Preliminary reports say a meth lab and bomb have been ruled out as possible causes of the explosion.
It's likely due to some kind of gas line leak/failure, either by accident, human error, or sabotage?
I throw that last one out there because the story of the homeowners at the epicentre of the explosion is quite interesting.
Home of a divorced couple where everyone, including the family cat, was out of the house at time of the blast. In serious debt with two mortgages and a dismissed bankruptcy hanging over them. The ex-wife away at a Casino, who had been living with her boyfriend in the former home of the ex-husband. Daughter staying at a friend's and the cat boarded for that night. [edited to add: house wasn't selling and recently taken off the market]
Anyways, that's one fucking serious BOOM!
Up to 80 damaged homes with possibly 31 that may have to be demolished.
"Investigators looking for the cause of a deadly Indianapolis house explosion got more support for their theory that natural gas was a factor Wednesday when an attorney for the owner of a home at the core of the blast said his client’s 12-year-old daughter had smelled a strange odor off and on for weeks."
“Once they went inside, they didn’t smell it,” Cable said. The odor wasn’t strong enough to concern the adults, so they didn’t report it, he said. ___________
"Neighbors in a Mars Hill, Ind., mobile home park said SWAT officers arrested Bob Leonard. Leonard's relative, Mark Leonard, lived with his girlfriend, Monserrate Shirley, in the home that exploded."
"The Indianapolis Star reported Tuesday that a source close to the investigation said natural gas was intentionally released into the home that exploded. They said they also believe the gas was ignited by a spark that possibly came from a remote source."
holy shit thats insane. funny, cuz the first thing i thought of when i saw this was "oh shit, there goes another meth lab." Also, 80 homes? did it like shift the foundation of the houses and such?
On November 15 2012 14:04 vultdylan wrote: holy shit thats insane. funny, cuz the first thing i thought of when i saw this was "oh shit, there goes another meth lab." Also, 80 homes? did it like shift the foundation of the houses and such?
That's surprising to me too.
I'm thinking the force and explosion carried through the gas line to the connect homes?
On November 15 2012 14:06 Caihead wrote: At least no one got hurt. Also that's way too fishy, either this was a ridiculous coincidence or an insurance scam gone way overboard.
WOW. That place looks like a F-22 used it for target practice. 31 homes need to be demolished? Obviously from the picture about 3 or 4 for sure need to be knocked down but otehr then maybe some minor damage from shrapnel I cannt see why any others would need to be knocked down
If it was a gas leak, it must have been leaking for days, and contained in the house...theres no way a small leak could cause that much damage. Know how long no one was in the house for? Cuz theres no way any one could live in a house, with a serious gas leak, and not even notice....
Up to 80 damaged homes with possibly 31 that may have to be demolished.
How did the other houses become so badly damaged that they may need to be demolished? Gas leak or something in the pipes that made the entire neighborhood unlivable? The pictures make it look like ~3 houses are erased but the surrounding ones just have a lot of debris/ minimal damage.
On November 15 2012 14:13 Orcasgt24 wrote: WOW. That place looks like a F-22 used it for target practice. 31 homes need to be demolished? Obviously from the picture about 3 or 4 for sure need to be knocked down but otehr then maybe some minor damage from shrapnel I cannt see why any others would need to be knocked down
According to the article, the shockwave or some other force related to the explosion shifted some homes off their foundations and caused cracks and tears in the walls/ceilings of homes as far has 6-7 houses down.
foundations of the other homes probably got shaken up a bunch, maybe some of the older houses with more fragile frames were deemed unsafe to live in? that really sucks :{
OH WOW you almost never see those sort of explosions in the US. I mean you always hear about gas leaks and what not that could cause explosions but you never see it happen.
Ok, so to clarify the people who owned the house were not in the house when it exploded? But two other people died in the surrounding houses?
On November 15 2012 14:55 Coppermantis wrote: How does something explode that much? It looks like a full-on bomb attack. Must have been some gas leak if that's really the cause.
i know right. the damn houses are in like 5 million pieces.
On November 15 2012 14:55 Coppermantis wrote: How does something explode that much? It looks like a full-on bomb attack. Must have been some gas leak if that's really the cause.
Yeah, I don't even...the houses have literally been leveled, wow :\
They're just...gone. The other houses look almost unscathed but I guess according to the article there are cracks and problems with the foundation or something.
On November 15 2012 14:57 peekn wrote: OH WOW you almost never see those sort of explosions in the US. I mean you always hear about gas leaks and what not that could cause explosions but you never see it happen.
Ok, so to clarify the people who owned the house were not in the house when it exploded? But two other people died in the surrounding houses?
The two dead were from the house immediately next door to the one believed to be the source of the explosion (where no one was home). Their house was one of the two houses completely and utterly levelled, along with the one believed to be the source.
On November 15 2012 14:57 peekn wrote: OH WOW you almost never see those sort of explosions in the US. I mean you always hear about gas leaks and what not that could cause explosions but you never see it happen.
Ok, so to clarify the people who owned the house were not in the house when it exploded? But two other people died in the surrounding houses?
The two dead were from the house immediately next door to the one believed to be the source of the explosion (where no one was home). Their house was one of the two houses completely and utterly levelled, along with the one believed to be the source.
That's too bad... Hope they get some answers if it was intentional or not.
People marveling at how it's possible for so many homes to be damaged, keep in mind that with explosions like this, there are usually very strong shock waves, this is especially the case for large gas leaks.
On November 15 2012 15:28 n3f wrote: Are meth labs common in Indianapolis?
There is absolutely no way a small chemical lab could produce an explosion this size.
Oh my god. Holy crap. That picture almost seems surreal to me.
On November 15 2012 15:54 Holy_AT wrote: American houses seem so fragile, just paper wood and some glue. I dont get it why they dont build propper houses ? Can anyone enlighten me ?
Wood is more economical to build houses with. I don't think a brick or stone house would fare much better against an explosion like this, though.
On November 15 2012 15:54 Holy_AT wrote: American houses seem so fragile, just paper wood and some glue. I dont get it why they dont build propper houses ? Can anyone enlighten me ?
Yeah, those silly Americans...I guess my next house will be a bunker.
In any case, am very curious as to what actually caused such an explosion...
On November 15 2012 16:01 DropBear wrote: Bit offtopic, but the perfect linear arrangement of all the houses in the first 2 pics made me giggle for some reason
On November 15 2012 15:54 Holy_AT wrote: American houses seem so fragile, just paper wood and some glue. I dont get it why they dont build propper houses ? Can anyone enlighten me ?
Two reasons:
1. Economics. It's hard to cover a whole continent in housing if you take the time to build everything out of brick and stone.
2. Culture. Most building in North America has taken place after the introduction of modern fire-fighting methods and fire departments. Hence North Americans don't have the same aversion to wooden houses that Europeans have.
What the actual fuck. The 2 houses next to pile of sawdust that was a house are missing half of the structure themselves!
This explosion was WAY too big to have been some kind of accident. They probably had a real bomb somehow and set it off by accident. It looks like the explosion was enormous and ball shaped, a simple natural gas accident couldn't have done something like that. The explosion wouldn't have been so concentrated and powerful, it would have been dispersed and uneven, which isn't the case in the photos.
I suspect there was a real bomb but there won't really be any proof because everything incinerated...
On November 15 2012 16:44 aeroblaster wrote: What the actual fuck. The 2 houses next to pile of sawdust that was a house are missing half of the structure themselves!
This explosion was WAY too big to have been some kind of accident. They probably had a real bomb somehow and set it off by accident. It looks like the explosion was enormous and ball shaped, a simple natural gas accident couldn't have done something like that. The explosion wouldn't have been so concentrated and powerful, it would have been dispersed and uneven, which isn't the case in the photos.
I suspect there was a real bomb but there won't really be any proof because everything incinerated...
supposedly the furnace in their basement broke down a week ago. At least that is what the owners of the home are claiming. A weeks worth of natural gas saturating an enclosed basement and surrounding area might be possible. I really don't know though, that is still a massive explosion. I'm really interested in what the investigators find.
