| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jack Sarfatti" |
| Date: |
05 Jun 2004 07:10:56 PM |
| Object: |
Life evades sub-quantal heat death |
re: Notes on Gennady Shipov's latest work on torsion field physics
extension of Einstein's geometrodynamics
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/Shipov.pdf
See also James Woodward's "Radiation Reaction" at
http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/radreact/
Lecture 9 "The Feynman Lectures on Gravitation":
"The Principle of Equivalence postulates that an acceleration shall be
indistinguishable from gravity by any experiment whatsoever." p.123
This last condition "by any experiment whatsoever" is what concerns Paul
Zielinski. But leave that on the back burner.
"There is evidently some trouble here, since we have inherited a
prejudice that an accelerating charge should radiate, whereas we do not
expect a charge lying in a gravitational field to radiate."
Indeed James Woodward writes:
"It is known as a matter of fact that electric charges subject to
constant accelerations radiate electromagnetic waves ..."
Back to Feynman: "This is, however, not due to a mistake in our
statement of equivalence but to the fact that the rule of the power
radiated by an accelerating charge
dW/dt =(2e^2/3c^3)a^2 9.1.1
has led us astray. This is usually derived from calculating the flow
from Poynting's theorem far away, and it is only valid for cyclic
motions, or at least motions which do not grow forever in time (as a
constant acceleration does)."
Thus, there appears to be a conflict between Feynman's and Woodward's
statements?
Feynman: "It does not suffice to tell us 'when' the energy is radiated.
This can only be determined by finding the force of radiation
resistance, which is (2e^2/c^3)(da/dt). For it is the work against this
force which represents energy loss. FOR CONSTANT ACCELERATION THIS FORCE
IS ZERO." CAPS not in original. Note, Woodward also mentions this. He is
aware of it.
Feynman: "Generally the work done against it is
dW/dt = -(2e^2/c^3)v.(da/dt) = +(2e^2/c^3)[a^2 - (d/dt)v.a] 9.1.2
For cyclic or limited motions the average contribution of the last term
over the long run is small or zero ... and the simpler 9.1.1 suffices."
F(radiation resistance) = (2e^2/c^3)(da/dt)
Note that e^2 has dimensions of hc so that [(h/c^2)(da/dt)] =
(ML^2/T)(T^2/L^2)(L/T^3) = ML/T^2
Dirac's treatment of the radiation resistance force:
Define the difference between EM signals arriving here-now at location
of the electron from past and future light cones to be
S*^uv = (1/2)[F*^uv(retarded) - F*^uv(advanced)]
where, in general, Fuv is the Maxwell field tensor, i.e. the 4D curl of
the 4-vector potential Au that is a connection field for parallel
transport in a curled up internal space of one complex dimension.
Compute each F*^uv for a spatially extended electron with a given
electric self-charge distribution. That is, only consider how different
pieces of the spatially extended charge distribution act on the other
pieces of the same distribution using both delays and presponses! That
is, F*^uv only refers to internal self-signals connecting different
pieces of the extended charge distribution! Think of say a thin shell
of electric charge to make a definite visualizable model. Do not worry
how that self-charge is stabilized. That comes later with quantum zero
point energy and vacuum coherence not known to Dirac. Each F^uv, i.e.
advanced and retarded for any definite classical electron model will
individually explode to infinity as the radius rc of the electron
shrinks to zero, but their difference will not. It has a finite value in
the limit given by
f^u(rr) = Lim rc -> 0 eS^uvdx^u/dt = (2e^2/c^3)(da^u/dt)
p. 14 "Cosmology and Action at a Distance Electrodynamics" Hoyle and
Narlikar.
The Lorentz force on a "point" charged particle now has a jerk term,
i.e. a third order time derivative
F^u = md^2x^u/dt^2 = e[F^uv(external) +Lim rc -> 0S^uv(self)](dx^v/dt)
This leads to the problem of a run-away solution unless would violated
retarded causality a wee bit with a tiny presponse that is not, however,
big enough to explain what ***** Bierman sees in living conscious matter.
That requires a new effect of post-quantum signal nonlocality violating
micro-quantum theory and completely upsetting the Apple Cart of Quantum
Computers, Quantum Cryptography, Quantum Teleportation, and No Cloning a
Quantum to recover or erase information loss down a black hole event
horizon. That is, unitarity has its limits. Our conscious minds cannot
exist in a strictly unitary multiverse the way David Deutsch and Lenny
Susskind conceive it in which the statistical laws of micro-quantum
theory are absolute not to be broken. Indeed, all living matter breaks
those orthodox quantum rules which only correspond to "sub-quantal heat
death" in the sense defined by Antony Valentini. He has not, however,
realized that all life is the evasion of sub-quantal heat death!
.
|
|
| User: "Harlow" |
|
| Title: Re: Interdimensional Reptilian Theocracy Condones Paper Airplane Aeronautics |
26 Jun 2004 04:01:36 PM |
|
|
Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<kitwc.80294$OS5.18349@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...
Notes on Gennady Shipov's latest work on torsion field physics
extension of Einstein's geometrodynamics
Bush Meets With EU Leaders
26 June 2004 (RFE/RL) -- U.S. President George W. Bush sat
down with European Union leaders for a summit in Ireland today.
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/06/10f355eb-28d1-4227-bf98-5fe2a8fffc80.html
010101
The press informed us that George W. Bush on June 26, 2004, was
in Ireland, to attend a meeting of leaders of the European Union.
As usual with the oil-soaked, spy-riddled monopoly press, they
did not tell us what is really going on. Nearby, in the Irish Sea,
on the Isle of Man, Bush was promoted.
http://www.skolnicksreport.com/
010101
EXCLUSIVE NEWS BULLETIN
http://www.cloakanddagger.ca/
[C&D Wire Service 6-24-04] - Chicago federal grand jury indicts
George W. Bush in CIA leak case. Oil-soaked Monopoly Press is only
telling half of story. Chicago Prosecutor overheard whispering,
"Mr. President, do you intend to resign?"
010101
'UFO' is spotted in skies
By "Paul Dykes" <newsdesk@belfasttelegraph.co.uk>
26 June 2004
TWO men working high up a radio mast in Co Monaghan believe they have
spied a top-secret inter-planetary craft flying toward Belfast.
Miles Johnston, of the Irish UFO Research Centre, and Dublin-based
rigger Terry Malone claim the delta-winged craft traversed the sky
at ultrasonic speed, taking just a few seconds to reach the horizon.
"I am convinced it was a man-made advanced space craft - we had a
good long look at it in a clear blue sky," Mr Johnston said.
Mr Malone confirmed the object was "absolutely enormous".
"It was huge, high, and travelling at some speed," he said.
"I've seen B52s going over and you can hear them buzzing,
but there was not a sound from this thing. And it was gone
in an instant."
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=535416
010101
See also James Woodward's "Radiation Reaction" at
http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/radreact/
... Our conscious minds cannot exist in a strictly
unitary multiverse the way David Deutsch and Lenny
Susskind conceive it in which the statistical laws
of micro-quantum theory are absolute not to be broken.
Indeed, all living matter breaks those orthodox
quantum rules which only correspond to "sub-quantal
heat death" in the sense defined by Antony Valentini.
He has not, however, realized that all life is the
evasion of sub-quantal heat death!
<snip>
CURSOR
http://www.cursor.org/
Iraq Body Count
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Godless Americans Political Action Committee [GAMPAC.ORG]
"Mobilizing America's Nonbelievers for Political Activism"
http://www.godlessamericans.org/
"I believe that God wants me to be president."
-George W. Bush
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/etc/synopsis.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: ... |
26 Jun 2004 04:20:21 PM |
|
|
...got a hard-on for bush do we?
.
|
|
|
| User: "!?!" |
|
| Title: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
26 Jun 2004 04:27:12 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 21:20:21 GMT, "MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net>
wrote:
..got a hard-on for bush do we?
No adult male with one ounce of masculinity would support Bush.
Bush KNOWS -- and is a paranoid RAGE -- because NO ONE supports him -- NOT
EVEN HIS OWN STAFF!
There is NO WAY Bush can be re-elected UNLESS there's massive voting fraud
in the next election or outright fixing the vote.
The *ONLY* way Bush can continue to be President is if there's a state of
war declared.
.
|
|
|
| User: "xDisney2002" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
27 Jun 2004 09:01:04 AM |
|
|
!?! <nuke@saudi.arabia> wrote in message news:<0cqrd0tb4snv5hm9dqblofr3h5q9vd5thl@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 21:20:21 GMT, "MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net>
wrote:
..got a hard-on for bush do we?
No adult male with one ounce of masculinity would support Bush.
Bush KNOWS -- and is a paranoid RAGE -- because NO ONE supports him -- NOT
EVEN HIS OWN STAFF!
There is NO WAY Bush can be re-elected UNLESS there's massive voting fraud
in the next election or outright fixing the vote.
The *ONLY* way Bush can continue to be President is if there's a state of
war declared.
I thought the Democrats invented voting fraud. Remember the close JFK
election and the widespread democratic voting fraud in Chicago ?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "janoscan" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
29 Jun 2004 05:35:20 PM |
|
|
!?! <nuke@saudi.arabia> wrote in message news:<0cqrd0tb4snv5hm9dqblofr3h5q9vd5thl@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 21:20:21 GMT, "MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net>
wrote:
..got a hard-on for bush do we?
No adult male with one ounce of masculinity would support Bush.
Bush KNOWS -- and is a paranoid RAGE -- because NO ONE supports him -- NOT
EVEN HIS OWN STAFF!
There is NO WAY Bush can be re-elected UNLESS there's massive voting fraud
in the next election or outright fixing the vote.
The *ONLY* way Bush can continue to be President is if there's a state of
war declared.
No problemo. They're already rounding up more troops to ship out.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
26 Jun 2004 05:47:38 PM |
|
|
!?! wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 21:20:21 GMT, "MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net>
wrote:
..got a hard-on for bush do we?
No adult male with one ounce of masculinity would support Bush.
Ahh you got a hard-on for him too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "!?!" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
26 Jun 2004 05:57:43 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:47:38 GMT, "MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net>
wrote:
!?! wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 21:20:21 GMT, "MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net>
wrote:
..got a hard-on for bush do we?
No adult male with one ounce of masculinity would support Bush.
Ahh you got a hard-on for him too.
Oh, there's plenty of people within government who are OUT RIGHt WORKING
against Bush. It's reached a fevered pitch in Washington.
I actually except that now that the anger level in Washington is at an all
time high, that there might be a mass political assassination, of Bush,
Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz.
I'm not recommending it, but I would not be at all surprised if someone
knocks that duo off.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
27 Jun 2004 09:16:58 PM |
|
|
"Bye bye, Miss America Pie.
And while the King was looking down
The jester [Bush] stole his thorny crown.
There we were all in one place
A generation lost in space
With no time left to start again
So come on [Bush] be nimble, [Bush] be quick
[Bush] sat on a candle stick
'Cause fire is the devil's only friend.
As I watched him on the stage
My hands were clenched in fists of rage
No angel born in hell
Could break that Satan's spell
Helter Skelter in a summer swelter
The birds flew off with the fallout shelter
Eight miles high and ****falling fast****
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
26 Jun 2004 04:56:56 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 21:27:12 GMT, !?! <nuke@saudi.arabia> wrote:
The *ONLY* way Bush can continue to be President is if there's a state of
war declared.
