(Updated) BREAKING NEWS: Massive Series of Explosions rock Southern England

Sky News UK ^ | December 11, 2005

[Big Bad Bob]

Reports of up to Four Explosions at a fuel depot Near Hemel Hempstead, North West of London, according to Sky

__________________

Update:

Explosion Near London


The first picture, taken by a Sky News viewer

Map of the area

Updated: 06:41, Sunday December 11, 2005

There has been a large explosion followed by two smaller blasts in the St Albans area, around 25 miles north of London.

Sky Correspondent Sky Meade has said he can see flames about 200ft in the sky and there appears to be burning fuel.

Speaking by telephone from his home, Meade described "burning tongues" of flames in the sky.

The first blast happened at 6.03am - the other explosions followed about 20 minutes later.

Meade, a seasoned war reporter said he can see what looks like "burning aviation fuel".

"This fire is extremely intense. It is a bright orange glow on the horizon," he said.

Witnesses have told Sky News they heard the blast near Junction 8 of the M1. It is thought to be centred around Bunsfield fuel depot, near Hemel Hempstead.

The blast was felt at Sky Centre - more than 20 miles away in west London.

It was so powerful it blew out the windows at a hotel in Hemel Hempstead. There are reports of injuries there.

And one witness has told how the explosion shook his mother's house and lifted the roof.

Witnesses have told Sky News that emergency services are converging on the area.

Sky News producer Anwar Tambe heard the blast from his home in Luton and is currently stuck in traffic on the M1.

He said blasts are "going off regularly" and debris has blown onto the motorway.

More follows...

[tonycavanagh]

re :"He confirmed that the armed forces were on stand-by to provide assistance to the civil authorities if required."

Because of the specialist equipment the army has for dealing with hazardous waste.

As in any emergency as in your country the military will be deployed to aid the civilian authorities if needed.

[MikefromOhio]

you must have been reading a different thread...

[SweetCaroline]

http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,250389,00.jpg

[Canard]

"What is the altitude at which planes "drop off" radar in that area?"

Good question. Not got the fainest idea to be honest. I kind of always assumed that, at that proximity to an airport, it would be impossible to be in the air at any height and the controllers not to be aware of it. I had a quick read about airport air traffic control systems on Wikepedia which seems to mesh with that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRACON

"Typically, the TRACON controls aircraft within a 30-50 nautical mile (56 to 93 km) radius of the airport between the surface and 10,000 feet."

I'll happily defer to anyone with any expertise on this however.

[Canard]

"It looks like an agricultural area from pictures. I live in a rural area and there are more that a few really small little airports. Real small."

Hmm, well rural has to be placed in context. Hemel Hempstead is a reasonable size town, Watford is about 6 miles South which pretty much merges into the North of London and Luton is 10 miles to the North. There's 3 International airports (London Heathrow, London Luton and London Stanstead) within about a 30 mile radius.

I don't think there's anywhere in the South East of England that could be remotely called 'rural' in the same sense as parts of the US could be.

[BykrBayb]

I have not insisted this was terrorism. I simply reject the early conclusion, before any investigation, that it wasn't terrorism, and the immediate rejection of eyewitness accounts before any investigation. I don't trust any investigation that begins with a predetermined conclusion, followed by spin to convince the public of that scenario. You have labelled my objectivity as the exact opposite of what it is. Your up is down mentality is quite tiresome. The final reports of the "investigation" may very well be the same as the initial judgement. And if so, I expect you'll point to that as proof that no one should ever question authorities who claim to have all the facts before humanly possible. But it won't convince me.

[norraad]

As a worker in exactly the same type of facility, I know someone knows exactly what happened.

There is no mystery to those who work there.

[BykrBayb]

I understand that. What he has been brow-beating me over is the fact that I refuse to accept a final conclusion that was drawn before any investigation had started.

[norraad]

I'm with you, the point I'm trying to emphasize is that in facilities like this, as dirty & downtrodden as the workers appear, they know what's going on and why things happen immediately.

