A GAME TWO CAN PLAY: UNDERWATER BOMB FOUND IN WATER SUPPLY RESEVOIR

Before we kick off this week's blogs - and a particularly difficult week it was to decide upon what stories to talk about, there were so many, and so many diverse subjects - I want to remind everyone that this Friday at 4PM we have our monthly old format vidchat. That means you email your questions and comments (no more than a page please) to my email address. Please remember to put VIDCHAT QUESTIONS in all capitals in the subject header as that alerts me that I need to save the email. It helps me spot your emails amid all the hundreds I get per week.  Also, please remember to consult the website forum for last minute changes in the schedule of the vidchats, as we're in that period of stormy weather that seems to hit every weekend, and yes, they are currently predicting bad weather for this Friday...

With that said, on to this week's blogs...

***

If you've been hanging around this website or listening to my various interviews or reading my books, then you'll know that I have a lot of suspicions about how often covert operations are actually behind all the craziness that otherwise goes unexplained in the world. For example, we watched for months as the Trump administration bobbed and weaved over releasing various Epstein files, and then - bang - we are suddenly in a war with Iran, and the prima facie evidence seems fairly clear that this was "strongly suggested" by Bibi Nuttyayhoo. The timely "coincidence" has suggested to many (including me) that there may be some deep connection between the two, that Mr. Trump has a "control file" of the Catherine Austin Fitts variety, and that this was activated just in time to send our gas and food prices soaring. For years I've been warning that such covert operations are a game that two or more can play, and that the infrastructure of this country is particularly vulnerable to such operations. Remember all those planned and professionally executed attacks a few years ago on California electrical substations and internet cabling (the latter not only in California but in Arizona)?

With that in mind, consider the following story shared by V.T. (with our gratitude):

At first reading the article might give the impression that this is a one-off, haphazardly executed affair, and come to the conclusion that there is "nothing really significant here, move along."  The article seems - to this author at least - to go out of its way to provide a calm, reassuring "tone" and "diction" and to thus downplay the significance of the basic facts: an "improvised" bomb was found underwater next to a dam that holds the reservoir of drinking water for a major American city (Mobile, Alabama) which city also happens to be a major port facility. Let those facts sink in.

Bomb. Drinking water reservoir. Major City. Port facility.

Then read these statements from the article:

Divers performing routine maintenance at the Converse Reservoir dam on Big Creek Lake on Wednesday found a grenade-type improvised explosive device (IED) submerged underwater, directly threatening the primary drinking water supply for the entire city of Mobile and surrounding areas.

The device was located during a scheduled underwater inspection of the dam.

The Mobile Area Water and Sewer System (MAWSS) immediately alerted the Mobile County Sheriff’s Office, which coordinated a multi-agency response involving the Gulf Coast Regional Maritime Response and Render-Safe Team, the FBI Bomb Squad, Mobile Police Department Explosive Ordinance Detail, ALEA Bomb Squad, and Daphne Search and Rescue.

Three bomb squads for "a grenade-type improvised explosive device"?  Note the use of the term "grenade"(albeit, by someone presumably not part of the professional teams recovering the "device"): a grenade is typically something held in the hand and thrown at an enemy. It explodes and sends shrapnel everywhere. It has nowhere near the necessary explosive brissance to threaten a dam. This suggests either that the "grenade" accidentally may have drifted into position from somewhere else, or that whoever may have intended it for the dam either had no clue as to the necessary explosive force needed to damage the dam, or that whoever designed the "grenade" and placed it there was intentionally trying to send a message, the message being "we can design a much bigger bomb and place it to get the job done."  If either of the latter alternatives, this implies that someone took a boat on to the reservoir and either dropped the "grenade" into place, or physically dove underwater to position it. Hold on to that thought, because we will be returning to it when we ask our "high octane speculation question" at the end of this blog.

The "grenade", we are informed, was safely removed and detonated off-site. The article ends with some bland reassurances:

The Converse Reservoir dam at Big Creek Lake is federally recognized critical infrastructure.

...

As of Thursday afternoon, no suspects have been named, and no motive has been publicly disclosed.

The FBI and local law enforcement are actively investigating how the device ended up at the dam.

The Department of Homeland Security has also been notified.

Authorities have not released details on the exact construction of the IED beyond describing it as a grenade-type improvised explosive.

End of story. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Except that you might have noticed that another very important question that is nowhere addressed in the article, and I'm willing to bet that it's not addressed because the government authorities chose not to address it and keep it quiet.  Being from South Dakota, when I read about this story and the "grenade", my response was almost visceral, because as the reader may or may not know,  South Dakota has four large flood control and hydro-electric power dams on the Missouri River that bisects the state: Gavin's Point, Big Bend, Fort Randall, all three concrete and earthen dams with typical dam architecture typical of such structures, with spillways and so on, and Oahe dam, a large (and some say the world's largest) earthen dam just outside the state capital in Pierre (for those of you not from South Dakota, the local pronunciation is not like the French proper name, but rather like the word "peer" in "peer review").  All the dams have, of course, the ability to release water down their spillways when there has been too much rain, and the water levels in their reservoirs gets too high. These spillway gates are some of the most sensitive parts of a dam. The other parts of these dams are the underwater intake tunnels for their power production turbines. Again, very sensitive areas of any dam.

So I have to wonder, exactly where was this "grenade" discovered? Did it look as if it had been haphazardly "dropped" into position, or that it had drifted by water currents from somewhere else into the place it was found? Or did it look as if it had been deliberately positioned near a sensitive area of the dam, near spillway gate machinery or underwater intakes? If someone, for example, had told me that the massive Oahe dam reservoir had been discovered to have an underwater "improvised explosive device" nestled against the dam during a routine inspection, I'd for certain want to know if that device was anywhere near spillway gate machinery, intake tunnels, and so on.

But in the article we're not told. What we get thus far is a complete avoidance of the issue.

And that to me raises many many questions, and suggests to me that we are not being told the whole story, because you can bet your bottom dollar that the authorities are also thinking of covert ops and other "related scenarios", too.

See you on the flip side...

(If you enjoyed today's blog, please share it with your friends.)