On November 15 2012 16:44 aeroblaster wrote: What the actual fuck. The 2 houses next to pile of sawdust that was a house are missing half of the structure themselves!
This explosion was WAY too big to have been some kind of accident. They probably had a real bomb somehow and set it off by accident. It looks like the explosion was enormous and ball shaped, a simple natural gas accident couldn't have done something like that. The explosion wouldn't have been so concentrated and powerful, it would have been dispersed and uneven, which isn't the case in the photos.
I suspect there was a real bomb but there won't really be any proof because everything incinerated...
Gas explosions like this *do* happen, albeit rarely. It's true... this much damage really can happen just from a gas explosion. It really does look like a 2,000lb bomb hit the place.
On November 15 2012 17:40 FallDownMarigold wrote: Gas explosions like this *do* happen, albeit rarely. It's true... this much damage really can happen just from a gas explosion. It really does look like a 2,000lb bomb hit the place.
Still, when you hear about an explosion in a neighborhood you expect a few crashed windows and perhaps a paint job for the house. Not a scene out of Modern Warfare... Such a shitty way to die.
On November 15 2012 16:44 aeroblaster wrote: What the actual fuck. The 2 houses next to pile of sawdust that was a house are missing half of the structure themselves!
This explosion was WAY too big to have been some kind of accident. They probably had a real bomb somehow and set it off by accident. It looks like the explosion was enormous and ball shaped, a simple natural gas accident couldn't have done something like that. The explosion wouldn't have been so concentrated and powerful, it would have been dispersed and uneven, which isn't the case in the photos.
I suspect there was a real bomb but there won't really be any proof because everything incinerated...
A bomb explosion would put a hole in the ground.
This, i have seen so many crazy theories about drone strikes on the web..... A bomb would make a crater, this was a blast and gas can cause this much damage. Its sad what crime can do.
On November 15 2012 17:40 FallDownMarigold wrote: Gas explosions like this *do* happen, albeit rarely. It's true... this much damage really can happen just from a gas explosion. It really does look like a 2,000lb bomb hit the place.
Still, when you hear about an explosion in a neighborhood you expect a few crashed windows and perhaps a paint job for the house. Not a scene out of Modern Warfare... Such a shitty way to die.
Albeit quick.
Makes me want to walk around the house sniffing for gas.
The circumstances around the explosion are suspicious as fuck. Also that is a stupidly powerful natural gas explosion. I mean, 31 homes potentially damaged beyond repair? That's just insane.
Damn... thats a fucking huge explosion! I remember onetime we left the stove running without a flame, so the gas was leaking. We didn't figure it out for an hour and when we realized what was wrong we turned it off, opened all the windows and ran out the house. Thank god none of us lit a candle.
that must have been a serious leak(like majorly seeping in to the area for weeks) and a bunch of retards must live around that area if a 12 year old girl thought something was up and even told her parents about it lol
In germany 99,9% of the houses are made out of bricks (at least family homes are, the rest is glas and metal). I actually learned the difference between housing in the US and germany in another thread. ^^
On November 15 2012 16:44 aeroblaster wrote: What the actual fuck. The 2 houses next to pile of sawdust that was a house are missing half of the structure themselves!
This explosion was WAY too big to have been some kind of accident. They probably had a real bomb somehow and set it off by accident. It looks like the explosion was enormous and ball shaped, a simple natural gas accident couldn't have done something like that. The explosion wouldn't have been so concentrated and powerful, it would have been dispersed and uneven, which isn't the case in the photos.
I suspect there was a real bomb but there won't really be any proof because everything incinerated...
Natural gas explosions are often more damaging (especially to foundations) than surface detonations, such as those from common bombs.
On November 16 2012 07:11 Recognizable wrote: Are brick houses in the USA more expensive?
There are almost no brick houses o_o
I worked as a bricklayer in Ohio for about a year. Brick houses aren't brick as they are here in France. Usually the house is built of wood. The brick that is around it doesn't actually touch the wall it is out about two centimeters and is only decorative. They have no structural value whatsoever. Basements and foundations are laid in block as we use here, but a "brick house" is just replacing vinyl siding by a longer lasting brick face.
On November 16 2012 07:11 Recognizable wrote: Are brick houses in the USA more expensive?
I would assume so since I have lived in two states in the midwest and traveled extensively and I have never seen a concrete, concrete block, metal, or brick, home. Even in Ohio where I live where there is a large brick industry we only put brick facades on the houses. I believe that wood is cheap in NA due to the massive timber production of the pacific northwest region primarily. Not sure if that is the only reason, I've been told by friends who lived in eastern europe that concrete buildings have crappy properties with regard to moisture, that being said, they lived there in 91' so it could have just been crappy communist construction methods. Also I'm not sure if the heating/cooling properties are different as well. Most likely just simple economics. Anyway...
On November 15 2012 15:05 Shinobi1982 wrote: Serious question: Whats up with US and wooden houses?
Significantly more cheap and more able to stand up to certain natural disasters, such as earthquakes. Lots of other reasons to go with a frame build over something like fire resistive.
Honestly, those houses look like they were fucking nuked. If you look really closely you can actually see damage in a lot of the houses down the street, like part of the roof of one slid off a bit and another has like a board embedded in it's side. Did they like fill the house with gas and then just set it off?
On November 15 2012 15:05 Shinobi1982 wrote: Serious question: Whats up with US and wooden houses?
Significantly more cheap and more able to stand up to certain natural disasters, such as earthquakes. Lots of other reasons to go with a frame build over something like fire resistive.
Out of curiosity, what about tornadoes? I mean, to me it looks weird (nicely put) to build a house out of matches in a region with tornado-activity, but then again, i was wrong pretty badly in another thread, so im careful on that matter. Are there benefits to a wooden house, even though my "logic" tells me otherwise?
On November 15 2012 15:05 Shinobi1982 wrote: Serious question: Whats up with US and wooden houses?
Significantly more cheap and more able to stand up to certain natural disasters, such as earthquakes. Lots of other reasons to go with a frame build over something like fire resistive.
Out of curiosity, what about tornadoes? I mean, to me it looks weird (nicely put) to build a house out of matches in a region with tornado-activity, but then again, i was wrong pretty badly in another thread, so im careful on that matter. Are there benefits to a wooden house, even though my "logic" tells me otherwise?
Indianapolis is not particularly vulnerable to tornadoes; they tend to be far more frequent and of a building material concern out west a bit, more along the lines of Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas.
Edit: Well, now that I look at it, I guess Indiana has had a lot of tornadoes. Though whether or not this warrants different building standards is rather out of my reach
That's some terrible, terrible damage to those houses (couldn't resist sorry) I wonder what caused it, will be checking back on this one
31 houses needing to be demolished though, that's quite a lot. Is it really that impossible to fix a foundation when it has been damaged by something like this?
On November 15 2012 15:05 Shinobi1982 wrote: Serious question: Whats up with US and wooden houses?
Significantly more cheap and more able to stand up to certain natural disasters, such as earthquakes. Lots of other reasons to go with a frame build over something like fire resistive.
Out of curiosity, what about tornadoes? I mean, to me it looks weird (nicely put) to build a house out of matches in a region with tornado-activity, but then again, i was wrong pretty badly in another thread, so im careful on that matter. Are there benefits to a wooden house, even though my "logic" tells me otherwise?
Indianapolis is not particularly vulnerable to tornadoes; they tend to be far more frequent and of a building material concern out west a bit, more along the lines of Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas.
Edit: Well, now that I look at it, I guess Indiana has had a lot of tornadoes. Though whether or not this warrants different building standards is rather out of my reach
Actually, i did not know how much tornadoes "fly through" (or whatever they do) Indianapolis per year. To me, Indianapolis is a race, i know nothing else about that. ^^
It's just that after a tornado it looks more or less like the pictures in the OP, so i'm kinda confused why you would build something so "flimsy" in certain regions. Is it some kind of gambling, like building a cheap home and just hope you don't get hit?
Edit: but on the topic, it actually looks like a gas-explosion to me (in germany we had some of them over the last few years). I'm of course in no way an expert, it's just that.. Actually, i don't know why. Maybe i watched too much mythbusters and their gas-explosions.
