From: ron_winn@lineone.net   
      
   Why did you raise the issue of car fluids?   
   Was it a pointer to a possible failure of regular maintanence on the   
   car? I must admit I used it for a case for the accident not having   
   taken place how they said it did. You look at the damage and tell us   
   how that car built up the speed to hit the pillar from a diagonal   
   position across the width of one lane. I'm being generous here because   
   many say the car was in the left lane, nearest the pillars and from   
   that angle the car would loose traction well before getting any   
   forward force. And to do it at speed traction would have been lost   
   immediately. A glancing blow and spin may be but no a direct impact.   
   You notice there is no forensics on the pillar? You drive a car you   
   will know about turning circles. Do you think it is possible to hit   
   the pillar head on from the left lane or even from the right given the   
   width of the tunnel?   
      
   There is absence of car fluids at the impact spot and it needs a   
   statement from someone who visited the site after the major clean up   
   to get this finding into Stevens report whereas it should have been   
   part of the police report prior to the clean up. This is consistant   
   with a glancing blow to the pillar with fluids leaking [if any] out   
   after the car came to rest. Look at the damage - when was the radiator   
   and engine block breached do you think?  No forensics and no fluid   
   leaks near the pillar.   
      
   OK I'll go with yaw marks but only coming off the pillar. If Scott   
   Macleod's book shows marks going into the pillar - they will be skid   
   marks. Any yaw marks going into the pillar equals no traction and no   
   forward force.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)