Another important point to emphasize, the downsizing of safety by these oil facilities is appalling.

If proper fire suppression was in place this would have been a small unnoticed incident.

In this day in age the fire suppression technology in readily available to keep this type of event from going big no matter what the initial cause, terrorist or not.

The inferior mental high up the ladder is , "so we lose a little product and have to clean up, so what".

[BykrBayb]

When the investigators immediately reject eyewitness accounts, I have to wonder if they will pick and choose what other information to include in their report. The employees could give them a thorough accounting, but if it doesn't fit the pretermined outcome, it will be rejected, and we may never even hear about it.

[norraad]

EXACTLY how it happens!

Especially with "good ol'boys" clubs like BP (Beyound Propaganda).

It may sound "Tin Foilish" to outsiders, but insiders know it's standard procedure.

[Canard]

"When the investigators immediately reject eyewitness accounts"

I think you overstate the case if you're still trying the float the theory that the explosion was caused by an invisible -to-radar plane flying into the facility.

I recall seeing one 'eyewitness' quoted (not ever identified to my knowledge and not at the site) early on who claimed to have seen a plane crash. None of the people actually near to the explosion saw any such thing. What's to say? People often think they have seen things that they haven't in situations like this.

[norraad]

No plane.

The tank truck drivers would have mentioned it.

They are the most reliable witnesses, they are everyday work a day folks and this is their job that's at stake.

What we know from them is a vapor cloud came from a tank and somehow ignited.

We don't know ignition source or why the fuel leaked in the first place.

We do know the depot lacks up to date safety technology.

[BykrBayb]

I suppose we'll never know if there were any credible eyewitness accounts, because they were dismissed without being investigated. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

[Canard]

How do you know they weren't investigated? Do you seriously think that, in the first few minutes after the explosion where the situation was confused and various possibilities existed, the following scenario didn't take place in the Police command centre:

"We're getting reports of someone saying they saw a plane go down"
"Ok, contact air traffic control at Luton and see if any planes were in that area that shouldn't have been"
"They confirm that there was nothing on their radar other than scheduled incoming flights which are all accounted for"

Right, that's that investigated. Meanwhile the investigation into the cause of the explosion that you say isn't happening continues, including specialist officers from the anti-terrorist squad.

[BykrBayb]

And a low-flying crop duster most certainly would have shown up on radar. No need to question the alleged witnesses. That would be a waste of time. Gotta rush to the microphones with news that there was no plane. With any luck, that will turn out to be true. If not, we can work on the spin later. If all else fails, we can discredit anyone who claims to have seen or heard a plane. And the sheeple will eat it up.

[Canard]

"No need to question the alleged witnesses" Again using the plural, when there was only ever one reported eyewitness from several miles away. One would think that the dozens of people actually at the scene might have noticed a low level cropduster crashing onto their heads (i'm not even sure we have cropdusters over here, our farms aren't really that big, but that's by the by). My reading of the capabilities of radar at the approach to international airports suggest to me that such a thing most definately would show up (seems like birds make some kind of blip on it) but, as I said upthread, it would be great if someone with more knowledge could confirm or correct that.

[papertyger]

In case you hadn't noticed yet, making any kind of reasonable assertion to her is pointless. Hyperbole and histrionics are ever so much more FUN.

[MikefromOhio]

BTW

I found 7 instances within the first 50 posts that either insinuated or nuanced that terror was the cause...

[papertyger]

I found 7 instances within the first 50 posts that either insinuated or nuanced that terror was the cause...

And when you can find where I took you to task for complaining about "insinuated or nuanced" allusions to terrorism you'll get a retraction from me.

What the hell has happened to intellectual integrity around here? You are not the first on this thread to twist what your detractors have said in some pathetic attempt to save face.

You got called down for claiming others were INSISTING this was terrorism. At the time you said it, no one was making any such claim.

You know it. I know it. And anyone keeping up with this thread knows it.

Until now, I've always held your posts in high regard. I am having great difficulty processing the fact you are willing to piss away your own credibility trying to legitimize such a minor point of vanity.