Edit2: well.. Is it even common in the US to have gas ovens and heaters?
On November 15 2012 14:04 vultdylan wrote: holy shit thats insane. funny, cuz the first thing i thought of when i saw this was "oh shit, there goes another meth lab." Also, 80 homes? did it like shift the foundation of the houses and such?
On November 15 2012 15:05 Shinobi1982 wrote: Serious question: Whats up with US and wooden houses?
Significantly more cheap and more able to stand up to certain natural disasters, such as earthquakes. Lots of other reasons to go with a frame build over something like fire resistive.
Out of curiosity, what about tornadoes? I mean, to me it looks weird (nicely put) to build a house out of matches in a region with tornado-activity, but then again, i was wrong pretty badly in another thread, so im careful on that matter. Are there benefits to a wooden house, even though my "logic" tells me otherwise?
Tornadoes are extremely rare except in very specific parts of the country, in which they are only slightly less rare. Even when they do occur, the path of destruction of even the largest tornado is pretty narrow and you probably have a better chance of being struck by lightning.
It's quite simple really, wooden houses, reinforced with plastic and/or metal, is much cheaper than building everything out of stone or mortar, especially when you have such a large population. In seismic areas, it is also more durable in the event of an earthquake than a stone house.
On November 15 2012 15:05 Shinobi1982 wrote: Serious question: Whats up with US and wooden houses?
Significantly more cheap and more able to stand up to certain natural disasters, such as earthquakes. Lots of other reasons to go with a frame build over something like fire resistive.
Out of curiosity, what about tornadoes? I mean, to me it looks weird (nicely put) to build a house out of matches in a region with tornado-activity, but then again, i was wrong pretty badly in another thread, so im careful on that matter. Are there benefits to a wooden house, even though my "logic" tells me otherwise?
Tornadoes are extremely rare except in very specific parts of the country, in which they are only slightly less rare. Even when they do occur, the path of destruction of even the largest tornado is pretty narrow and you probably have a better chance of being struck by lightning.
It's quite simple really, wooden houses, reinforced with plastic and/or metal, is much cheaper than building everything out of stone or mortar, especially when you have such a large population. In seismic areas, it is also more durable in the event of an earthquake than a stone house.
Thought so, so in the end it's a bit of a gamble. Guess, that makes sense (i don't really know the behaviour or "rarity" of tornadoes, because we don't have them).
What about gas ovens/heating? Is that common in these houses? Or to be more clear, could that house have had gas heating/ovens? I'm asking because i don't want to trip in the same trap i did last time (where i thought that us- and german housing are quite similar, which apparently, they are not, even though at that time we discussed appartement-buildings).
On November 16 2012 07:11 Recognizable wrote: Are brick houses in the USA more expensive?
I would assume so since I have lived in two states in the midwest and traveled extensively and I have never seen a concrete, concrete block, metal, or brick, home. Even in Ohio where I live where there is a large brick industry we only put brick facades on the houses. I believe that wood is cheap in NA due to the massive timber production of the pacific northwest region primarily. Not sure if that is the only reason, I've been told by friends who lived in eastern europe that concrete buildings have crappy properties with regard to moisture, that being said, they lived there in 91' so it could have just been crappy communist construction methods. Also I'm not sure if the heating/cooling properties are different as well. Most likely just simple economics. Anyway...
The problem with concrete buildings over here is that the newest ones are 20 years old, maybe even 22. That's almost as old as I am. A lot of them don't have outside thermal isolation, old water pipes, etc. Not to mention having hundreds of people in a building, so the common parts are being anonymously vandalised 24/7.
House construction in the US varies by region. Indy probably has midwestern structure, which means it has a concrete poured, in-ground basement foundation. then a wooden frame with insulation and drywall. the outside has a styrofoam layer, and then plastic covering. this is then either covered/decorated by brick (expensive), wood (heavy maintenence), or plastic (cheap and easy to maintain).
It's likely gas heated, as it's cheaper than electrical heating. Especially in a suburban neighborhood like that.
Honestly that looks more like a bomb hit it than a gas leak o.O (but it's not, no crater and the explosion clearly happened above ground).
On November 16 2012 09:17 BluePanther wrote: House construction in the US varies by region. Indy probably has midwestern structure, which means it has a concrete poured, in-ground basement foundation. then a wooden frame with insulation and drywall. the outside has a styrofoam layer, and then plastic covering. this is then either covered/decorated by brick (expensive), wood (heavy maintenence), or plastic (cheap and easy to maintain).
Yep, I grew up in Ohio in a house very much like this, with nice plastic siding! It was a nice house and had very few problems, save for a pesky leak in the basement that would pop up every so often. Also happy birthday BP!
Wow thats bad, feel sry for the victems. Still:4 houses gone and 2 damaged by a gas explosion. These things happen like every week in the western world. Pics are of verry good quality btw, props for that!.
"If it was a gas leak, it must have been leaking for days, and contained in the house...theres no way a small leak could cause that much damage"
They are all wooden houses, they not so solid. Can easily imagine a small leak can cause that in like half a day. There are gas explosions in the netherlands every year destroying a few stone build houses without problem, it is verry powerfull if got the right air gas mixture.
"In serious debt with two mortgages and a dismissed bankruptcy hanging over them." Continues " The ex-wife away at a Casino"
O wow i didnt even see that yet, this definatly gives reason for at least some doubts about a natural cause. Wont be the first time people blew up their own house.
On November 16 2012 09:23 Rassy wrote: Wow thats bad, feel sry for the victems. Still:4 houses gone and 2 damaged by a gas explosion. These things happen like every week in the western world.
"If it was a gas leak, it must have been leaking for days, and contained in the house...theres no way a small leak could cause that much damage"
They are all wooden houses, they not so solid. Can easily imagine a small leak can cause that in like half a day. There are gas explosions in the netherlands every year destroying a few stonebuild houses without problem, it is verry powerfull if got the right air gas mixture
probably not, but it's a topic we haven't talked about recently :O
On November 16 2012 09:23 Rassy wrote: Wow thats bad, feel sry for the victems. Still:4 houses gone and 2 damaged by a gas explosion. These things happen like every week in the western world.
"If it was a gas leak, it must have been leaking for days, and contained in the house...theres no way a small leak could cause that much damage"
They are all wooden houses, they not so solid. Can easily imagine a small leak can cause that in like half a day. There are gas explosions in the netherlands every year destroying a few stonebuild houses without problem, it is verry powerfull if got the right air gas mixture
probably not, but it's a topic we haven't talked about recently :O
and my birthday is tomorrow, tf tl?
Guess you would have birthday over here in germany now (if i don't confuse the timezones, im tired) - so happy birthday from here, as you have birthday in germany (maybe im switching up the timezones upside down, but still )
So yeah, if it most likely had a gas-heater and ovens and stuff, im convinced that this was the issue. Maybe suicide (happened in germany).
That's Lüttich in 2001, a gas explosion in an appartement house - just to show how powerfull such a thing can be. Keep in mind, that's concrete and bricks, even though most likely older than 50-75 years (judging by the looks of the house, it's called "Altbau", something like "old construction").
On November 16 2012 09:40 Soap wrote: Every single house here is made of brick on a reinforced concrete frame, how is it expensive in America?
Well, its more expensive than wood i guess. Even though over here a concrete building could actually be cheaper than a wooden one, or at least +- the same price.
On a more serious note, it is surprising that the houses to the north and south (across the road) only suffered cosmetic damage, despite the lack of a barrier between them. So, I guess I rather be 50m (exposed) away from an explosion, than 25m away and behind a brick wall?
Apparently it was only 2 houses that were completely leveled in that blast area, not 3. Explosion must have been centered towards one side of the suspected house.
On November 16 2012 09:23 Rassy wrote: Wow thats bad, feel sry for the victems. Still:4 houses gone and 2 damaged by a gas explosion. These things happen like every week in the western world.
