I was in Glorietta Mall last Thursday (September 4, 2008) when smoke emanated from Glorietta 2, the scene of an explosion almost a year ago and sealed off soon afterwards, alarming shoppers.
The Philippine National Police along with the National Bureau of Investigation and several foreign consultants have long concluded that the blast was a result of a gas explosion. Some parties were charged while others were exonerated. However doubts still persist on what actually happened simply because the authorities have not sufficiently accounted for the actual events that led to the explosion. In a nutshell, the authorities said that the septic tank backed up so sludge accumulated in the basement. The sludge produced methane within the confined spaces of the basement and an initial explosion was triggered byt a spark from a circuit breaker box which was also located in the basement. The initial explosion ignited the diesel in the tank of the back-up generator which was also located in the basement, which then resulted in the bigger, secondary explosion which did most of the damage in and around Glorietta 2.
The reason why doubts still persist regarding the blast is because the authorities used flawed reasoning in drawing their conclusions.
Immediately after the blast, there were rumors that it was a terrorist bombing. There were also speculations that the blast was a result of a gas explosion. It is evident that from the very beginning, the authorities were only looking at two possibilities: either a bomb or a gas explosion. And so, when a bomb was ruled out as the cause, it had to be a gas explosion. And that was very much the way the authorities supported their findings.
The trouble with the finding that a gas explosion was the source of the blast is that so many things are still left unaccounted for. The most glaring gap in the findings is an explanation for the absence of any burn patterns resulting from a gas explosion. Another issue left unexplained is how, assuming that there was a primary methane gas explosion, the primary explosion was able to ignite diesel, which is not volatile, in a closed tank.
It seems that the main assumption that there are only two possible causes of the explosion is flawed. There is also such a thing called chemical explosion where two or more chemicals react violently when mixed that they cause an explosion without necessarily causing fire. I vividly remember that Glorietta 2 housed barbershops and styling salons. These establishments regularly use hydrogen peroxide and ammonia in diluted form. It is not unlikely for these establishments to pour excess chemicals down the drain on a regular basis. In concentrated for, hydrogen peroxide and ammonia can be very volatile and explosive. It may be unlikely that these chemicals mixed and accumulated to a critical level and exploded but such scenario is within the realm of possibility that should have been explored. A chemical explosion would certainly explain the absence of any burn pattern in the scene.
The Philippine National Police along with the National Bureau of Investigation and several foreign consultants have long concluded that the blast was a result of a gas explosion. Some parties were charged while others were exonerated. However doubts still persist on what actually happened simply because the authorities have not sufficiently accounted for the actual events that led to the explosion. In a nutshell, the authorities said that the septic tank backed up so sludge accumulated in the basement. The sludge produced methane within the confined spaces of the basement and an initial explosion was triggered byt a spark from a circuit breaker box which was also located in the basement. The initial explosion ignited the diesel in the tank of the back-up generator which was also located in the basement, which then resulted in the bigger, secondary explosion which did most of the damage in and around Glorietta 2.
The reason why doubts still persist regarding the blast is because the authorities used flawed reasoning in drawing their conclusions.
Immediately after the blast, there were rumors that it was a terrorist bombing. There were also speculations that the blast was a result of a gas explosion. It is evident that from the very beginning, the authorities were only looking at two possibilities: either a bomb or a gas explosion. And so, when a bomb was ruled out as the cause, it had to be a gas explosion. And that was very much the way the authorities supported their findings.
The trouble with the finding that a gas explosion was the source of the blast is that so many things are still left unaccounted for. The most glaring gap in the findings is an explanation for the absence of any burn patterns resulting from a gas explosion. Another issue left unexplained is how, assuming that there was a primary methane gas explosion, the primary explosion was able to ignite diesel, which is not volatile, in a closed tank.
It seems that the main assumption that there are only two possible causes of the explosion is flawed. There is also such a thing called chemical explosion where two or more chemicals react violently when mixed that they cause an explosion without necessarily causing fire. I vividly remember that Glorietta 2 housed barbershops and styling salons. These establishments regularly use hydrogen peroxide and ammonia in diluted form. It is not unlikely for these establishments to pour excess chemicals down the drain on a regular basis. In concentrated for, hydrogen peroxide and ammonia can be very volatile and explosive. It may be unlikely that these chemicals mixed and accumulated to a critical level and exploded but such scenario is within the realm of possibility that should have been explored. A chemical explosion would certainly explain the absence of any burn pattern in the scene.
No comments:
Post a Comment