posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:40 PM
Mods, if this is the incorrect forum to post in, do what you will.
At the beginning of this fiasco, there was a bit of talk here about the possibility of this being intentional, be it from HAARP or whatever we the
United States might have at it's disposal. I'm not here to debate how it was done, nor am I assuming that it was done, but rather, if it was indeed
intentional on our part, why?
This, of course, is a rather grandiose, open question. If you have any theories or have read of any, please share them.
I've noted the last two days that many of the MSM are mentioning a ban or halt on any proposed nuclear facilities by local state governments and even
a few quips on stopping currently run nuclear facilities as a collective move for progressive, alternate energy.
I think most of us would agree that there very well could have been a number of serious issues with the BP oil spill that we could have caused,
avoided, or let go longer than necessary, even without mentioning the corexit poisoning, but all in all that led to more or less a ban on new
Could these two issues be related? Less dependence on oil, less dependence on nuclear energy, both instigated by catastrophe...
Forgive the ramblings of a tired person, just wondering if anyone has any reasoning why this incident would be created, for what purpose all this may