"If it was a gas leak, it must have been leaking for days, and contained in the house...theres no way a small leak could cause that much damage"
They are all wooden houses, they not so solid. Can easily imagine a small leak can cause that in like half a day. There are gas explosions in the netherlands every year destroying a few stonebuild houses without problem, it is verry powerfull if got the right air gas mixture
probably not, but it's a topic we haven't talked about recently :O
One of the reasons that wood is used over brick is earthquakes, bricks are not exactly the most flexible material when dealing with earthquakes, nor would you rather have a brick wall hit you rather than a wood wall.
That being said, I don't really know of many earthquakes near Indianapolis, but maybe I am just unaware.
On November 16 2012 06:42 cari-kira wrote: are these houses really build from wood??
a lot of north american homes are built from wood. it's strange to me that you think it's strange. =]
I know. Around here ever home is made of wood. I don't know what else you you build it with. Metal?
i actually never saw a wooden house before, at least not a real family house, just some holiday huts and dandruffs.. the houses i know are built from stone.
On November 16 2012 10:33 bobbob wrote: One of the reasons that wood is used over brick is earthquakes, bricks are not exactly the most flexible material when dealing with earthquakes, nor would you rather have a brick wall hit you rather than a wood wall.
That being said, I don't really know of many earthquakes near Indianapolis, but maybe I am just unaware.
Probably the twisters, I've seen the wizard of Oz. Houses everywhere are generally made out of what's cheap. Stone was easy to come by at the local quarry at the time most of the stone houses were made in europe, brick is just a cheap easier to lay extension of that, breeze block even more so. If you don't need thick walls wooden houses kinda make sense. It is amusing when they paint bricks on them though. Increasingly here in new builds only the outer skin is brick/decorative block and the inners are timber frame and plasterboard affairs.
With the family all staying elsewhere, it would might sense to board the cat. It might shed and keep the house they're trying to sell ugly and dirty. The daughter couldn't take care of it, and perhaps the wife's boyfriend wanted nothing to do with it. But add this to two tough mortgages, a bankruptcy, and the house recently being taken off the market, and it does get fishy. Me, I would have offered up the cat as a sacrifice to add plausibility to my alibi.
On November 16 2012 06:42 cari-kira wrote: are these houses really build from wood??
a lot of north american homes are built from wood. it's strange to me that you think it's strange. =]
I know. Around here ever home is made of wood. I don't know what else you you build it with. Metal?
i actually never saw a wooden house before, at least not a real family house, just some holiday huts and dandruffs.. the houses i know are built from stone.
Yeah, I think its pretty uncommon to see houses in europe made of wood. (at least where I live) The only houses I've seen made of wood are the ones you rent for vacation. Like beach houses etc. Brick and stone is the way to go =)
The wood-stone difference between europe and the usa is verry interesting. Here ALL houses are build from stone (95%+) and in the usa nearly all houses are build from wood. Wood building is alot cheaper then stone, (about 50% of price for similar stone house) wich i asume is the main reason. America is not as rich and europe is not as poor as manny people think. Stone is alot better though, most people probably know the tale of the wulf and the 3 piggies, where the piggies first build a straw house, then a wooden house and in the end a stone house, only the stone house survives the big bad wulf. Earthquakes: not sure this is a relevant argument, the east coast of the usa is seldomly hit by earthquakes and cant be a reason to build houses in wood,a well build stone house is pretty resilliant against earthquakes, maybe even more so then the wooden houses. If i then see the devestation huricanes do to wooden houses in the usa i cant helpt thinking by myself, why dont they build in stone? a well build stone house is verry resilliant against even huricane winds.
This almost happened to my neighborhood 15 years ago, all the houses filled with gas during the weekend while people were all away in a freak coincidence, and a single spark would have blown everything up.
Fortunately my mom smelled the gas and immediately alerted the fire department
On November 16 2012 06:42 cari-kira wrote: are these houses really build from wood??
a lot of north american homes are built from wood. it's strange to me that you think it's strange. =]
I know. Around here ever home is made of wood. I don't know what else you you build it with. Metal?
i actually never saw a wooden house before, at least not a real family house, just some holiday huts and dandruffs.. the houses i know are built from stone.
In the US timber houses are more common on the west coast due to their flexibility during earthquakes, but they are still fairly common on the east coast compared to brick/cement houses, lumber is cheaper in the US then in europe. Also for a larger price homes can and have been made with using steel.
There are also differences with working with brick and working with timber, brick requires proper training to properly lay brick quickly and even if you can get it done quickly a timber house can be done quicker, land is abundance and houses are larger in the US. And depending where you live and how you live a house can last 30+ years easily, which is a lifetime of ownership to one direct family. Anyways i doubt modern houses in europe are made purely using brick, they may have a brick exterior but are using wood on the inside to hide wiring, pipes and insulation, they might not even be brick houses but just a brick exterior for appeal just due to cultural ties to brick housing for centuries.
Also holy shit those houses got destroyed shame 2 people died.
On November 17 2012 02:47 Rassy wrote: The wood-stone difference between europe and the usa is verry interesting. Here ALL houses are build from stone (95%+) and in the usa nearly all houses are build from wood. Wood building is alot cheaper then stone, (about 50% of price for similar stone house) wich i asume is the main reason. America is not as rich and europe is not as poor as manny people think. Stone is alot better though, most people probably know the tale of the wulf and the 3 piggies, where the piggies first build a straw house, then a wooden house and in the end a stone house, only the stone house survives the big bad wulf. Earthquakes: not sure this is a relevant argument, the east coast of the usa is seldomly hit by earthquakes and cant be a reason to build houses in wood,a well build stone house is pretty resilliant against earthquakes, maybe even more so then the wooden houses. If i then see the devestation huricanes do to wooden houses in the usa i cant helpt thinking by myself, why dont they build in stone? a well build stone house is verry resilliant against even huricane winds.
Eh. I think the difference is simply culture. Many people build houses in the US thinking they will eventually sell them off, they aren't usually seen as ancestral homes or something that will be passed down through the generations. Also why build from expensive stone when you can build from cheap wood and both products look great? I don't know why I would pay more for a stone house even if it was easily affordable.
On November 15 2012 15:05 Shinobi1982 wrote: Serious question: Whats up with US and wooden houses?
Significantly more cheap and more able to stand up to certain natural disasters, such as earthquakes. Lots of other reasons to go with a frame build over something like fire resistive.
Out of curiosity, what about tornadoes? I mean, to me it looks weird (nicely put) to build a house out of matches in a region with tornado-activity, but then again, i was wrong pretty badly in another thread, so im careful on that matter. Are there benefits to a wooden house, even though my "logic" tells me otherwise?
Living in Oklahoma in the middle of tornado alley (200+ tornadoes a year), most houses are still wood-framed just because it is so much cheaper than brick houses. Brick houses are sturdier, but will still be severely damaged or destroyed when hit by a tornado.
As odd as it sounds, most houses here do not have basements because of the low water table. As a result, storm shelters are typically built for people to hide in during a tornado.
On November 15 2012 15:05 Shinobi1982 wrote: Serious question: Whats up with US and wooden houses?
Significantly more cheap and more able to stand up to certain natural disasters, such as earthquakes. Lots of other reasons to go with a frame build over something like fire resistive.
Out of curiosity, what about tornadoes? I mean, to me it looks weird (nicely put) to build a house out of matches in a region with tornado-activity, but then again, i was wrong pretty badly in another thread, so im careful on that matter. Are there benefits to a wooden house, even though my "logic" tells me otherwise?
Living in Oklahoma in the middle of tornado alley (200+ tornadoes a year), most houses are still wood-framed just because it is so much cheaper than brick houses. Brick houses are sturdier, but will still be severely damaged or destroyed when hit by a tornado.
As odd as it sounds, most houses here do not have basements because of the low water table. As a result, storm shelters are typically built for people to hide in during a tornado.
Brick houses are still very vulnerable to tornadoes, tornadoes are different from hurricanes, a tornado is much more likely to rip apart a brick house by compromising the roof, you still have to build a house made to take the conditions and it's still too costly to make something that is out on the outer instances of what is the norm, and brick houses don't fit hurricanes, timber housing on stilts is actually the most approbate due to there isn't the same foundation that becomes compromised by flood waters. Timber houses also over the years of research mostly from army corps of engineers can by made to withstand the normal scope of category/F 3 or lower, few housing is made to withstand past that scope just because it's too costly. It's just cheaper to build the best you can at a cost and evacuate the area or go into shelters built to withstand that kind of damage.
