David Anthony Kearns with video contributions by Stanley S. Morton, III

BP Oil spill in Gallons

Monday, November 29, 2010


Was there sabotage involved in the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill?

"Heavens no. Who would even think of such a thing?"

What do you mean by that? Is that even a logical answer?

"No but, there's no way."

How do you know?

"Because no one would ever be so evil as to do such a thing."

How do you know?

"I....I.....let's not even discuss it. Too difficult to believe or even track down the answer."

Sounds like you work either for the media, or the United States government.

Just because you can't believe someone would do something that is hideous, murderous and evil, is NOT a fact-based reason NOT to investigate whether or not they did it.

If your only criterion for removing a suspect from a list is because you "just can't believe they would do something like that" you should be fired as an investigator.

Example: a woman runs over her own toddler with the family car. Police have run into this situation from time to time. It usually turns out to be an unthinkably tragic accident.

The point is, the police at some point, have to ask mom what happened, what she was thinking, what was her frame of mind at the time, and what led up to the accident? If they don't they aren't doing their jobs.

But take the hypothetical a little further: she placed the stroller behind the car, got in, put it in reverse without looking, and mashed her foot all the way to the floor atop the accelerator.

Now what? Three different lapses in judgement, each as reckless as the other.

Take it even further.

Now she "lawyers up", as they say on the television dramas. She lawyers up and she shuts up completely with the bland statement "it was an accident," being her only explanation. The police ask her to come in to speak with them and she refuses. They launch an investigation and she fights it. They get a warrant to search her home and she and her high-priced lawyer fight that as well.

Come to find out, she was cited for shaking the toddler so bad the month prior, the Department of Children and Families came to the home and issued her a warning, and assigned an investigator.But the investigator was so overworked he hadn't time to report to the home. Police look a little further into her background and discover that two years ago, she dropped the child off with a friend and disappeared for a week! Her last words to the friend before she left? "I just can't handle one more second with this kid!"

Now what? Does a good cop still swallow the "too horrible to be true" defense and not even pursue the line of inquiry called "was it intentional?"

We have a similar set of outrageous circumstances with this oil spill. His Majesty's weasel commission isn't even making inquiries into the possibility that someone, somewhere inside the whole mess, MADE this accident happen.

You have a greedy company cutting corners time and again. As anyone who plays Jenga knows, the last block removed is the one that results in collapse. In this case, was not every last "responsible decision" block quietly ushered out of the way? Which was the last Jenga block in this case? Is it not possible that any one of these blocks - from the cement mix, to the decision not to use quite so many centralizers, to the decision to remove the drilling muds prior to making sure the cement plug was in place - could have been the Jenga block? Who is responsible for that decision for removing the Jenga block? What is their background? What was their motivation? Have they experienced any massive economic windfall recently? Do they have mysterious bank accounts anywhere?

So many different possibilities: so many potential villains.

But no. Your government isn't even looking into the possibility. Does this even concern you? Is this the way the NTSB behaves after an airplane crash? Of course not. They consider the unthinkable if ever so briefly.

"This is too difficult; to run down all these questions," so too, is not a responsible reason NOT pursue any line of inquiry

Why are they not asking this question given the obscene preponderance of evidence that the wrong decisions were made from shore over and over and over and over and over and over before finally one of these became the Jenga block? Why isn't the sabotage angle even entertained? Does this make sense to you?

Because it is too hard to even question whether or not someone would do something so hideously evil?

But see history's many examples and you have to conclude not only WOULD man do something so monstrous to his fellow man, but he has, time and again.

And those who eluded capture the longest were those who did the MOST monstrous things.

Because no one believed that a human being with a heart was capable of it.

No comments: