I’m not normally paranoid or prone to conspiracy theories, but does this strike anyone as a bit odd? That we have an extremely quick and extremely mollifying conclusion to a potentially panic-inducing and politically embarassing situation?
the explosion was caused by someone lighting a cigarette:
“An Encino man died Sunday of burn-related injuries suffered in a fiery explosion that tore through his apartment building after he apparently disconnected a gas line to fix a stove and then ignited the gas by lighting a cigarette.”
So this is more a story about a Darwin Award winner than one about a conspiracy.
jsc, relax. First of all, arson investigators can very quickly determine the cause of a fire, at least in general terms. Burn and damage patterns are pretty distinctive across types of fires. So it is not unusual that they would be able to determine pretty quickly the cause of the fire.
But, you say, they could still be lying to us. Which brings us to the second point - the explosion didn’t cause enough damage to be an act of terrorism. Think about it - according to the articles, about 10 apartments were gutted and a couple of dozen others suffered damage. None of the residents (besides the schmoe who started the fire) were seriously injured. And this in a 130-unit complex with 300-odd residents.
Now think about how much exposives you could pack into an apartment. With the amount of space available, a terrorist could have leveled the whole block. Next, consider the timing of the explosion - 11 A.M. on a weekday morning, when most of the residents would be at work or at school.
All in all, the terrorist theory doesn’t wash.
That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised if this isn’t eventually ruled a suicide. An unmarried, childless man, with little family in the area, unable to work due to disability, who inexplicably unhooks his gas line, then lights a cigarette? I doubt he thought that the explosion would do much damage to neighboring apartments, but the elements of a suicide are there.
