When you say "Yes/No questions", do you mean that the only means by which we can explore the possibility space of this mystery is by asking yes or no questions about the circumstances?

>>474
Yes.

Did the nitrogen gas in question enter the person in question's body before the moment of their death?

>>476
>Did the nitrogen gas in question enter the person in question's body before the moment of their death?

No.

Was the person in question a human being?
Was the nitrogen gas in question between 10°C and 40°C in temperature, on average?

>>478

>Was the person in question a human being?
Yes.

>Was the nitrogen gas in question between 10°C and 40°C in temperature, on average?
No.

>>479
Was the nitrogen gas in question below 0°C?
Did the human being in question come into physical contact with the nitrogen gas in question before the moment of their death?
Was the human being in question, or their garments if applicable, in physical contact with the ground at the time of their death?

>>480

>Was the nitrogen gas in question below 0°C?
No.

>Did the human being in question come into physical contact with the nitrogen gas in question before the moment of their death?
No.

>Was the human being in question, or their garments if applicable, in physical contact with the ground at the time of their death?
No.

Was the nitrogen gas a component of a larger artificial apparatus or device?
Was the human being in question more than 5000 feet above sea level at the time of their death?
Was the human being in question below sea level within the hour preceding their death?
Was the nitrogen gas in question above 40°C on average?

>>483

>Was the nitrogen gas a component of a larger artificial apparatus or device?
Maybe. Elaborate on this question.

>Was the human being in question more than 5000 feet above sea level at the time of their death?
Irrelevant. Yes.

>Was the human being in question below sea level within the hour preceding their death?
No.

>Was the nitrogen gas in question above 40°C on average?
Yes.

>>486

>Is the apparatus in question generally classified as a weapon?
No.

I'll think of how to elaborate on the question in the meanwhile, then.

Was he killed by nitrogen gas?

Were they killed by somebody named Nitrogen Gas?

Did they suffocate?

Was the person killed by a device that utilized pressurized nitrogen gas?

Rather than clarify the device question, I'll take another tack.

Was the nitrogen gas in question heated to above 40°C for some reason X that has nothing to do with causing the person in question's death?

>How did they die?
He was killed by nitrogen gas. Duh

>>489

>Was he killed by nitrogen gas?
Yes.

>>491

>Was the person killed by a device that utilized pressurized nitrogen gas?
Yes.

>>492

>Was the nitrogen gas in question heated to above 40°C for some reason X that has nothing to do with causing the person in question's death?
No.

>>494
I don't know many devices that use pressurized nitrogen gas.

Was the person in question killed by a paintball gun?

>>495

>Was the person in question killed by a paintball gun?
No.

>>496
Were they killed by an explosion? Or fire in general?

>>498

>Were they killed by an explosion?
Maybe. Elaborate.

>Or fire in general?
No.

>>499
A tank of the stuff was ruptured and exploded into shrapnel.

>>500

>A tank of the stuff was ruptured and exploded into shrapnel.
No.

>>501
A device containing the stuff was ignited and exploded.

>>501

>A device containing the stuff was ignited and exploded.
Yes.

>>499
Was the person in question killed by asphyxiation following the rapid displacement of oxygen upon the release of pressurized nitrogen gas?

>>504

>Was the person in question killed by asphyxiation following the rapid displacement of oxygen upon the release of pressurized nitrogen gas?
No.

>>503
Was it a propane tank?

>>507

>Was it a propane tank?
No.

>>506
Just to confirm, the person never inhaled any of the nitrogen gas? As per >>477

>>510

>Just to confirm, the person never inhaled any of the nitrogen gas?
Yes.

Was the nitrogen in gaseous form the entire time?

>>513

>Was the nitrogen in gaseous form the entire time?
No.

>>515
Was it at some point a liquid?

>>516

>Was it at some point a liquid?
No.

>>518
Then was it at some point a solid?

And if so, is this relevant to how it was used to kill the person?

>>519

>Then was it at some point a solid?
Yes.

>And if so, is this relevant to how it was used to kill the person?
Yes.

>>520
Was this nitrogen part of a compound?

He was hit by a metal gas container. Without all of the pressured gas inside, he would have not died.

>>521

>Was this nitrogen part of a compound?
Yes.

>>522

>He was hit by a metal gas container. Without all of the pressured gas inside, he would have not died.
No.

>>523
Was it nitroglycerin?

>>524
Are you proposing he was blown up by dynamite?

>>525
It... Kind of makes sense, actually.

>>524

>Was it nitroglycerin?
No.

>>527
Was the nitrogen compound the part that was ignited?

And if so, is the nitrogen compound responsible for any sort of explosion?

>>528

>Was the nitrogen compound the part that was ignited?
Yes.

>And if so, is the nitrogen compound responsible for any sort of explosion?
Yes.

>>529
Was it nitrocellulose?

Was it guncotton?

>>530
Oh, and was it trinitrotoluene (TNT)?

>>530

>Was it nitrocellulose?
No.

>Was it guncotton?
No.

>>531

>Oh, and was it trinitrotoluene (TNT)?
No.

>>533
Was the explosion not directly related to the person's death?

>>534

>Was the explosion not directly related to the person's death?
Maybe. Elaborate.

>>535
Was the explosion just used to trigger the cause of death?

If so, was the cause of death something like a cave-in?

>>536

>Was the explosion just used to trigger the cause of death?
Yes.

>If so, was the cause of death something like a cave-in?
No.

>>537
Was the cause of death impalement?

