Metro Manila cop chief: ‘Bomb theory hard to sustain’ Thea Alberto INQUIRER.net
October 23, 2007
MANILA, Philippines -- (UPDATE) Four days after the deadly explosion at the Glorietta 2 mall in Makati City, which killed 11 persons and hurt more than 100, post-blast investigators have seen no trace of bomb components, which could indicate a chemical leak my have caused the explosion.
"It is difficult to sustain this bomb theory at this time," Police Director Geary Barias, National Capital Region Police Office chief, told a press conference Tuesday.
Barias also said petrochemical experts who examined the layout of the fuel tank of the Glorietta 2 basement, the seat of explosion, "did not follow the standard cylindrical structure of a gas container."
"[The structure] might have caused the uneven distribution of pressure that might have caused the explosion," Barias said.
He added there was not enough ventilation to allow adequate air circulation in the basement.
"If the gas accumulates, and it cannot escape, it would explode," Barias said.
Chief Superintendent Luizo Ticman, chief of the task force investigating the explosion, said the diesel inside tank was used to power the mall's generator.
"From what we gathered, there are indicators the explosion came from the diesel tank," said Ticman.
He explained that because there was little ventilation in the basement, a leak in the diesel tank caused too much pressure and eventually destroyed the sewage tank, which was also located in the basement.
A mixture of diesel vapor and methane gas produced by the sewage then caused the explosion. Ticman also said there were several sources of ignition, including motor pumps and batteries in the basement.
Ticman said the bomb theory was also unlikely, although not totally discounted, because of the following findings:
1. No crater was found at the site of explosion.
2. No tearing effect common to a bomb explosion was found.
3. There was no soot or blackening of the concave ceiling.
4. No improvised explosive device (IED) component has been found.
5. Laboratory tests turned up negative for explosive ingredients.
Although RDX, an ingredient of the military explosive C4, showed up in laboratory tests, authorities remain unconvinced the explosion was a bomb attack.
Ticman also enumerated why authorities were now pursuing the accident angle:
1. The upward damage and the rupturing and damage to the diesel tank.
2. The concave concrete slab directly above the diesel tank.
3. The presence of a septic tank and wastewater treatment facilities that produce methane.
4. Non-functioning ventilation and the lack of an exhaust system, leading to an increase in temperature and the accumulation of diesel fumes
5. The presence of open switches, motor pumps, batteries and other possible igniters.
6. The vent of the explosion, which reached the atrium, clearly showed a strong upward push characteristic of a gas explosion.