He did that already, you forgot? A&T
.
|
|
|
| User: "!?!" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
26 Jun 2004 05:10:45 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 23:56:56 +0200, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 21:27:12 GMT, !?! <nuke@saudi.arabia> wrote:
The *ONLY* way Bush can continue to be President is if there's a state of
war declared.
He did that already, you forgot? A&T
Nope, Congress has to vote to declare war, this is a private little 'war'
that Bush has concocted.
And it's highly unlikely Congress will declare war against another country
even if that country blatantly attacks the USA -- because Bush has now made
it IMPOSSIBLE to go to war if another country attacks the USA. No one in
the world will support the USA, so another country *could* attack the USA
very easily and no one anywhere would blink an eye.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
26 Jun 2004 05:33:30 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:10:45 GMT, !?! <nuke@saudi.arabia> wrote:
Nope, Congress has to vote to declare war, this is a private little 'war'
that Bush has concocted.
Yet he did.
At 2.34 am GMT and 5.34 am Baghdad Time on 20th March 2003 (9.34 pm EST
on 19th March 2003), the armed forces of the United States of America
("the USA") and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland ("the UK") commenced warlike operations against the Republic
of Iraq ("Iraq") with air and missile strikes against "targets of
opportunity" in Baghdad. Those strikes were eventually followed up by
a ground invasion of Iraq, the overthrow of the Iraqi government and the
occupation of Iraq.
This page seeks to answer the question whether the Anglo-American war on
Iraq of 19th March 2003 was legal.
http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm
The authors of the Constitution endowed Congress with the power to
declare war. Once war is declared, Article II, Section 2, authorizes the
President, as the Commander in Chief, to execute the war. But the
Constitution does not authorize the President to declare war. James
Madison wrote in 1793 about the "fundamental doctrine of the
Constitution that the power to declare war is fully and exclusively
vested in the legislature." At the constitutional convention, George
Mason of Virginia stated that the President "is not safely to be
entrusted with" the power to decide on war. The framers clearly did not
want just one man to put the country at war.
http://www.progress.org/2003/fold293.htm
Index of the Constitution
http://www.constitution.org/indexco_.htm
http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm#con1.8.11
Declaration of War Against Germany, 1917
http://www.classbrain.com/artteenst/publish/article_86.shtml
.
|
|
|
| User: "!?!" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
26 Jun 2004 05:34:20 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 00:33:30 +0200, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:10:45 GMT, !?! <nuke@saudi.arabia> wrote:
Nope, Congress has to vote to declare war, this is a private little 'war'
that Bush has concocted.
Yet he did.
It is not an officially declared war, dumbass.
At 2.34 am GMT and 5.34 am Baghdad Time on 20th March 2003 (9.34 pm EST
on 19th March 2003), the armed forces of the United States of America
("the USA") and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland ("the UK") commenced warlike operations against the Republic
of Iraq ("Iraq") with air and missile strikes against "targets of
opportunity" in Baghdad. Those strikes were eventually followed up by
a ground invasion of Iraq, the overthrow of the Iraqi government and the
occupation of Iraq.
This page seeks to answer the question whether the Anglo-American war on
Iraq of 19th March 2003 was legal.
http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm
The authors of the Constitution endowed Congress with the power to
declare war. Once war is declared, Article II, Section 2, authorizes the
President, as the Commander in Chief, to execute the war. But the
Constitution does not authorize the President to declare war. James
Madison wrote in 1793 about the "fundamental doctrine of the
Constitution that the power to declare war is fully and exclusively
vested in the legislature." At the constitutional convention, George
Mason of Virginia stated that the President "is not safely to be
entrusted with" the power to decide on war. The framers clearly did not
want just one man to put the country at war.
http://www.progress.org/2003/fold293.htm
Index of the Constitution
http://www.constitution.org/indexco_.htm
http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm#con1.8.11
Declaration of War Against Germany, 1917
http://www.classbrain.com/artteenst/publish/article_86.shtml
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
26 Jun 2004 05:52:43 PM |
|
|
!?! wrote:
It is not an officially declared war, dumbass.
Neither was Korea or Vietnam. However Congress has voted the funds to
pay for the war and that is all that matters.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "!?!" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
26 Jun 2004 05:54:32 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:52:43 GMT, "Robert J. Kolker"
<robert_kolker@hotmail.com> wrote:
!?! wrote:
It is not an officially declared war, dumbass.
Neither was Korea or Vietnam. However Congress has voted the funds to
pay for the war and that is all that matters.
There is no money left, sonny. How much of an increase in defense spending
did congress give bush a few days ago?
.
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
26 Jun 2004 08:49:41 PM |
|
|
!?! wrote:
There is no money left, sonny. How much of an increase in defense spending
did congress give bush a few days ago?
Hey boy, how many times would you let your neighbor shoot into your backyard
before you called the police? If anything less than 10 years, then you are way
off base.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
27 Jun 2004 07:47:26 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:54:32 GMT, !?! <nuke@saudi.arabia> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:52:43 GMT, "Robert J. Kolker"
<robert_kolker@hotmail.com> wrote:
!?! wrote:
It is not an officially declared war, dumbass.
Neither was Korea or Vietnam. However Congress has voted the funds to
pay for the war and that is all that matters.
There is no money left, sonny.
I wonder when last Bob Kolker was called sonny.
How much of an increase in defense spending did congress give bush a few days ago?
You tell us.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
26 Jun 2004 05:50:31 PM |
|
|
!?! wrote:
It is not an officially declared war, dumbass.
You need to learn a little history.
The war never ended. It was a *cease fire*, and Saddam broke the rules every
day since it was put in place. Bush finally decided he had enough with what he
was told by his intelligence pukes, so he resumed the war.
Come on, make up conspiracies if you want, but don't change the facts to suit
your fantasies. If your neighbor shot at you from his yard every day, when
would you finally call the police?
.
|
|
|
| User: "!?!" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
26 Jun 2004 05:52:52 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:50:31 GMT, "MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net>
wrote:
You need to learn a little history.
What's not to know?
The war in Iraq is not an officially declared was.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
26 Jun 2004 08:48:48 PM |
|
|
!?! wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:50:31 GMT, "MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net>
wrote:
You need to learn a little history.
What's not to know?
The war in Iraq is not an officially declared was.
How many times would you let your neighbor shoot into your yard before you
called the police?
.
|
|
|
| User: "!?!" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
26 Jun 2004 09:04:11 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 01:48:48 GMT, "MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net>
wrote:
!?! wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:50:31 GMT, "MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net>
wrote:
You need to learn a little history.
What's not to know?
The war in Iraq is not an officially declared war.
How many times would you let your neighbor shoot into your yard before you
called the police?
If *I* witnessed my neighbor shooting, then I'd call the police on them, but
if *I* did NOT witness my who was doing the shooting and blamed them, then
*I* could get sued for false arrest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
26 Jun 2004 10:36:33 PM |
|
|
!?! wrote:
If *I* witnessed my neighbor shooting, then I'd call the police on them, but
if *I* did NOT witness my who was doing the shooting and blamed them, then
*I* could get sued for false arrest.
Ah, so if you were flying in your airplane and Iraqi Armed Forces shot SAMs at
you every day for 10 years you would never report it or finally take out the
people doing it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
27 Jun 2004 09:17:51 PM |
|
|
"MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message
news:5hrDc.8585$Pc.1754@fe1.texas.rr.com...
!?! wrote:
If *I* witnessed my neighbor shooting, then I'd call the police on them,
but
if *I* did NOT witness my who was doing the shooting and blamed them,
then
*I* could get sued for false arrest.
Ah, so if you were flying in your airplane and Iraqi Armed Forces shot
SAMs at
you every day for 10 years you would never report it or finally take out
the
people doing it?
Are you suggesting that a nation
does not have the right to try to bring down
someone who violates their air space?
Do you think it is okay for
potential terrorists and dope smugglers to
be able to violate American air space?
Do you think it is okay for anyone who wants to
to buzz any buildings and structures they want to,
in America?
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
.
|
|
|
|
| User: ",,," |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
26 Jun 2004 10:43:19 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 03:36:33 GMT, "MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net>
wrote:
!?! wrote:
If *I* witnessed my neighbor shooting, then I'd call the police on them, but
if *I* did NOT witness my who was doing the shooting and blamed them, then
*I* could get sued for false arrest.
Ah, so if you were flying in your airplane and Iraqi Armed Forces shot SAMs at
you every day for 10 years you would never report it or finally take out the
people doing it?
I'd sue the people who sold them the arms -- Bechtel, Lockheed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Henry" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
27 Jun 2004 01:35:59 PM |
|
|
",,," <nuke@saudia.arabia> wrote in message
news:6hgsd0lok98avse8t191pprpcnhn3vdq6t@4ax.com...
I'd sue the people who sold them the arms -- Bechtel, Lockheed.
What aarms does Bechtel sell?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Craney" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
27 Jun 2004 02:00:08 PM |
|
|
In article <msEDc.1882$151.1285@fed1read02>, says...
",,," <nuke@saudia.arabia> wrote in message
news:6hgsd0lok98avse8t191pprpcnhn3vdq6t@4ax.com...
I'd sue the people who sold them the arms -- Bechtel, Lockheed.
What aarms does Bechtel sell?
I'll make the point for you, because subtlety is often lost on these
types -- the original poster of the message doesn't know what the hell
Bechtel does for a living.
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Woodside" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
27 Jun 2004 01:28:41 PM |
|
|
",,," <nuke@saudia.arabia> wrote in message news:<6hgsd0lok98avse8t191pprpcnhn3vdq6t@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 03:36:33 GMT, "MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net>
wrote:
snip
I'd sue the people who sold them the arms -- Bechtel, Lockheed.
Speaking of which, the American media is remarkably silent over where
Saddam got his weapons of mass destruction in the first place when he
was America's gangster back in the 70's and 80's. I don't think Saddam
had the technical competence to build them himself and the Americans
knew exactly how much he had (modulo the unkept records of just what
was destroyed after the first gulf war).
.
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
27 Jun 2004 02:10:40 PM |
|
|
Rob Woodside wrote:
",,," <nuke@saudia.arabia> wrote in message
news:<6hgsd0lok98avse8t191pprpcnhn3vdq6t@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 03:36:33 GMT, "MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net>
wrote:
snip
I'd sue the people who sold them the arms -- Bechtel, Lockheed.
Speaking of which, the American media is remarkably silent over where
Saddam got his weapons of mass destruction in the first place when he
was America's gangster back in the 70's and 80's. I don't think Saddam
had the technical competence to build them himself and the Americans
knew exactly how much he had (modulo the unkept records of just what
was destroyed after the first gulf war).
You're listening to the wrong media.. I've heard them blasting it all over the
place.. especially CNN.. we were his friend when Iran was the bigger threat..
it's called the enemy of my enemy is my friend... ever heard of it? There's a
reason people quote that.. because everyone on earth does it at one time or
another.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Woodside" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
28 Jun 2004 01:45:39 AM |
|
|
"MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message news:<QYEDc.9879$Pc.7337@fe1.texas.rr.com>...
Rob Woodside wrote:
",,," <nuke@saudia.arabia> wrote in message
news:<6hgsd0lok98avse8t191pprpcnhn3vdq6t@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 03:36:33 GMT, "MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net>
wrote:
snip
I'd sue the people who sold them the arms -- Bechtel, Lockheed.
Speaking of which, the American media is remarkably silent over where
Saddam got his weapons of mass destruction in the first place when he
was America's gangster back in the 70's and 80's. I don't think Saddam
had the technical competence to build them himself and the Americans
knew exactly how much he had (modulo the unkept records of just what
was destroyed after the first gulf war).
