World's first 'giga dive' roller coaster keeps breaking down at Six Flags Over Texas, infuriating guests who've lined up for hours to ride it 63%

By Alexander Noll50%

7/21/2026, 4:31:10 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Appeal to Emotion, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 31.4% saturation with 185 hits. Analysis detected 991 faulty-reasoning hits from 590 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57.7% and a BS Rank of 63% (8,240 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 62.40% of the article peer group.

A new ride dubbed the world's first and only 'giga dive' roller coaster has been plagued with reliability problems during its first two weeks in operation. 
The Tormenta Rampaging Run at Six Flags Over Texas in Arlington has already left riders stranded on several occasions, according to visitors' comments on social media. 
The attraction, which opened on July 9, reaches up to 87 miles per hour and stands at 309 feet tall with nearly 4,200 feet of track. 
The term 'giga dive' combines the designation 'giga coaster', which is used to describe those that stand between 300 and 399 feet tall, and 'dive coaster' which is defined as those with an ultra-steep or vertical first drop. 
The Rampaging Run claims to hold six world records, including being the highest, fastest, and longest dive coaster. 
However, many visitors have expressed disappointment in the ride through social media and have complained that on occasions it stops prematurely. 
A video posted July 12 depicts the Tormenta trains paused on the tracks. 
Other clips have shown similar incidents, with guests walking down the ride's emergency stairs, or being taken to the ground by elevator. 
Six Flags told the Daily Mail the delays were the result of safety systems working 'as designed'. 
'In these cases, the coaster experienced minor technical delays (similar to a check engine light in your car) that paused its operation. 
Its safety system performed as designed, keeping all guests safe.' 
The halts allegedly left riders stranded high above the ground in severe heat as staff determined next steps. 
Ginger Barrett posted on Facebook describing the 'full on meltdown' she experienced while stopped at the top of the ride. 
'We get to the very top, 309 feet above the ground, about to plunge down and we stop. 
And stay stopped. 
'For about 15 minutes before the two teenagers running the ride finally get on the speaker there at the frigging top the world, and tell us, technical difficulties, they’re calling someone to look at it.' 
Before it opened the Rampaging Run faced delays, with its opening pushed back almost two weeks during the safety testing and commissioning process. 
Facebook user Anne McDade said she lost $536 on a non-refundable hotel room a few days before a July 25 media event she was invited to attend. 
'I'm not upset. 
As excited as I was, I knew there was still a lot of work happening around the ride and surrounding area.' 
'As a photographer, I always want to see a project presented at its absolute best, and this gives the park time to finish those final details and make sure everything is ready.' 
Once McDade was finally able to experience the ride she said: 'You guys! 
The speed this coaster has just hits you smack in the face - it's insane!' 
Others that have been able to ride the coaster in its entirety have praised it for its intensity. 
After waiting an hour in line and an additional 40 minutes due to a technical difficulties shutdown, parkgoer April Phillips said: 'HO-LY BISCUITS! 
It was INTENSE and so scary lol the drops had me wanting to vomit.' 
Six Flags public relations told the Daily Mail: 'Following a complete systems check, guests either continued their ride and exited in the station, or were safely escorted of the ride if additional review was needed. 
In all these cases, the ride reopened to guests.' 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.2%Alexander Noll: 2.6%Daily Mail: 3.7%Confirmation Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 17.8%Alexander Noll: 9.9%Daily Mail: 3.5%Availability Heuristic17.8%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.6%Daily Mail: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 1.2%Daily Mail: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 5.6%Daily Mail: 9.1%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 4.6%Alexander Noll: 0.8%Daily Mail: 0.3%Loss Aversion4.6%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.6%Alexander Noll: 1.1%Daily Mail: 2.3%Optimism Bias3.6%This article: 5.4%Alexander Noll: 1.2%Daily Mail: 1.2%Pessimism Bias5.4%This article: 23.9%Alexander Noll: 14.8%Daily Mail: 12.8%Negativity Bias23.9%This article: 5.9%Alexander Noll: 1.8%Daily Mail: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 1.8%Daily Mail: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 1.6%Daily Mail: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Alexander Noll: 5.8%Daily Mail: 4.6%Halo Effect3.1%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.2%Alexander Noll: 0.9%Daily Mail: 1.6%Recency Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 1.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.1%Alexander Noll: 2.7%Daily Mail: 4.0%Appeal to Authority15.1%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.1%Alexander Noll: 7.9%Daily Mail: 4.3%Hasty Generalization15.1%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.1%Alexander Noll: 4.8%Daily Mail: 0.8%Bandwagon3.1%This article: 16.6%Alexander Noll: 7.3%Daily Mail: 7.6%Appeal to Emotion16.6%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.9%Alexander Noll: 3.8%Daily Mail: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.9%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 31.4%Alexander Noll: 18.1%Daily Mail: 3.1%Anecdotal31.4%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.1%Alexander Noll: 2.6%Daily Mail: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.1%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.1%Alexander Noll: 3.4%Daily Mail: 3.8%Unattributed Quote3.1%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 1.7%Daily Mail: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 4.1%Alexander Noll: 5.5%Daily Mail: 9.2%Biased Writer Voice4.1%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Noll: 0.0%Daily Mail: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

590 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers44%attributed speech332writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageSix Flags • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageGinger Barrett • 20 words • 0.0% coverageGinger Barrett • 18 words • 100.0% coverageGinger Barrett • 3 words • 0.0% coverageGinger Barrett • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageAnne McDade • 3 words • 0.0% coverageAnne McDade • 21 words • 0.0% coverageAnne McDade • 32 words • 0.0% coverageAnne McDade • 13 words • 0.0% coverageAnne McDade • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageApril Phillips • 23 words • 0.0% coverageApril Phillips • 14 words • 0.0% coverageSix Flags • 35 words • 0.0% coverageSix Flags • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

April Phillips

100%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words14% of attributed speech74% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-7.2 ptsWriter: 7.2%April Phillips: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.