collapsed bridge theory

with the recent collapse of the minnesota bridge and the 'promise' to rebuild it (as in how much of what was 'promised' in new orleans has been rebuilt already), the reports suddenly springing up about how many more thousands bridges could imminently collapse due to decay and neglect, i thought about several things to look out for in the future.

the most obvious one to me would be how vital the bridge was for logistics of the nearby populations. what i mean is that if you wanted to control the movements of a population, then the best way would be to take out the more vital busy areas so you can funnel them into better positioned and more manageable areas. if an increase in disasters at vital areas such as bridges, roads, train stations, ferry terminals etc start occurring then you should start being suspicious.

does anybody know how vital this bridge actually was in the area compared to other bridges?

another was the old 'who benefits' question. who will be getting the contracts for the repairs? ie. does a pattern emerge, do they have common business links, was the a local reason for the 'accident' to be convenient etc

there was a third point i wanted to mention but after typing the above i just can't think what it was at the moment. i'll add the point if/when it comes to me.

I live in the twin cities area and used that bridge quite often, it's the link between the two halves of Minneapolis in that area. There are a few other bridges around that can be used, but you have to get onto local roads to get around it.

This was probably the most traveled bridge in the twin cities area.

I don't think there's a dark plan behind it, but it is the product of neglect and there was just too much else at play. (Construction workers actively working, rush hour traffic, etc)

hatax, i wasn't saying this bridge was brought down deliberately - sometimes accidents do happen due to neglect or bad workmanship etc.

it was more a thought about if you wanted to control the flow of traffic across the country then what vital traffic areas would you look at. lets say for example that the nafta highway thing goes ahead and you wanted to channel traffic in a certain direction - what would be the best area to do this in? that was the type of thing i was thinking about

The bridge that collapsed was the highest traffic bridge in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. The Federal Government gave money to the state of Minnesota to fix bridges that require maintenance or repairs. The state of Minnesota ended their year with a surplus, but never managed to fix that bridge.

It isn't a matter of the Bush Administration not doing their jobs. All they can do is give the state the money to fix it, and offer suggestions by way of inspections, etc. They can't force the state to fix THAT bridge.

I don't believe this was done intentionally to divert traffic anywhere, especially since they could have just made a detour instead of killing people.