You're listening to the wrong media.. I've heard them blasting it all over the
place.. especially CNN.. we were his friend when Iran was the bigger threat..
it's called the enemy of my enemy is my friend... ever heard of it? There's a
reason people quote that.. because everyone on earth does it at one time or
another.
To My knowledge CNN has never said who specifically sold or gave
Saddam his weapons of mass destruction. If you have heard of any
Company names or names of American government officials who suppled
these weapons please tell us.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
28 Jun 2004 01:54:04 AM |
|
|
In article <4d06b9d7.0406272245.5501818e@posting.google.com>, (Rob Woodside) writes:
"MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message news:<QYEDc.9879$Pc.7337@fe1.texas.rr.com>...
Rob Woodside wrote:
",,," <nuke@saudia.arabia> wrote in message
news:<6hgsd0lok98avse8t191pprpcnhn3vdq6t@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 03:36:33 GMT, "MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net>
wrote:
snip
I'd sue the people who sold them the arms -- Bechtel, Lockheed.
Speaking of which, the American media is remarkably silent over where
Saddam got his weapons of mass destruction in the first place when he
was America's gangster back in the 70's and 80's. I don't think Saddam
had the technical competence to build them himself and the Americans
knew exactly how much he had (modulo the unkept records of just what
was destroyed after the first gulf war).
You're listening to the wrong media.. I've heard them blasting it all over the
place.. especially CNN.. we were his friend when Iran was the bigger threat..
it's called the enemy of my enemy is my friend... ever heard of it? There's a
reason people quote that.. because everyone on earth does it at one time or
another.
To My knowledge CNN has never said who specifically sold or gave
Saddam his weapons of mass destruction. If you have heard of any
Company names or names of American government officials who suppled
these weapons please tell us.
It is worth mentioning that WMDs (of the chemical variety) were first
produced and deployed on a massive scale circa 1915. This is not some
super sophisticated, top secret technology we're talking about.
Pretty much anybody has access to 1915 technology.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Woodside" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Goin' Down In Flames Re: ... |
28 Jun 2004 11:15:26 AM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<ggPDc.13$25.2732@news.uchicago.edu>...
In article <4d06b9d7.0406272245.5501818e@posting.google.com>, (Rob Woodside) writes:
"MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message news:<QYEDc.9879$Pc.7337@fe1.texas.rr.com>...
Rob Woodside wrote:
",,," <nuke@saudia.arabia> wrote in message
news:<6hgsd0lok98avse8t191pprpcnhn3vdq6t@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 03:36:33 GMT, "MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net>
wrote:
snip
I'd sue the people who sold them the arms -- Bechtel, Lockheed.
Speaking of which, the American media is remarkably silent over where
Saddam got his weapons of mass destruction in the first place when he
was America's gangster back in the 70's and 80's. I don't think Saddam
had the technical competence to build them himself and the Americans
knew exactly how much he had (modulo the unkept records of just what
was destroyed after the first gulf war).
You're listening to the wrong media.. I've heard them blasting it all over the
place.. especially CNN.. we were his friend when Iran was the bigger threat..
it's called the enemy of my enemy is my friend... ever heard of it? There's a
reason people quote that.. because everyone on earth does it at one time or
another.
To My knowledge CNN has never said who specifically sold or gave
Saddam his weapons of mass destruction. If you have heard of any
Company names or names of American government officials who suppled
these weapons please tell us.
It is worth mentioning that WMDs (of the chemical variety) were first
produced and deployed on a massive scale circa 1915. This is not some
super sophisticated, top secret technology we're talking about.
Pretty much anybody has access to 1915 technology.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Is that what Saddam used? The dead Kurds in the newsreels didn't have
the burns that these pimitive gasses inflict. Wasn't Colin Powell
taking about nerve gasses at the U.N.? Where did Saddam get them???
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