On November 15 2012 15:05 Shinobi1982 wrote: Serious question: Whats up with US and wooden houses?
Significantly more cheap and more able to stand up to certain natural disasters, such as earthquakes. Lots of other reasons to go with a frame build over something like fire resistive.
Out of curiosity, what about tornadoes? I mean, to me it looks weird (nicely put) to build a house out of matches in a region with tornado-activity, but then again, i was wrong pretty badly in another thread, so im careful on that matter. Are there benefits to a wooden house, even though my "logic" tells me otherwise?
Living in Oklahoma in the middle of tornado alley (200+ tornadoes a year), most houses are still wood-framed just because it is so much cheaper than brick houses. Brick houses are sturdier, but will still be severely damaged or destroyed when hit by a tornado.
As odd as it sounds, most houses here do not have basements because of the low water table. As a result, storm shelters are typically built for people to hide in during a tornado.
Brick houses are still very vulnerable to tornadoes, tornadoes are different from hurricanes, a tornado is much more likely to rip apart a brick house by compromising the roof, you still have to build a house made to take the conditions and it's still too costly to make something that is out on the outer instances of what is the norm, and brick houses don't fit hurricanes, timber housing on stilts is actually the most approbate due to there isn't the same foundation that becomes compromised by flood waters. Timber houses also over the years of research mostly from army corps of engineers can by made to withstand the normal scope of category/F 3 or lower, few housing is made to withstand past that scope just because it's too costly. It's just cheaper to build the best you can at a cost and evacuate the area or go into shelters built to withstand that kind of damage.
On November 17 2012 02:47 Rassy wrote: The wood-stone difference between europe and the usa is verry interesting. Here ALL houses are build from stone (95%+) and in the usa nearly all houses are build from wood. Wood building is alot cheaper then stone, (about 50% of price for similar stone house) wich i asume is the main reason. America is not as rich and europe is not as poor as manny people think. Stone is alot better though, most people probably know the tale of the wulf and the 3 piggies, where the piggies first build a straw house, then a wooden house and in the end a stone house, only the stone house survives the big bad wulf. Earthquakes: not sure this is a relevant argument, the east coast of the usa is seldomly hit by earthquakes and cant be a reason to build houses in wood,a well build stone house is pretty resilliant against earthquakes, maybe even more so then the wooden houses. If i then see the devestation huricanes do to wooden houses in the usa i cant helpt thinking by myself, why dont they build in stone? a well build stone house is verry resilliant against even huricane winds.
You clearly don't know what you are talking about, and I can't believe you cited a nursery rhyme as your proof.
Lumber is much cheaper than stone, especially in the USA, but it has nothing to do with which region is rich or poor. Earthquakes aren't as common on the east coast as they are in the west coast, but all it takes is one significant earthquake over the lifespan of a stone house to completely compromise the structure.
As for hurricanes, the vast majority of timber houses, unless they are little shanties, are built to withstand your average hurricane. The velocity of hurricane winds required to level a timber house would also probably cause irreparable damage to a stone house, it just may not be leveled to the ground. And if a tornado travels directly through your home, it's going to get ripped apart whether it is timber or stone.
The only reason I could see somebody having a brick home in the U.S. is for aesthetic reasons, or it is a really old home that was around prior to the big timber housing boom in this country. Timber is just too cheap and too effective for the current style of U.S. housing development, which is put up a residential subdivision as quickly as you can, as cost-efficiently as you can, for as little money as possible while passing all of your building codes.
As for this explosion, based on the severity of the damage I doubt a stone house would have survived, although if the surrounding houses had been stone they probably would have sustained less damage. Then again, who knows, because if those houses were made of stone it would have been brick shrapnel colliding with those homes instead of timber splinters. But in the end it all comes down to cost. No one wants to pay for a stone home so no one builds them.
On November 15 2012 15:05 Shinobi1982 wrote: Serious question: Whats up with US and wooden houses?
Significantly more cheap and more able to stand up to certain natural disasters, such as earthquakes. Lots of other reasons to go with a frame build over something like fire resistive.
Out of curiosity, what about tornadoes? I mean, to me it looks weird (nicely put) to build a house out of matches in a region with tornado-activity, but then again, i was wrong pretty badly in another thread, so im careful on that matter. Are there benefits to a wooden house, even though my "logic" tells me otherwise?
Living in Oklahoma in the middle of tornado alley (200+ tornadoes a year), most houses are still wood-framed just because it is so much cheaper than brick houses. Brick houses are sturdier, but will still be severely damaged or destroyed when hit by a tornado.
As odd as it sounds, most houses here do not have basements because of the low water table. As a result, storm shelters are typically built for people to hide in during a tornado.
Brick houses are still very vulnerable to tornadoes, tornadoes are different from hurricanes, a tornado is much more likely to rip apart a brick house by compromising the roof, you still have to build a house made to take the conditions and it's still too costly to make something that is out on the outer instances of what is the norm, and brick houses don't fit hurricanes, timber housing on stilts is actually the most approbate due to there isn't the same foundation that becomes compromised by flood waters. Timber houses also over the years of research mostly from army corps of engineers can by made to withstand the normal scope of category/F 3 or lower, few housing is made to withstand past that scope just because it's too costly. It's just cheaper to build the best you can at a cost and evacuate the area or go into shelters built to withstand that kind of damage.
On November 17 2012 03:28 jdseemoreglass wrote:
On November 17 2012 03:27 DaCruise wrote: Maybe illegal fireworks caused this.
You mean illegal fireworks like plastic explosives? lmao.
Yeah those two houses were completely obliterated, i wonder what kind of gas leaked for that kind of pow.
My guess is that one of the houses in question was entirely full of leaked gas, it is really the only way the totality of the damage makes sense.
And the only way that could've happened is if no one was in the home to set off the mental alarm bells, as was the case here.
Coupled with the fact that the daughter says she had smelt something funny off and on for a whole week, and I can see how an escalation in the possible leak could have occurred the day everyone was away to lead to this explosion.
On November 15 2012 15:05 Shinobi1982 wrote: Serious question: Whats up with US and wooden houses?
Significantly more cheap and more able to stand up to certain natural disasters, such as earthquakes. Lots of other reasons to go with a frame build over something like fire resistive.
Out of curiosity, what about tornadoes? I mean, to me it looks weird (nicely put) to build a house out of matches in a region with tornado-activity, but then again, i was wrong pretty badly in another thread, so im careful on that matter. Are there benefits to a wooden house, even though my "logic" tells me otherwise?
Living in Oklahoma in the middle of tornado alley (200+ tornadoes a year), most houses are still wood-framed just because it is so much cheaper than brick houses. Brick houses are sturdier, but will still be severely damaged or destroyed when hit by a tornado.
As odd as it sounds, most houses here do not have basements because of the low water table. As a result, storm shelters are typically built for people to hide in during a tornado.
Brick houses are still very vulnerable to tornadoes, tornadoes are different from hurricanes, a tornado is much more likely to rip apart a brick house by compromising the roof, you still have to build a house made to take the conditions and it's still too costly to make something that is out on the outer instances of what is the norm, and brick houses don't fit hurricanes, timber housing on stilts is actually the most approbate due to there isn't the same foundation that becomes compromised by flood waters. Timber houses also over the years of research mostly from army corps of engineers can by made to withstand the normal scope of category/F 3 or lower, few housing is made to withstand past that scope just because it's too costly. It's just cheaper to build the best you can at a cost and evacuate the area or go into shelters built to withstand that kind of damage.
On November 17 2012 03:28 jdseemoreglass wrote:
On November 17 2012 03:27 DaCruise wrote: Maybe illegal fireworks caused this.
You mean illegal fireworks like plastic explosives? lmao.
Yeah those two houses were completely obliterated, i wonder what kind of gas leaked for that kind of pow.
My guess is that one of the houses in question was entirely full of leaked gas, it is really the only way the totality of the damage makes sense.
