Sunday, December 11, 2005
Luton: 12/11
The good old 'nothing to see' curtain has gone down mighty fast on this event. CNN covered it well at the start, but then ho-hummed it, after hearing a 'definitive' statement from the authorities that it was certainly an accident.
Really? They knew definitively that it was an accident 10 minutes after the boom?
What makes me especially suspicious is that 20 tanks were burning immediately. I've lived near oil refineries in Oklahoma, and I've seen a couple of tank fires. Crude just doesn't burn violently, and it wasn't all that hard for firefighters to keep the flames contained to one tank. If all the tanks in Luton contained liquefied propane, I suppose they would be volatile enough for a chain reaction. Otherwise I'm not going to buy it.
Add in the date, and the suspicion rises significantly. ¶ 9:57 AM
Really? They knew definitively that it was an accident 10 minutes after the boom?
What makes me especially suspicious is that 20 tanks were burning immediately. I've lived near oil refineries in Oklahoma, and I've seen a couple of tank fires. Crude just doesn't burn violently, and it wasn't all that hard for firefighters to keep the flames contained to one tank. If all the tanks in Luton contained liquefied propane, I suppose they would be volatile enough for a chain reaction. Otherwise I'm not going to buy it.
Add in the date, and the suspicion rises significantly. ¶ 9:57 AM
