posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 01:46 PM
What if the following scenario is the truth?
They put in a steel pipe years ago, it hit something, wouldn't go any further. Maybe they conducted tests and found an anomaly. They then put
together this "project" using Bertha to meet the end of the steel pipe to see what was blocking it.
I don't know whether this is worth responding to or not. The origin of the steel pipe and its purpose are not in question here. We know when, why, and
where the pipe was put down--to measure groundwater in an attempt to assess the stability of the Alaskan Way Viaduct after the earthquake. Given the
proximity of the Viaduct to the salt-water Elliott Bay, plus the existence of a century old sea-wall put in place to--you know--hold back the sea, it
would seem a prudent course of action. The results of the measuring of the groundwater plus other work led to the conclusion that although the
Viaduct, built in 1950, might stand up another few years, it really was inherently unstable and another major earthquake might collapse it with
inevitable loss of life. Therefore the decision was made to strengthen it for the time being, but to get rid of it eventually, one way or another.
Bear in mind that the "tunnel solution" was far from a given. Many other alternatives were considered, including a suspension bridge, which was
actually quite a viable option, to surface streets. The political battle was intense, with the Mayor of Seattle dead-set against a tunnel and the
State of Washington for it. (It's a state highway and right-of-way, not a city-owned street.) There was even an election of the people which showed
60% support for the tunnel and even with the election's decisive victory the mayor continued to oppose it where he could. In his defiant "my way or
the highway" leadership approach (quite literally), he lost the next election.
You are suggesting that the pipe drilled in 2002 hit an "anomaly," THEREFORE TPTB put together a massive tunnel boring machine, which has no provision
for "seeing" anything, as we've found out, at the cost of billions of dollars with the cover story that it was to replace the Viaduct just to see what
a well may have hit?
Well, that's quite a fanciful suggestion and an expensive solution to satisfy curiosity. After all, we know there is a ship down there and probably a
locomotive engine, so spending a few billion to find that out would have been very cool. Congratulations for "denying ignorance." Meanwhile subsequent
news stories, however misleading they may be, have reported nothing but the steel well casing as the culprit, though they, as well as all the many
knowledgeable civil engineers here, are still holding out for the possibility of something more exotic.
Good luck with that.
edit on 1/5/2014 by schuyler because: (no reason given)