Kinda feels like the only way it makes sense is if both houses were filling up with gas as that is what it usually takes to just completely make a house vanish short of exodia.
On November 16 2012 06:42 cari-kira wrote: are these houses really build from wood??
a lot of north american homes are built from wood. it's strange to me that you think it's strange. =]
I know. Around here ever home is made of wood. I don't know what else you you build it with. Metal?
Concrete and brick. Every acceptable house in Thailand is built with concrete, except those vacation house that are in the mountain, or poor people's house in a slum, that are built with wood.
On November 16 2012 06:42 cari-kira wrote: are these houses really build from wood??
a lot of north american homes are built from wood. it's strange to me that you think it's strange. =]
I know. Around here ever home is made of wood. I don't know what else you you build it with. Metal?
Concrete and brick. Every acceptable house in Thailand is built with concrete, except those vacation house that are in the mountain, or poor people's house in a slum, that are built with wood.
Every single thing I've read suggests that Thai houses are built on stilts and are almost always made of wood or bamboo. I understand that you see an opportunity here to possibly one up NA building standards, but you don't need to lie.
As the moniker “Thai stilt house” suggests, one universal aspect of Thailand’s traditional architecture is the elevation of its buildings on stilts, most commonly to around head height. The area beneath the house is consequently used for storage, crafts, lounging in the daytime, and sometimes for livestock. The houses were raised as a result of heavy flooding during certain parts of the year, and in more ancient times, predators. Thai building and living habits are often based on superstitious and religious beliefs. Many other considerations such as locally available materials, climate, and agriculture have a lot to do with the style. Thai houses are made from a variety of woods and are often built in just a day as prefabricated wood panels are built ahead of time and put together on site by a master builder. Many houses are also built with bamboo, a material that is easily constructed and does not require professional builders.
This happened in my neighbourhood about 2 years ago. 3 people killed. A bunch of houses were deemed unlivable and my house had the outside door including the frame ripped out of the house from the shockwave.
EDIT: My house is about 14 houses done from the house that exploded.
On the wood vs stone construction discussion, it's also a lot easier to insulate a building with wood/steel stud construction than it is to insulate a stone one. According to some quick google-fu, a standard 2x4 stud constructed wall with standard fiberglass insulation (pretty much the minimum norm anywhere in the US that actually gets cold) is 15 times better than an equivalent thickness of brick/concrete.
looks like a heacy explosion but i dont see 40 homes damaged. unless we include some wood on the lawn as damaged.
for brick vs wood... well its no question for most people.always was weird for me that over there people dont build homes to last, but if you want to build your home with wood do as you wish ~~
On November 17 2012 04:50 Dranak wrote: On the wood vs stone construction discussion, it's also a lot easier to insulate a building with wood/steel stud construction than it is to insulate a stone one. According to some quick google-fu, a standard 2x4 stud constructed wall with standard fiberglass insulation (pretty much the minimum norm anywhere in the US that actually gets cold) is 15 times better than an equivalent thickness of brick/concrete.
well we've obviously got fiberglass insulation over here as well and not just bricks / concrete. I don't think it makes a difference at all that way and I agree with someone who posted earlier that it's merely about culture. Where I'm from your own (family) house/home is supposed to last for generations and I just don't think it's practical to use wood if that's the main criteria.
On November 17 2012 04:59 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: looks like a heacy explosion but i dont see 40 homes damaged. unless we include some wood on the lawn as damaged.
for brick vs wood... well its no question for most people.always was weird for me that over there people dont build homes to last, but if you want to build your home with wood do as you wish ~~
But wood homes do last. In some older areas of cities there are wood homes that are hundreds of years old.
On November 17 2012 04:58 CrtBalorda wrote: That doesnt look like 80 homes have been damaged... In fact it kinda looks like 3... Dont know where that came from...
Most of the damage is probably of the sort that doesn't show well in aerial photos- houses shifted off their foundations/foundations cracked by the blast wave nearby, with windows blown out/shingles damaged further away.
On November 17 2012 04:50 Dranak wrote: On the wood vs stone construction discussion, it's also a lot easier to insulate a building with wood/steel stud construction than it is to insulate a stone one. According to some quick google-fu, a standard 2x4 stud constructed wall with standard fiberglass insulation (pretty much the minimum norm anywhere in the US that actually gets cold) is 15 times better than an equivalent thickness of brick/concrete.
well we've obviously got fiberglass insulation over here as well and not just bricks / concrete. I don't think it makes a difference at all that way and I agree with someone who posted earlier that it's merely about culture. Where I'm from your own (family) house/home is supposed to last for generations and I just don't think it's practical to use wood if that's the main criteria.
Obviously you have insulation there, was merely pointing out another advantage of wood (easier/cheaper to apply that insulation). I agree it's mostly about culture driven choices and cost.
The Fairbanks House in Dedham, Massachusetts is a historic house built between 1637 and 1641 making it the oldest surviving timber-frame house in North America that has been verified by dendrochronology testing. Puritan settler Jonathan Fairebanke constructed the farm house for his wife Grace (Lee Smith) and their family. The house was occupied and then passed down through eight generations of the family until the early 20th century. Over several centuries the original portion was expanded as architectural styles changed and the family grew.
On November 17 2012 04:58 CrtBalorda wrote: That doesnt look like 80 homes have been damaged... In fact it kinda looks like 3... Dont know where that came from...
Count again, there are 2 houses just completely gone and 2 other houses half missing. That level of umph in an explosion wouldn't just condemn the homes that have been demolished by the explosion but it would also structurally weaken the structures around it, requiring repairs in order to bring them back up to code.
On November 17 2012 04:31 omgCRAZY wrote: This happened in my neighbourhood about 2 years ago. 3 people killed. A bunch of houses were deemed unlivable and my house had the outside door including the frame ripped out of the house from the shockwave. + Show Spoiler +
EDIT: My house is about 14 houses done from the house that exploded.
I guess gas explosions pack more wallop then one would think.
And again in terms of natural disasters, heavy winds and flooding such as tornados and hurrcaines timber construction is effective against most, along with things like earthquakes, even if your house is like UK standards of 2 brick layers with filler inbetween, that doesn't work great in high winds+ heavy flooding foundations slip and will break a building no matter what. And in pure high winds your wooden roof is vulnerable and would have to be anchored just as it would have to be in a wooden house, and just becuase a house is made out of brick doesn't make it fireproof, it just means the fire has less to spread on from house to house, the one house will still burn and modern firefighting. It's not like the house will burn up and be in any better condition, the 2nd + floor is likely not made of bricks at best it's reinforced concrete and the roof the same deal. Houses in europe aren't bunkers, i don't get why people are thinking it's 100% brick and covered with a concrete layer to laminate it.
On November 17 2012 04:59 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: looks like a heacy explosion but i dont see 40 homes damaged. unless we include some wood on the lawn as damaged.
for brick vs wood... well its no question for most people.always was weird for me that over there people dont build homes to last, but if you want to build your home with wood do as you wish ~~
But wood homes do last. In some older areas of cities there are wood homes that are hundreds of years old.
SF Victorian styled houses are quite cherished and old. I think people don't understand the purpose of paint on a house and just think wood auto rots not matter what. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painted_Ladies
On November 17 2012 04:19 Soap wrote: Here even houses in a slum are built on brick. Only the very poorest homes would be made of sheets of plywood.
I can't imagine living in a wooden house. And stone feels way too cumbersome for a modern building.
What difference does it make? If you want a house built on brick foundation, you can, it's up to you to decide if it's worth the extra cost. It just isn't very popular throughout most of the US.
Also, in regards to this explosion, it would not have made a difference.
On November 17 2012 04:58 CrtBalorda wrote: That doesnt look like 80 homes have been damaged... In fact it kinda looks like 3... Dont know where that came from...
I would assume that a large reason NA homes are made of wood is that it flexes better then brick. Most of NA is subject to either earthquakes, Hurricanes or Tornados so houses have to be built to flex a little when the ground is moving
On November 16 2012 06:42 cari-kira wrote: are these houses really build from wood??
a lot of north american homes are built from wood. it's strange to me that you think it's strange. =]
I know. Around here ever home is made of wood. I don't know what else you you build it with. Metal?
