RE: EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE FOUND ON FAILED LEVEE DEBRIS!

2005-09-11

Richard Moore

--------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tim Murphy" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: RE: EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE FOUND ON FAILED LEVEE DEBRIS!
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:02:37 +0100

Hi Richard,

The news report you have forwarded below needs to be seen in the context of
the website where it appeared...

This website is a nasty white supremacist website... The guy who wrote the
article (Hal Turner) is a sort of Ayrianist version of Rush Limbaugh.

-------

Hi Tim,

Several people responded, as you did, about the nature of Hal
Turner's website. I had never heard of him - I got the article
as a forward.

However, I don't see this residue story as being particularly
related to Hal's propaganda line. If the story had a racist
angle - "blacks blow up their own neighborhood" - that would
be a different matter. I think he just got the story and
figured it deserved air time, independent of his own perverse
agenda.

I've seen various reports, from different sources, about
residents hearing explosions just before the water started
coming over the levee. And the levee did break a day after the
hurricane struck, in one of its strongest sections, and was
well placed for the task of flooding the poorest part of the
city. Perhaps the explosion story was intentionally leaked to
Hal, in particular, so that it could be quickly labelled as a
'right wing conspiracy theory'. In any case, I hope some
independent evidence, one way or another, shows up.

In examining this kind of incident, i.e. Katrina as a whole, I
find there are three phases of investigation. The first phase
involves asking the question, "Are there enough suspicious
circumstances to warrant giving the incident any attention at
all?"  In the case of 9-11 that question was answered in the
affirmative by the unprecedented lack of interceptor response.
In the case of Katrina, the question is answered in the
affirmative by a similarly unprecedented total lack of rescue
support.

The second phase involves digging deeper, to see if the
official story really is bogus. Are there enough anomalies,
with enough substantiation behind them, to conclude that
something else is going on, besides what we're being told. In
the case of 9-11 the anomalies are staggering in their
magnitude. In the case of Katrina, we've got the blocking of
relief efforts, the bizarre treatment of the survivors, and a
number of elements which don't make any sense, if things were
on the up and up.

The third phase is to stick your neck out and investigate the
incident as a covert operation: What is the purpose? Who
stands to gain what? What precedents are being set? Who is
being blamed? What remedies are being proposed? What cover
story is being used and why? At this level little is hidden,
and much can be learned.

Once you make the decision to examine the incident as a covert
operation, then a given piece of evidence assumes a different
significance. If you are thinking in terms of a bungled rescue
attempt, then rumors of an exploded dike are a bit far
fetched. If you are considering a pre-arranged disaster
scenario, then such sabotage makes perfect sense. If this
scale of operation is to be carried out successfully, in its
many dimensions, then nothing can be left to chance. If Katrina
turned out to be weaker than expected, then there must be a
backup strategy to achieve the flooding objective. Standard
procedure; Plan B.

Once you feel entering phase three is warranted, then debates
about 'whether it's a conspiracy or not' become a bit tedious.
Our next posting, soon to follow, will be entire in the space
of phase 3.

cheers,
rkm










Share:

ekbonus bahis forum linkegit.com