[RecentConvert]

>>The FBI reported about 20 minutes ago that the fire is not terrorist-related. How do they know this so soon?

>"FBI spokesman Steve Kodak in Newark, N.J., said there was no indication of terrorism. However, FBI officials in Washington said they were still examining it because a refinery is the type of infrastructure terrorists might target."

When I read this I was going to post, but you just did.

Someone responded to my original question above by saying, in effect, that those responsible for the accident or close witnesses to it must have reported that it was an accident and not terrorist-related. Now we hear that "there is no indication of terrorism." So, the FBI is still not sure what caused it. Most likely those responsible for the accident (if it was an accident) are either dead or in conditions not able to communicate what exactly happened. I found it very strange, to say the least, that less than an hour after the explosion, the FBI already knew that it was not terrorist-related. They did not know then and they do not know now. Most likely it was an accident, but the propability exists also that it was terrorist-related. What bothered me was the time lapse immediately after the accident in which it was determined that IT WAS NOT TERRORIST RELATED.

[GoreIsLove]

read the quote. the fbi is not categorically denying an act of terrorism.

they were still examining it because a refinery is the type of infrastructure terrorists might target."

that's a lot different than what you had stated, namely "that the fire is not terrorist related."