Massive ULF 'Blast' Detected In US Bridge Collapse Catastrophe, page 1

Originally posted by NGC2736
There would be little or no value to doing this deliberately without having some terrorist group to blame.

Think so?

Check this out

At the very bottom:

"NASCO is not building or encouraging the creation of 'a NAFTA Superhighway.' I-35 and key crossing interstates already exist and have been described as 'a NAFTA Superhighway' due to the loads they bear since the 1994 passage of NAFTA. They require attention to support future growth and trade."

This too

Mission statement:

"THE CHALLENGE

Economists predict U.S. bound international containerized cargo will increase 350% by 2020. United States, Mexico, and Canadian exports to one another and the world are at an all time high.

We are literally facing a trade tsunami and U.S., Mexico, and Canadian infrastructure is unable to handle the burden.

THE SOLUTION

NASCO’s purpose is to boost economic development activity by supporting:

* Multi-modal (rail, truck, ships, air cargo) infrastructure improvements
* Technology and security innovations on existing infrastructure to improve security and efficiency"

Now, ask yourself again if there's little or no value.

The I-35 Bridge had to go because it was a fairly vital piece of the NAFTA Superhighway. At it's state before it collapsed, it could not support the large boost in traffic that the NAFTA Superhighway would bring. NASCO admits this, and if we're supposed to believe it just collapsed because it had issues, then this clearly backs that up as well.

The bridge needed to be updated completely to be able to support all that traffic that the NAU brought. It would probably be more time and cost efficient if it were to "collapse", and to rebuild it, rather than just patching up holes here and there.

If you put together a plan to update it by patching it up, you not only end up spending more in the long run, but you have to go through long drawn out contract processes, planning processes, legal issues, shutting down the bridge, budget, and on and on.

If it "collapses", it's a tragedy, the bridge you wanted gone is now gone, and since it's a tragedy, here comes Bush to the rescue to "cut through paperwork" and get the bridge rebuilt as soon as possible while providing federal funding. Which is more likely, the government having support to help pay for updating a bridge? Or the government having support to help pay for a bridge that has tragically collapsed?

Now, it's all suddenly very convenient. You push along your NAU agenda, you get a news headline to cover up your executive orders that you've been issuing, and you possibly distract attention from Operation Noble Resolve, which is in Portland today, as well as tomorrow, simulating the detonation of a nuclear weapon, which tomorrow just so happens to be the anniversary of the United States dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, all the while we've been hearing about an "American Hiroshima".

The argument may be, why not just close the bridge and then knock it down? That's possible, but these people killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11, what is 9 or 10 more deaths to them? Besides, if they intended it to be a major headline to be a diversion for something to come, then it needed to collapse suddenly. Some bridge work isn't a headline.

There is very little risk, because to most people, this seems stupid for them to knock down a bridge. But most people aren't aware of the NAU.

The rewards are very high, because you can supply NASCO with a no bid contract to get the bridge rebuilt, while also supporting your NAU agenda, and possibly having a headline for a diversion.

Considering all of that, does it seem a little more possible, at least?