Thursday, August 02, 2007
Pons asinorum
Homeland Security "assured" us that the Mpls bridge collapse was not caused by enemy action. I note that Prince Walid News Channel has already taken this "assurance" for gospel, and has already totally excluded hostile action from their thinking.
Sorry, that doesn't work. You simply cannot reach that conclusion within the first few hours after the destruction. First, the Mpls-StPaul metro area is a hotbed of enemy agents, so hot that they've even elected their own enemy penetrator to Congress. Second, we know that the enemy has been trying to target bridges, and has cased and examined many of them. Third, the collapse happened suddenly and nearly simultaneously, after reports of "jackhammer" sounds. This pattern resembles a deliberate explosion more than a typical structural failure, though the latter is certainly not excluded.
An official in DC could reach a positive conclusion instantly if he had info about the activities of local enemy groups, or perhaps a verified claim of responsibility. But he could only say immediately that this was not an act of war if he had continuous security footage of all sides of the bridge for the last few years, showing conclusively that nobody had planted any foreign objects on the bridge. Such footage might exist, but I severely doubt it.
= = = = =
Friday: It still wouldn't be possible to determine for sure that no explosives were used. I'd guess it will be several days before the wreckage is even stable enough to permit that sort of search. Nevertheless, we see the crawl on the cable stations running like this : " ... CAUSE OF DISASTER UNKNOWN ... DISASTER NOT CAUSED BY TERRORISM ... NICOLE RICHIE PREGNANT ..." Doesn't the juxtaposition even catch anyone's attention? Am I the only one in this country with a functional brain? If the cause is UNKNOWN you can't say the cause is NOT TERRORISM.
Obviously we're back in 1992. Bad things just sort of happen, and we are forbidden to even consider the possibility that we have an enemy. All we can do is put teddy bears on the owies and hope the Dow keeps climbing. ¶ 7:45 AM
Sorry, that doesn't work. You simply cannot reach that conclusion within the first few hours after the destruction. First, the Mpls-StPaul metro area is a hotbed of enemy agents, so hot that they've even elected their own enemy penetrator to Congress. Second, we know that the enemy has been trying to target bridges, and has cased and examined many of them. Third, the collapse happened suddenly and nearly simultaneously, after reports of "jackhammer" sounds. This pattern resembles a deliberate explosion more than a typical structural failure, though the latter is certainly not excluded.
An official in DC could reach a positive conclusion instantly if he had info about the activities of local enemy groups, or perhaps a verified claim of responsibility. But he could only say immediately that this was not an act of war if he had continuous security footage of all sides of the bridge for the last few years, showing conclusively that nobody had planted any foreign objects on the bridge. Such footage might exist, but I severely doubt it.
= = = = =
Friday: It still wouldn't be possible to determine for sure that no explosives were used. I'd guess it will be several days before the wreckage is even stable enough to permit that sort of search. Nevertheless, we see the crawl on the cable stations running like this : " ... CAUSE OF DISASTER UNKNOWN ... DISASTER NOT CAUSED BY TERRORISM ... NICOLE RICHIE PREGNANT ..." Doesn't the juxtaposition even catch anyone's attention? Am I the only one in this country with a functional brain? If the cause is UNKNOWN you can't say the cause is NOT TERRORISM.
Obviously we're back in 1992. Bad things just sort of happen, and we are forbidden to even consider the possibility that we have an enemy. All we can do is put teddy bears on the owies and hope the Dow keeps climbing. ¶ 7:45 AM