Concrete and brick. Every acceptable house in Thailand is built with concrete, except those vacation house that are in the mountain, or poor people's house in a slum, that are built with wood.
Every single thing I've read suggests that Thai houses are built on stilts and are almost always made of wood or bamboo. I understand that you see an opportunity here to possibly one up NA building standards, but you don't need to lie.
As the moniker “Thai stilt house” suggests, one universal aspect of Thailand’s traditional architecture is the elevation of its buildings on stilts, most commonly to around head height. The area beneath the house is consequently used for storage, crafts, lounging in the daytime, and sometimes for livestock. The houses were raised as a result of heavy flooding during certain parts of the year, and in more ancient times, predators. Thai building and living habits are often based on superstitious and religious beliefs. Many other considerations such as locally available materials, climate, and agriculture have a lot to do with the style. Thai houses are made from a variety of woods and are often built in just a day as prefabricated wood panels are built ahead of time and put together on site by a master builder. Many houses are also built with bamboo, a material that is easily constructed and does not require professional builders.
Ummm no I didn't lie. But I might phrase it a little bit incorrectly. There's no one live in that kind of house anymore, especially in Bangkok. Newer house in Bangkok, or in residential district are all built with brick and concrete mostly.The wooden house are still being used, but mostly in poorer family in countryside and slum. The traditional Thai house using special kind of wood is considered a luxurious that only upper-class would build one.
So the standard now is brick and concrete for middle-class. People with lower income still live in houses made from wood plank but generally the trend is moving away from them, except for the luxurious Thai house that use special kind of wood (which cost around 1 million USD per house).
Please note that I have nothing against house made from wood as a standard. I like to even live in them. But I just want to address that in different country people have different standard for the houses.
Wow i love that kind of structure in american villages. Looks so structured and clean but i´m kinda off topic. Where exactly in Indianapolis is this btw?
My family business was involved in house renovation. I don't understand why you'd build a house out of anything other than wood... So much cheaper and much more effective at insulation. Not to mention that despite more constant repairs, they are rarely anything significant.
On November 17 2012 06:50 MooLen wrote: Wow i love that kind of structure in american villages. Looks so structured and clean but i´m kinda off topic. Where exactly in Indianapolis is this btw?
It's a suburb. They all look the same, lol. Most American middle-class families live in homes like those.
On November 17 2012 06:50 MooLen wrote: Wow i love that kind of structure in american villages. Looks so structured and clean but i´m kinda off topic. Where exactly in Indianapolis is this btw?
Easy to be clean when you start with alot of room. http://goo.gl/maps/MoFnw Anyways i think there based on the address in the articles.
On November 17 2012 06:57 BluePanther wrote: My family business was involved in house renovation. I don't understand why you'd build a house out of anything other than wood... So much cheaper and much more effective at insulation. Not to mention that despite more constant repairs, they are rarely anything significant.
Well, geographic, weather, fauna and flora can be huge factors on what material is more popular. For example, in Thailand the weather is so humid that mold can practically grow from overnight to a couple of days if you left things unchecked. So wood house is kinda hard to get rid of mold and other fungi. Another thing that make wood unpopular in Thailand is termite. Termite infestation is a serious problem in Thailand and there's a lot of time that the wood house is rendered not liveable because of termites. The only wood plank that can resist termite is very expensive, hence making traditional Thai house very expensive for most middle-class.
When we had explosives training in the army, we blew a lot of stuff up. The only thing that the military has that would leave charred wood like that is napalm. Gas explosion makes sense to me. What else could it be really?
An explosion like that is likely to send wood flying a mile away. I would guess that whole planks might have actually flown through buildings entirely, if the walls are nothing but wood. 80 houses seems like a lot but it isn't impossible that this many would have wood sticking through the walls and windows blown out. Not sure if they would need demolition because of that though.
On November 17 2012 06:57 BluePanther wrote: My family business was involved in house renovation. I don't understand why you'd build a house out of anything other than wood... So much cheaper and much more effective at insulation. Not to mention that despite more constant repairs, they are rarely anything significant.
Well, geographic, weather, fauna and flora can be huge factors on what material is more popular. For example, in Thailand the weather is so humid that mold can practically grow from overnight to a couple of days if you left things unchecked. So wood house is kinda hard to get rid of mold and other fungi. Another thing that make wood unpopular in Thailand is termite. Termite infestation is a serious problem in Thailand and there's a lot of time that the wood house is rendered not liveable because of termites. The only wood plank that can resist termite is very expensive, hence making traditional Thai house very expensive for most middle-class.
Fair enough. That comment was mostly directed at our European brothers. Potential water damage and infestation are two legitimate concerns. In fact, I think Southern US houses are constructed slightly different due to termites.
On November 17 2012 06:57 BluePanther wrote: My family business was involved in house renovation. I don't understand why you'd build a house out of anything other than wood... So much cheaper and much more effective at insulation. Not to mention that despite more constant repairs, they are rarely anything significant.
Well, geographic, weather, fauna and flora can be huge factors on what material is more popular. For example, in Thailand the weather is so humid that mold can practically grow from overnight to a couple of days if you left things unchecked. So wood house is kinda hard to get rid of mold and other fungi. Another thing that make wood unpopular in Thailand is termite. Termite infestation is a serious problem in Thailand and there's a lot of time that the wood house is rendered not liveable because of termites. The only wood plank that can resist termite is very expensive, hence making traditional Thai house very expensive for most middle-class.
Fair enough. That comment was mostly directed at our European brothers. Potential water damage and infestation are two legitimate concerns. In fact, I think Southern US houses are constructed slightly different due to termites.
There's really no reason to use wood in most of Europe. It could probably get cheaper but that's usually not that much of an issue as houses over here are meant to last for generations and you'll be able to sell them for the same price or for more than you paid youself. Central Europe is pretty crowded after all so getting land you can build on is actually a way bigger deal than getting the house into said soil. I was once told my relatives in Sweden were incredibly shocked when they heard the price my parents paid for just the property even more so considering it's a pretty rural area. I bet (emphasis on bet, I don't actually know about it :p ) the US is way more like Sweden in that regard as you've got TONS of space available.
Indianapolis Homeland Security Director Gary Coons made the announcement after meeting with residents affected by the Nov. 10 blast and shortly after funerals were held for the victims, who lived next door to the house where investigators believe the explosion occurred.
"We are turning this into a criminal homicide investigation," Coons said, marking the first time investigators have acknowledged a possible criminal element to the case.
Search warrants have been executed and officials are now looking for a white van that was seen in the subdivision the day of the blast, Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry said. Federal authorities are offering a $10,000 reward for information in the case.
Curry said the investigation is aimed at "determining if there are individuals who may be responsible for this explosion and fire," but neither he nor Coons took questions or indicated if investigators had any suspects.
On November 17 2012 07:37 Fenris420 wrote: When we had explosives training in the army, we blew a lot of stuff up. The only thing that the military has that would leave charred wood like that is napalm. Gas explosion makes sense to me. What else could it be really?
An explosion like that is likely to send wood flying a mile away. I would guess that whole planks might have actually flown through buildings entirely, if the walls are nothing but wood. 80 houses seems like a lot but it isn't impossible that this many would have wood sticking through the walls and windows blown out. Not sure if they would need demolition because of that though.
On November 22 2012 02:43 Silencioseu wrote: i hardly see 31 houses in that photo, of which i hardly believe more than 6 were damaged. 31 possibly to get demolished, how come?
The explosions force probably shifted some foundations and made some buildings unsafe by damaging their frames. It's not out of the ordinary for most of the damage to not be visible, especially from an aerial picture.
My understanding, which may be wrong, is that wood houses are much more common, but which you will see is almost entirely based on where you live. Not completely because of the price of products but because of weather.
