Anonymous ID: fe3810 Dec. 5, 2020, 11:39 a.m. No.11914919   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>4941

>>11914842

> which means the vehicles were traveling in the same direction. Pretty big and burned out scene for that situation.

Aye.

Car hack. Brakes lock, trans downshifts. Possible.

75MPH on the FWY isn't unusual.

Explosive in truck bumper.

Low velocity, ANFO or similar.

Shaped forward.

Anonymous ID: fe3810 Dec. 5, 2020, 12:32 p.m. No.11915344   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>11915246

>The dude was hauling ass,

Unknoen

> probably drunk and now heโ€™s dead.

At 10 am. Not that kid. Low probability. Sauce it or fuck off.

Sauceless shill suggests

>Looks like just another car crash. Shit burns when you dump a full tank of gas and magnesium alloys ignites

Pic related

Anonymous ID: fe3810 Dec. 5, 2020, 12:40 p.m. No.11915423   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>11915265

>So rear-ending this vehicle hard enough could, in fact puncture the fuel tank, potentially causing a fire.

A beemer. No. They're extrodianrily well engineered WRT Fuel tank safety. A punctured tank cannot explode as the fuel airmix is way too high. Fuel pouring out can catch fire, which does happen. But there's really no way for an explosion like that. Fuel tanks these days actually are under a vaccum as fuel empties out to avoid a more likely fuel O2 mix. Thus the PSSSST when you unscrew the cap.

Even 70's era fuel tanks without such didn't explode except the Pinto, but that was more a conflagration than an actual explosion.