Foren(sic)

I know, I know. The Australian forensic report bolsters the gas leak theory, but this political animal still has his doubts about the true cause of the Glorietta 2 explosion. I explain why in Inquirer Current.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Readings in Media, Readings in Politics

One response to “Foren(sic)

  1. Jeg

    If it were a bomb, why would they cover it up? It seems to me that they would want it to be a bomb to justify any declaration of a state of emergency. It was in this light that I looked at the RDX finding: that someone wanted to make sure the investigators found evidence of a bomb.

    The findings do not rule out sabotage of course. If indeed there were gas leaks in there, a fairly sophisticated saboteur could engineer an explosion without a bomb. But again, why? If Sen. Trillanes is correct, what was its purpose? I dont get it.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s