>>538

>Was the cause of death impalement?
No.

Was the man willfully murdered?
No.

>>539
Was it a homicide?

>>540

>Was it a homicide?
No.

>>541
Was it an accident?

>>542

>Was it an accident?
Yes.

>>543
Was the explosion due to a malfunction of some sort?

>>544

>Was the explosion due to a malfunction of some sort?
No.

>>545
Was the death due to carelessness?

>>546

>Was the death due to carelessness?
Yes.

>>547
Was the person too close to whatever it was that exploded? Closer than they should have been?

>>548

>Was the person too close to whatever it was that exploded?
Yes.

>Closer than they should have been?
Yes.

>>549
Was it an explosion of flavor?

Was the concentration of nitrogen gas in the air lower than normal?

>>550

>Was the concentration of nitrogen gas in the air lower than normal?
No.

>>551
Was something in the area at a low temperature? Like below freezing?

>>552

>Was something in the area at a low temperature? Like below freezing?
Irrelevant. No.

>>553
Was the ignition intentional?

>>554

>Was the ignition intentional?
Maybe. Elaborate.

>>556
Was it lit for recreational purposes? Or for some kind of event?

>>557

>Was it lit for recreational purposes? Or for some kind of event?
No.

>>558
Was the nitrogen gas give off when the compound exploded?

>>559

>Was the nitrogen gas give off when the compound exploded?
Yes.

>>560
Was the compound ammonia?

Was the compound an acid?

Was the nitrogen still part of a compound when it was released during the explosion?

>>561

>Was the compound ammonia?
No.

>Was the compound an acid?
No.

>Was the nitrogen still part of a compound when it was released during the explosion?
No.

>>562
Was the ignition caused by a lit fuse?

>>563

>Was the ignition caused by a lit fuse?
Yes.

>>564
Was gunpowder involved?

>>565

>Was gunpowder involved?
No.

>>566
Was fuel involved?

>>567

>Was fuel involved?
No.

>>568
Was an electrical charge used for ignition?

>>569

>Was an electrical charge used for ignition?
Yes.

>>570
Was it supposed to be detonated remotely?

>>571

>Was it supposed to be detonated remotely?
No.

>>572
Was the explosion bigger than it should have been?

>>573

>Was the explosion bigger than it should have been?
No.

>>574
Was the person standing much closer than was safe?

>>575

>Was the person standing much closer than was safe?
No. The person was not standing.

>>576
Were they swimming?

>>577

>Were they swimming?
No.

>>578
So they were sitting?

>>579

>So they were sitting?
Yes.

>>580
Was the explosion small? Was the person not actually engulfed by the explosion?

>>581

>Was the explosion small?
Yes.

>Was the person not actually engulfed by the explosion?
Yes.

>>582
Was there more than one explosion?

>>583

>Was there more than one explosion?
No.

>>584
Were they surprised by the explosion? Did this lead to their death?

>>585

>Were they surprised by the explosion?
No.

>Did this lead to their death?
Yes.

>>586
Was something being heated slowly?

The man died by lack of oxigen in the air.
The man died by lack of air.

>>587

>Was something being heated slowly?
No.

>>588

>The man died by lack of oxigen in the air.
No.

>The man died by lack of air.
No.

>>589
Was the device that contained the explosion plugged into an outlet?

>>590

>Was the device that contained the explosion plugged into an outlet?
No.

>>591
Was it battery powered? Or powered by electricity at all?

>>592

>Was it battery powered?
Yes.

>Or powered by electricity at all?
Yes.

>>593
Was the device itself a battery?

>>594

>Was the device itself a battery?
No.

>>595
Was nitrous oxide involved?

>>596

>Was nitrous oxide involved?
Irrelevant. Maybe.

>>597
Was the person driving a car?

>>598

>Was the person driving a car?
Yes.

>>599
Did the person crash the car?

>>600

>Did the person crash the car?
Yes.

>>601
Were they killed by a car crash?

>>602

>Were they killed by a car crash?
No.

>>603
Did the engine explode?

>>604

>>Did the engine explode?
No.

>>605
Was the explosion supposed to happen?

>>606

>Was the explosion supposed to happen?
Yes.

>>607
Was the explosion inside the engine? As in internal combustion?

>>608

>Was the explosion inside the engine? As in internal combustion?
No.

>>609
Was this a race car?

>>610

>Was this a race car?
No.

>>611
Was the airbag what exploded?

>>612

>Was the airbag what exploded?
Maybe. Elaborate.

>>613
On the crash, did the airbag inflate? And did this manage to kill the person?

>>614
Good job. It took a while but you finally got there.

The man was driving home and was involved in an accident. He did not have his seatbelt on and was leaning forward. The airbag inflated and knocked him backwards, snapping his neck and killing him.

Here is the science part. The explosive material used in airbag systems is sodium azide, NaN3, which is very sensitive to shock or changes in temperature. The airbag system ignites it with an electric fuse, decomposing the sodium azide into Na metal and N2 gas. It's an exothermic reaction and the reaction occurs at a temperature much higher than 40 degrees celsius, so the airbag will inflate very quickly.

>>615
It was a good mystery.

Clever. This was fun.

>>616
Normally these things go a lot faster, but not a lot of people wanted to play.

>>617
I was wondering when you'd show up again.

>>618
Well, they may have been... Distracted by some things that happened in /teaparty/.

>>619
Too much going on there for me to follow.

>>620

>>618
I keep somewhat unusual hours, and was busy during the bulk of the game.