U.S. History/Conspiracy Theory
Old Hoodoo wrote at 2012-09-24 01:51:22
I would like to point out a possible conspiracy of silence regarding the Maine, although the motivation would not have been to start a war but to save the Navy from acute embarrassment. When the Spanish gave their opinion of the cause of the explosion they said one of the possible causes was paint or "driers" that had been know to cause explosions before in ships, at least one with catastrophic results. Although this was quickly 'answered' by the Navy with the opinion that everything was shipshape on the Maine and there were no sources for accidental ignition or fire in the bow, they were either lying or incredibly obtuse. The truth is that the only known fact(admitting however that something unknown could still cause an explosion) that could have led to an explosion was the scaling and painting of the empty "B" coal bunkers in the bow section of the ship. One of these two story bunkers shared a common wall with the magazine that exploded, and also the A-16 coal bunker.Interestingly, testimony was elicited on the subject of the painting that showed that 14-10 days before the explosion that scaling and painting had started on the bunkers (the officers were trying to find ways to keep the harbor-locked crew busy as enlisted personnel were denied shore leave in Havana) and the bunkers were still empty on the day of the explosion. Yet this known fact was only entered to show that the bunkers had no coal in them. No follow up testimony or examination was made regarding the fresh paint and driers curing or possible temporary stowage of cans and rags in the empty bunkers...it is quite probable that the Maine had explosive mixtures of atmosphere throughout the lower bow section of the vessel...normally at worse this would have caused an explosion that would do little relative damage to a steel vessel or to the men in the upper decks, but the question remains whether a fume explosion or flash fire could have set off anything in the magazine. Oddly, it was then and is well known that paint products can cause significant explosions that can even kill. The question is then why no one, not the original inquiries (who had every reason not to want to find an internal cause of combustion or even the 1974 Rickover study did not attempt to at least dispel this possibility. I think we have a real potential conspiracy of silence to avoid embarrassment to the Navy, a conspiracy similar to the Dreyfus case of the same period when the French General Staff was content to allow the framing of an innocent officer and the subsequent cover up which in that case got completely out of hand due to the integrity of one officer. Apparently with the Maine, at least so far, if a conspiracy of silence occurred it has been successful.
Redfire wrote at 2013-02-16 15:15:50
As those buildings were collapsing, huge sections of steel beams, weighing tons, can be seen flying horizontally at some 50 miles per hour. Collapsing, falling down? Or exploding? The highest termperature burning jet fuel can reach is 1517 F. Steel melts at about 2750 F. That's 1233 degrees less. The fraud is right in front of everyone's eyes. "Remember the Maine, the hell with Spain." Months later, the commander of that old and inefficieent vessel, now back in the U.S., said it was caused by an explosion in the engine. Did anyone believe him? Of course not. They were hypnotized by headlines.
The first buildings in the world built to withstand crashes by 747 jet crashes just fell down in a puff of smoke?