In places where there are tornados you really want brick houses while you do NOT want brick houses where earthquakes take place. There are a lot more places that have earthquakes + wood is cheaper/eaiser = more wood houses.
even within the neighborhoods i live in and close to, there are a ton of brick houses... only suburban money making areas are primarily wooden... older houses tend to lean towards being brick... of course
On November 22 2012 13:06 Bill Murray wrote: even within the neighborhoods i live in and close to, there are a ton of brick houses... only suburban money making areas are primarily wooden... older houses tend to lean towards being brick... of course
The distribution of houses comprised of different building materials is rather contingent on the nearby availability of resources, especially in a historic context. Where there have typically been lots of forests and available timber, there will be lots of wooden homes. Where there is instead a a confluence of good quarry-able land or marshlands/wetland (mud for bricks), there will be many more brick and stone homes.
Wow, that looks pretty crazy. It's just gone :-o. You'd expect some sort of base structure to still be standing.(thats how it looks here in the netherlands, the weak front of the house blown out but the concrete frame still standing) I can't imagine all the small splinted wood pieces flying around at high speeds, some must have flown for miles...
Offtopic: Everybody just has grass as a garden with no plants, looks kind of creepy to me.
Considering how many people are in debt and have filed for bankruptcy in the states, I wouldn't point to malicious damage for insurance scamming right away.
But yes, that is one BIG kaboom, only 2 dead? Lucky as hell.
The Fairbanks House in Dedham, Massachusetts is a historic house built between 1637 and 1641 making it the oldest surviving timber-frame house in North America that has been verified by dendrochronology testing. Puritan settler Jonathan Fairebanke constructed the farm house for his wife Grace (Lee Smith) and their family. The house was occupied and then passed down through eight generations of the family until the early 20th century. Over several centuries the original portion was expanded as architectural styles changed and the family grew.
"The Great Pyramid of Giza [...] is the oldest of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, and the only one to remain largely intact. Egyptologists believe that the pyramid was built as a tomb for fourth dynasty Egyptian Pharaoh Khufu (Cheops in Greek) over a 10 to 20-year period concluding around 2560 BC. Initially at 146.5 metres (481 feet), the Great Pyramid was the tallest man-made structure in the world for over 3,800 years. Originally, the Great Pyramid was covered by casing stones that formed a smooth outer surface; what is seen today is the underlying core structure. Some of the casing stones that once covered the structure can still be seen around the base. There have been varying scientific and alternative theories about the Great Pyramid's construction techniques. Most accepted construction hypotheses are based on the idea that it was built by moving huge stones from a quarry and dragging and lifting them into place."
I must say I am surprised at how vigorously mainland europeans defend their non-wood houses. I had no idea this was even a thing.
Oh man, look at the guy on the right. He looks like a textbook arsonist. To be honest, I'm not surprised, something never seemed quite right about the whole thing.
Oh man, look at the guy on the right. He looks like a textbook arsonist. To be honest, I'm not surprised, something never seemed quite right about the whole thing.
On December 22 2012 14:49 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: So the people who owned the house that blew up blew up the house?
Yes, with the lady recently raising her homeowner's insurance amounts. They tried insurance fraud because of their inability to manage their personal finances along with an almost unfeasibly stupid plan that killed people.
I hope that if convicted, they all received the death penalty. We have many more important areas to spend taxpayer money than supporting these filth.
On December 22 2012 14:49 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: So the people who owned the house that blew up blew up the house?
Yes, with the lady recently raising her homeowner's insurance amounts. They tried insurance fraud because of their inability to manage their personal finances along with an almost unfeasibly stupid plan that killed people.
I hope that if convicted, they all received the death penalty. We have many more important areas to spend taxpayer money than supporting these filth.
Er not that I'm against the death penalty or anything but you realize that it costs more to kill someone than to put them in prison for the rest of their lives? Constant appeal processes and the like make sure of that and yea...that comes out of taxpayer money too.
On December 22 2012 14:49 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: So the people who owned the house that blew up blew up the house?
Yes, with the lady recently raising her homeowner's insurance amounts. They tried insurance fraud because of their inability to manage their personal finances along with an almost unfeasibly stupid plan that killed people.
I hope that if convicted, they all received the death penalty. We have many more important areas to spend taxpayer money than supporting these filth.
Er not that I'm against the death penalty or anything but you realize that it costs more to kill someone than to put them in prison for the rest of their lives? Constant appeal processes and the like make sure of that and yea...that comes out of taxpayer money too.
Not to mention killing someone would be letting them off easy compared to locking them up for their remaining life.
On December 22 2012 14:49 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: So the people who owned the house that blew up blew up the house?
Yes, with the lady recently raising her homeowner's insurance amounts. They tried insurance fraud because of their inability to manage their personal finances along with an almost unfeasibly stupid plan that killed people.
I hope that if convicted, they all received the death penalty. We have many more important areas to spend taxpayer money than supporting these filth.
Er not that I'm against the death penalty or anything but you realize that it costs more to kill someone than to put them in prison for the rest of their lives? Constant appeal processes and the like make sure of that and yea...that comes out of taxpayer money too.
Not to mention killing someone would be letting them off easy compared to locking them up for their remaining life.
That's one way to look at it, but I think might be the wrong way. I'm sure most prisoners in jail for life prefer to live, even if it's in prison, than to die. Maybe i'm wrong. Has their been any kind of substantial surveying done in regards to that? Now i'm curious to know what the real prisoners prefer
On December 22 2012 14:49 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: So the people who owned the house that blew up blew up the house?
Yes, with the lady recently raising her homeowner's insurance amounts. They tried insurance fraud because of their inability to manage their personal finances along with an almost unfeasibly stupid plan that killed people.
I hope that if convicted, they all received the death penalty. We have many more important areas to spend taxpayer money than supporting these filth.
Death penalty costs more than life imprisonment on average, btw.
On December 22 2012 14:49 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: So the people who owned the house that blew up blew up the house?
Yes, with the lady recently raising her homeowner's insurance amounts. They tried insurance fraud because of their inability to manage their personal finances along with an almost unfeasibly stupid plan that killed people.
I hope that if convicted, they all received the death penalty. We have many more important areas to spend taxpayer money than supporting these filth.
Er not that I'm against the death penalty or anything but you realize that it costs more to kill someone than to put them in prison for the rest of their lives? Constant appeal processes and the like make sure of that and yea...that comes out of taxpayer money too.
Not to mention killing someone would be letting them off easy compared to locking them up for their remaining life.
That's one way to look at it, but I think might be the wrong way. I'm sure most prisoners in jail for life prefer to live, even if it's in prison, than to die. Maybe i'm wrong. Has their been any kind of substantial surveying done in regards to that? Now i'm curious to know what the real prisoners prefer
If you ask anyone if they wanted to get locked up for life without hope of getting out, or dying, I think most would pick the last right away. But on the other hand, there are a lot of inmates who are in that position, and they're not suicidal. So I guess something makes you want to live that we can't explain (excluding religious reasons of course).
What a horrible way to scam. Land your gig on the national news, highlighting and getting the scrutiny of everyone looking into what you have done. And if you're gonna increase your insurance dont make it so obvious by conspiring right after you have done so. /facepalm
On December 22 2012 14:49 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: So the people who owned the house that blew up blew up the house?
Yes, with the lady recently raising her homeowner's insurance amounts. They tried insurance fraud because of their inability to manage their personal finances along with an almost unfeasibly stupid plan that killed people.
I hope that if convicted, they all received the death penalty. We have many more important areas to spend taxpayer money than supporting these filth.
Er not that I'm against the death penalty or anything but you realize that it costs more to kill someone than to put them in prison for the rest of their lives? Constant appeal processes and the like make sure of that and yea...that comes out of taxpayer money too.
Not to mention killing someone would be letting them off easy compared to locking them up for their remaining life.
Well, our prisons yes I probably would die than rot there. Your resort prisons not so much. Not for making people intentionally suffer by any means, but just sayin.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/T9jVB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZWmD1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UixWW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.thedigeratilife.com/images/san-bruno-fire-ash.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://ww4.hdnux.com/photos/11/41/71/2498175/15/628x471.jpg)
)![[image loading]](http://brf.be/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/explo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/D8U85.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://inews880.com/Pics/2010News/June/Explosion/crater3.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://www.planetware.com/i/photo/dedham-fairbanks-house-ma771.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8X76e.gif)
