Deadly West, Texas, Fertilizer Plant Explosion Was '''Criminal Act''': Feds - NBC NewsA 2013 fertilizer plant blast in West, Texas, that killed 15 people and injured 160 others was caused by a "criminal act," federal officials said Wednesday.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives revealed the findings of its investigation of the deadly fire and explosion at the West Fertilizer Co. on April 17, 2013 — the same week the nation was gripped by the Boston Marathon bombing.
ATF Special Agent Robert Elder said they agency is offering a $50,000 reward to help find the person who committed the "crime," which was determined to be the reason for the explosion after "we ruled out all accidental and natural causes."
Elder couldn't say why someone would have set the fire.
"I think it's too early to speculate on murder charges," he added.
No arrests have been made, but more than 400 interviews have been conducted amid the investigation, Elder added.
Among those who dead in West were 10 first responders and two volunteers who were killed while fighting the initial fire before the blast occurred just before 8 p.m. local time.
The explosion flattened the rural farming community of 2,800 people, just north of Waco, turning it into rubble as people tried desperately to flee the horrific scene.
The phrase 'Criminal Act' is broad and subjective, do they mean arson, or criminal neglect,[h=1]Deadly West, Texas, Fertilizer Plant Explosion Was 'Criminal Act': Feds[/h]
Deadly West, Texas, Fertilizer Plant Explosion Was '''Criminal Act''': Feds - NBC News
The phrase 'Criminal Act' is broad and subjective, do they mean arson, or criminal neglect,
I.E. someone did not close a valve, that they should have, and it resulted in deaths.
The phrase 'Criminal Act' is broad and subjective, do they mean arson, or criminal neglect,
I.E. someone did not close a valve, that they should have, and it resulted in deaths.
A piece on Fox,
Investigators: 2013 West fertilizer plant blast a 'criminal act' | KDFW
said the fire was “incendiary,” saying it was set.
I am still not sure why they are being vague about it.
Didn't that happen a few days after Rick Perry held a press conference boasting about how business friendly Texas is because they don't have a lot of regulations? Or was that a different plant?
I hope Texas isn't being a bit too business friendly here, by vaguely calling the fire "incendiary" and "criminal". Such would seem to ameliorate some of the legal repercussions in my non-lawyer's mind, and the cynic in me can't help but wonder.A piece on Fox,
Investigators: 2013 West fertilizer plant blast a 'criminal act' | KDFW
said the fire was “incendiary,” saying it was set.
I am still not sure why they are being vague about it.
A piece on Fox,
Investigators: 2013 West fertilizer plant blast a 'criminal act' | KDFW
said the fire was “incendiary,” saying it was set.
I am still not sure why they are being vague about it.
I hope Texas isn't being a bit too business friendly here, by vaguely calling the fire "incendiary" and "criminal". Such would seem to ameliorate some of the legal repercussions in my non-lawyer's mind, and the cynic in me can't help but wonder.
That being said, I remember seeing this harrowing video on CNN:
Whoa!This was a FEDERAL investigation
And I distinctly remembering how the big government loving Leftists jump all over this.
Whoa!
Alright, fair enough. I missed that it was a fed investigation. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. So I agree, it's likely more immune to local economic pressures.
But I tend to be cynical about the crookedness of government in general, especially local govs like mine. I would never trust my local guys to get it legit, that's for sure.
Thanks for the video.There were some highly dangerous situations that were addressed after the blast which was a good thing. Using it as an excuse for bigger government and to trash the owners, residents and the state of Texas was just wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdDuHxwD5R4
It is interesting the word terrorist was not used as well.
It says in the article,
ATF Special Agent Robert Elder said the agency is offering a $50,000 reward to help find the person who committed the crime, which was determined to be deliberate after "we ruled out all accidental and natural causes." But he could not say why someone would have set the fire.
This was a FEDERAL investigation
And I distinctly remembering how the big government loving Leftists jump all over this.
I hope Texas isn't being a bit too business friendly here, by vaguely calling the fire "incendiary" and "criminal". Such would seem to ameliorate some of the legal repercussions in my non-lawyer's mind, and the cynic in me can't help but wonder.
That being said, I remember seeing this harrowing video on CNN:
Note to self... do not stop to watch building burn when said building is full of fertilizer. :shock:
Especially with your kid. That guy is an idiot.
Or why it took so long to decide the cause.
Remember this guy?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...sentenced-pipe-bomb-charges-article-1.1537645
When this first happened, I was thinking someone made a mistake, and there is nothing left of them to find or blame.That's not something they could have independently verified. It could very well have been accidental and the person responsible may not have even realized their mistake. It could have been negligence and no one is owning up to it. They're saying it was intentional. I say they'll never have enough evidence to indict anyone let alone convict.
Thanks for the video.
But I didn't see any evidence of trashing in the video. It appeared to me to be factual and even-handed.
And I'm not sure about your claim to "bigger government" and it "being wrong". I see several regulatory changes taking place, and they seem appropriate to me.
If there's evidence to your claims above, I honestly didn't see it at all in the video you presented - if that's the point you're attempting to make.
Yes, the EMS. That was my first thought when I read the thread-head.
No it's not, because it's not terrorism
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?