And how would they know? I hate these premature assurances.
Odder yet is the way they say it will be months before they know the cause -- yet, it only takes minutes to rule out ONE possible cause -- a cause that we have been repeatedly warned to be on the lookout for. (They have specifically warned us that the SOBs have bridges as a potential target.)
FNC: Department of Homeland Security says this does not appear to be an act of terrorism.
[...]
And how would they know? I hate these premature assurances.
Also in the "odder yet" department is the nonchalant "not that big a cause for concern" flavored statement that they are only "monitoring" via the locals -- even though they (HS) are on the scene (multiple vehicles spotted, apparently ONLY reported on local news). The national media seem disinterested in reporting HS's presence at the scene.
And apart from all that, is the sheer scope of the "incident" -- along with the "explanation" being spoon-fed by "the authorities", i.e., they were "working" on the bridge. Oh, please -- touching up the pavement causes a massive destruction over what appears to be a half-mile or so of bridge and roadway leading up to the bridge?
I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.
I recall that shortly after 9/11, there was a powwow called for the purpose of working out protocols for how to manage the news in the aftermath of future attacks. The meeting was attended by high-ranking government officials and the leaders of the national news media.
Rule One seems to be to "avoid panic at all costs. Right now, S. Hannity is re-ranting his histrionic delivery of the bridges age. Oh, the vapors! It's forty years old!
How it's managed to last forty years is amazing, I suppose. Gee, forty years old, what a dinoaaur!
Of course, the Brooklyn Bridge is just a tad older -- construction began 138 years ago -- and it's still standing. And, there was a bit of a scandal during its construction -- substandard steel was used (corruption in government contracts being nothing new). So, the Brooklyn Bridge, built with defective 1860's steel is still in service today. As are countless other bridges.
Frankly, if asphalt work on a bridge could cause massive catastrophic destruction, of the type normally associated with placement of multiple shaped charges (gee, hmm, work on the bridge... what excellent "cover" for goons scurrying around planting things), then I'm shocked that this sort of thing hasn't been happening regularly every year or so.
The instantaneous "we have no idea of the cause, but don't worry, there is no sign of terrorism" mantra has become so predictable that people inevitably crack jokes about it. "How many minutes until they assure us it wasn't terrorism?" "Have they given the 'no terrorism' statement yet?"
The more they play that tune, the more I come to consider it a bit of an IQ test -- something along the lines of, "How stupid do they think we are?" -- and the answer appears to be "Pretty darn stupid!"
Now, I'm not saying that it IS terrorism. I'm merely saying that while I don't know -- and, they don't know -- it seems to me that statistically, "terrorism" would be right by the top of the list of potential causes. Yet, it's the ONE cause that is categorically ruled out, months (by their own accounting) before an actual cause can be determined.
Paging Occam...