I appreciated Richard Moore's commentary on this:
http://cyberjournal.org/Several people responded, as you did, about the nature of Hal Turner's website. I had never heard of him - I got the article as a forward.
However, I don't see this residue story as being particularly related to Hal's propaganda line. If the story had a racist angle - "blacks blow up their own neighborhood" - that would be a different matter. I think he just got the story and figured it deserved air time, independent of his own perverse agenda.
I've seen various reports, from different sources, about residents hearing explosions just before the water started coming over the levee. And the levee did break a day after the
hurricane struck, in one of its strongest sections, and was well placed for the task of flooding the poorest part of the city. Perhaps the explosion story was intentionally leaked to
Hal, in particular, so that it could be quickly labelled as a 'right wing conspiracy theory'. In any case, I hope some independent evidence, one way or another, shows up.
In examining this kind of incident, i.e. Katrina as a whole, I find there are three phases of investigation. The first phase involves asking the question, "Are there enough suspicious
circumstances to warrant giving the incident any attention at all?" In the case of 9-11 that question was answered in the affirmative by the unprecedented lack of interceptor response. In the case of Katrina, the question is answered in the affirmative by a similarly unprecedented total lack of rescue support.
The second phase involves digging deeper, to see if the official story really is bogus. Are there enough anomalies, with enough substantiation behind them, to conclude that something else is going on, besides what we're being told. In the case of 9-11 the anomalies are staggering in their magnitude. In the case of Katrina, we've got the blocking of relief efforts, the bizarre treatment of the survivors, and a number of elements which don't make any sense, if things were on the up and up.
The third phase is to stick your neck out and investigate the incident as a covert operation: What is the purpose? Who stands to gain what? What precedents are being set? Who is being blamed? What remedies are being proposed? What cover story is being used and why? At this level little is hidden, and much can be learned.
Once you make the decision to examine the incident as a covert operation, then a given piece of evidence assumes a different
significance. If you are thinking in terms of a bungled rescue attempt, then rumors of an exploded dike are a bit far fetched. If you are considering a pre-arranged disaster scenario, then such sabotage makes perfect sense. If this scale of operation is to be carried out successfully, in its many dimensions, then nothing can be left to chance. If Katrina
turned out to be weaker than expected, then there must be a backup strategy to achieve the flooding objective. Standard procedure; Plan B.
Once you feel entering phase three is warranted, then debates about 'whether it's a conspiracy or not' become a bit tedious. Our next posting, soon to follow, will be entire in the space of phase 3.
cheers,
rkm
