrts part is open to interpretation. It can refer to which side exhorts or the adminisratin exhorts. given how closely it follows the above and has similar subject matter I believe he stating the exhortion is on the part of the administration, not of the right.

 

[ReillyT]

He is saying two things quite clearly.

the Bush administration is giveing the people red flags, warnings, etc. and teh right buys into them

the exhorrts part is open to interpretation. It can refer to which side exhorts or the adminisratin exhorts. given how closely it follows the above and has similar subject matter I believe he stating the exhortion is on the part of the administration, not of the right.

Well, I guess we will wait to find out what he meant.

However, grammatically speaking, I don't think it is open to interpretation, but who the fuck really cares?

 

[theHawk]

You expect me to come up with my own thoughts about how/when/the likelihood of terrorists attacking the nation is?

No, I wouldn't expect you to ever come up with your own thoughts.

As to your asinine attack on liberals, tell me, which side is it that buys into the Bush Administrations warnings, red flags, and constantly exhorts us to be scared of the muslims/terrorists/people different than us?

What makes you think anyone is buying into "Bush Administration warnings", especially with his approval ratings just a few points above Congress'?
All you need to do is see what Jihadists are doing all around the world. Blowing themselves up and trying to kill as many possible people at every chance, pretty much does the job.

I find it kind of funny that you liberals claim the country has had it with Bush hence his low ratings, but at the same time the entire country buys into his propaganda and are too stupid to realize it.

 

[Larkinn]

Larkin. It would be easier, assuming you may still be on the board, if you would just tell us what you meant (regardless of what you wrote).

I feel so special. I go out to get lunch and a debate over my wording erupts. You have the correct interpretation Reilly...The wording was poor however. But I think the big clue to what I meant is the word exhorts and how its used in the sentece. That being said my grammatical skills are pathetically weak.

No, I wouldn't expect you to ever come up with your own thoughts.

So where do you get your information about terrorists from?

What makes you think anyone is buying into "Bush Administration warnings", especially with his approval ratings just a few points above Congress'?

Non Sequiter. Approval ratings don't necessarily have anything to do with whether people believe him or not. They are approval ratings, not truthfulness ratings.

All you need to do is see what Jihadists are doing all around the world. Blowing themselves up and trying to kill as many possible people at every chance, pretty much does the job.

I know...when the tsunami hit Asia as well every night I looked at the ocean fearfully. That they can, and do, set off a bomb in Iraq does not mean they can, and will, set off a bomb here.

I find it kind of funny that you liberals claim the country has had it with Bush hence his low ratings, but at the same time the entire country buys into his propaganda and are too stupid to realize it.

And I find it kind of funny that morons like you attribute beliefs to me merely because I fall into a vague, general ideological category.