On Sunday, a traffic accident at the interchange of three highways near the Bay Bridge in
Oakland, California, served as a vivid illustration that 9/11 conspiracy buffs should have paid closer attention in their science classes. A tanker truck carrying 8600 gallons of gasoline crashed into a pylon and burst into flames, spewing gasoline onto the highway interchange. As that gasoline ignited and spread the fire across the pavement, the following occurred (sorry Charlie Sheen, et al), even without “evil Bush administration demolition charges”:Witnesses reported flames rising up to 200 feet into the air. Heatexceeded 2,750 degrees and caused the steel beams holding up the interchange from eastbound I-80 to eastbound Interstate 580 above to buckle and bolts holding the structure together to melt, leading to the collapse, California Department of Transportation director Will Kempton said.
The charred section of collapsed freeway was draped at a sharp angle onto the highway beneath, exposing a web of twisted metal beneath the concrete. Officials said that altogether a 250-yard portion of the upper roadway was damaged.
Extreme temperatures created by burning fuel, steel beams buckling, metal bolts melting, structures collapsing. Sounds a lot like what happened with all that jet fuel from the nearly full tanks of the planes used on 9/11, doesn’t it? As damaging as this tanker accident is to commuting and trucking in the Bay area, it will hopefully stand as a witness to nutty conspiracy advocates (many of whom ironically happen to reside in the Bay area) that catastrophes can and do happen regularly without the prior knowledge or participation of anyone from the Bush administration. My stopwatch is ticking, recording how long it will take for Spike Lee to produce a “documentary” asserting that the Army Corps of Engineers, complicit with the Bush Administration, blew up this interchange like the levees of New Orleans.
--Photos by AP, Fox News.
3 comments:
OBW - I have to confess to an unhealthy interest in the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.
Please don't confuse this with a belief in these conspiracy theories, as (to pick only one of many examples) it takes a certain kind of mind to believe that the dozens - possibly hundreds - of required participants in such a conspiracy would a) agree to be complicit in such an event and b) be able to retain their sanity and remain silent in the face of the horrific post-event reality.
In short, I find the subject (of conspiracy theory, not of the terror attacks) amusing and diverting - nothing more.
However what intrigues me is why those who can, don't.
Why, for example, did the FBI release only 5 frames (plus one, more recently) from only one video camera at the Pentagon - none of which featured the aircraft?
Not because they didn't want to be seen to respond to the conspiracy theorists - releasing 50 frames, or 500 frames, immediately would be received by the public in the same way as releasing the 5 they did originally. It would not have been perceived as a rebuttal of conspiracy, but merely the provision of information.
So releasing a total of 6 inconclusive frames is, as far as I can see, merely fuelling the fires.
I struggle to understand this.
At the risk of being perceived as diverting you down conspiracy roads you have no wish to travel (and nor, indeed, do I), can you provide me with a rationale for this approach to the Pentagon video?
After all, you did a damn fine job with the concrete and steel structure collapse!
Lastly, and whilst writing sir, I have been watching for comment from you on the subject of Jessica Lynch, who recently showed remarkable courage in admitting that she was hiding in the cab of her truck praying during the gunfight outside, and not, as previously claimed by the military "fighting the enemy to the last round"
In particular I hoped to read your views on women in the front line military, and how you compared or contrasted her with our own Leading Seaman Faye Turney, who spent her time in Iranian captivity 'crying most of the time'.
Johnny,
You raise some interesting questions about conspiracies, and while you are correct that I do not wish to journey very far into such topics, I will briefly address conspiracies in general. I preface my opinion with the disclaimer that my experiences working within the U.S. Government have convinced me that no large-scale conspiracy orchestrated by multiple agencies is possible. The lack of communication, intelligence hoarding, and having news reporter contacts on speed dial prevent anything from remaining secret.
Trying to explain to someone why the FBI released only 6 frames of a 9/11 Pentagon video is like trying to describe salt to someone who has never tasted it. You have to have worked with the FBI to understand how it developed a reputation for holding information, whether critical or not, close to the vest. My opinion is that the FBI did not see a public need to view the plane striking the Pentagon, particularly considering the large number of public witnesses inside and outside the Pentagon who saw the event occur from their cars on local parkways or their offices in local buildings. The images of the Twin Towers being struck and later collapsing were disturbing to Americans and energizing to terrorists. Keeping video footage of the Pentagon strike out of the media also kept it from becoming an endlessly replayed propaganda and recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. The Pentagon is a symbol of America's power, and the FBI deprived terrorists the glee of watching their handiwork.
Johnny, honestly I think that conspiracy buffs are in many ways products of Hollywood's anti-government crusade. If you haven't perused the Capital Cloak Archives, I recommend that you review the post from Jan 3, 2007, titled "Hollywood's Favorite Villains: Government, Law Enforcement, and the Military." It becomes easier for people to be suspsicious of their government when nearly every media portrayal of it is negative and involves outrageously implausible conspiracies. The list of movies depicting such conspiracies included in that post is by no means all-inclusive. It is a mere sampling of what society is being fed by Hollywood.
As for Jessica Lynch's admission that her "heroism" in Iraq was not heroic at all, I refer you to a series of posts at the Mudville Gazette, a wonderful milblog, that demonstrate that the media, not the military, created the Lynch hero persona. Mudville Gazette is linked in my blogroll, but the specific thread you will want is found at http://www.mudvillegazette.com/milblogs/2007/04/24/#ext008594. Scroll down a bit and you will see several posts with clips from various sources that piece together how the media ran with an unconfirmed story despite military warnings that the info had not been verified. Lynch admitted in 2003 that she did not fire a shot and was lucky to survive the incident. She never claimed to be a hero, and apparently neither did the military.
Thanks for your always interesting views and participation at Capital Cloak.
Sir,
Thank you for giving more time to the subject of 9/11 conspiracy than you would have liked, or indeed that it deserves.
As always, it is a pleasure to read your thoughtful - and thought inspiring - comments, and in particular for your 'further reading' recommendations, which I will certainly pursue.
Post a Comment