| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"grinder" |
| Date: |
03 Jun 2007 11:22:25 AM |
| Object: |
Something wrong with JFK plot. |
IF the pipeline had been blown up the U.S. Attorney says "the devastation
that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable."
Officials and airport security experts said that an explosion at the cell's
primary targets -- JFK's fuel tanks and a small segment of the 40-mile
petroleum pipeline that supplies the airport -- probably would have resulted
in major damage but relatively limited loss of life.
This seems to be alarmist to me.
First "wanting to" and being "able to" are two different things. There is
no oxygen or vapor in the pipeline so it would not have blown up like a
stick of dynamite. Tanks and pipelines are hit by lighting strikes all the
time and they don't blow up.
Second, it is not a continuous pipeline. There are shut off valves all
along it's length. The supply of fuel could have been cut off.
Third, if it is easy to blow up a pipeline nothing would be left of Iraq but
a big crater. Pipelines and tanks are attacked almost dailey there.
Fourth, airline fuel is designed not to burn at normal temperatures. I
believe it has to be heated before it will burn.
and lastly, remember when the oil wells were set a fire at the beginning of
the Iraq war. There was no explosion. Just a lot of flame and smoke.
.
|
|
| User: "Bob Loblaw" |
|
| Title: Re: Something wrong with JFK plot. |
03 Jun 2007 05:19:07 PM |
|
|
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:5VB8i.550$tb6.17@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
IF the pipeline had been blown up the U.S. Attorney says "the devastation
that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable."
Officials and airport security experts said that an explosion at the
cell's primary targets -- JFK's fuel tanks and a small segment of the
40-mile petroleum pipeline that supplies the airport -- probably would
have resulted in major damage but relatively limited loss of life.
This seems to be alarmist to me.
First "wanting to" and being "able to" are two different things. There is
no oxygen or vapor in the pipeline so it would not have blown up like a
stick of dynamite. Tanks and pipelines are hit by lighting strikes all
the time and they don't blow up.
Second, it is not a continuous pipeline. There are shut off valves all
along it's length. The supply of fuel could have been cut off.
Third, if it is easy to blow up a pipeline nothing would be left of Iraq
but a big crater. Pipelines and tanks are attacked almost dailey there.
Fourth, airline fuel is designed not to burn at normal temperatures. I
believe it has to be heated before it will burn.
and lastly, remember when the oil wells were set a fire at the beginning
of the Iraq war. There was no explosion. Just a lot of flame and smoke.
I got me a big bazooka! Gonna take out the moon! That'll stop the tides and
you'll all be sorry!!!
HHHHMMMMWWWWAAAA HHHHHMMMMWWWWAAAA
HHHHMMMMMWWWAAAAhhhhahahahahahahahahahahaha!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Cunningham" |
|
| Title: Re: Something wrong with JFK plot. |
04 Jun 2007 06:41:57 AM |
|
|
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:5VB8i.550$tb6.17@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
IF the pipeline had been blown up the U.S. Attorney says "the devastation
that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable."
Officials and airport security experts said that an explosion at the
cell's primary targets -- JFK's fuel tanks and a small segment of the
40-mile petroleum pipeline that supplies the airport -- probably would
have resulted in major damage but relatively limited loss of life.
This seems to be alarmist to me.
First "wanting to" and being "able to" are two different things. There is
no oxygen or vapor in the pipeline so it would not have blown up like a
stick of dynamite. Tanks and pipelines are hit by lighting strikes all
the time and they don't blow up.
Second, it is not a continuous pipeline. There are shut off valves all
along it's length. The supply of fuel could have been cut off.
Third, if it is easy to blow up a pipeline nothing would be left of Iraq
but a big crater. Pipelines and tanks are attacked almost dailey there.
Fourth, airline fuel is designed not to burn at normal temperatures. I
believe it has to be heated before it will burn.
and lastly, remember when the oil wells were set a fire at the beginning
of the Iraq war. There was no explosion. Just a lot of flame and smoke.
Jet fuel is No. 2 Kerosene if my memory is correct. Its less refined hence
less costly than other fuels and thats why its used for airliners. This
stuff doesn't burn all that well. You can put out a lit match in it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: Something wrong with JFK plot. |
04 Jun 2007 10:14:10 AM |
|
|
On Jun 4, 7:41 am, "Kevin Cunningham" <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Jet fuel is No. 2 Kerosene if my memory is correct. Its less refined hence
less costly than other fuels and thats why its used for airliners. This
stuff doesn't burn all that well. You can put out a lit match in it.-
Yup. That's why people had kerosene lamps in the house, not gasoline
or naptha or something dangerous.
Well, the immigration bill debate is going on this week, and the
administration needs a "Hey! Look over there!" item for the easily
distracted.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Something wrong with JFK plot. |
03 Jun 2007 03:22:51 PM |
|
|
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:5VB8i.550$tb6.17@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
IF the pipeline had been blown up the U.S. Attorney says "the devastation
that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable."
Officials and airport security experts said that an explosion at the
cell's primary targets -- JFK's fuel tanks and a small segment of the
40-mile petroleum pipeline that supplies the airport -- probably would
have resulted in major damage but relatively limited loss of life.
This seems to be alarmist to me.
First "wanting to" and being "able to" are two different things. There is
no oxygen or vapor in the pipeline so it would not have blown up like a
stick of dynamite. Tanks and pipelines are hit by lighting strikes all
the time and they don't blow up.
Second, it is not a continuous pipeline. There are shut off valves all
along it's length. The supply of fuel could have been cut off.
Third, if it is easy to blow up a pipeline nothing would be left of Iraq
but a big crater. Pipelines and tanks are attacked almost dailey there.
Fourth, airline fuel is designed not to burn at normal temperatures. I
believe it has to be heated before it will burn.
and lastly, remember when the oil wells were set a fire at the beginning
of the Iraq war. There was no explosion. Just a lot of flame and smoke.
Perhaps this is why their "leader" has had the idea for 10 years without
doing anything.
It would have been like all refinery fires: an initial explosion then a
FIRE. A big ***** fire, but a localized fire.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Patriot Games" |
|
| Title: Re: Something wrong with JFK plot. |
05 Jun 2007 07:24:59 AM |
|
|
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:5VB8i.550$tb6.17@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
IF the pipeline had been blown up the U.S. Attorney says "the devastation
that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable."
Officials and airport security experts said that an explosion at the
cell's primary targets -- JFK's fuel tanks and a small segment of the
40-mile petroleum pipeline that supplies the airport -- probably would
have resulted in major damage but relatively limited loss of life.
This seems to be alarmist to me.
First "wanting to" and being "able to" are two different things. There is
no oxygen or vapor in the pipeline so it would not have blown up like a
stick of dynamite.
It would have been a progressive explosion.
Tanks and pipelines are hit by lighting strikes all the time and they
don't blow up.
Irrelevant.
Second, it is not a continuous pipeline. There are shut off valves all
along it's length. The supply of fuel could have been cut off.
In how much notice?
Third, if it is easy to blow up a pipeline nothing would be left of Iraq
but a big crater. Pipelines and tanks are attacked almost dailey there.
Oil pipelines are not remotely similar to jet fuel pipelines.
Fourth, airline fuel is designed not to burn at normal temperatures. I
believe it has to be heated before it will burn.
Nope. It can be easily ignited.
and lastly, remember when the oil wells were set a fire at the beginning
of the Iraq war. There was no explosion. Just a lot of flame and smoke.
No, there was an initial explosion which both blew off the wellhead and
ignited the oil.
.
|
|
|
| User: "grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Something wrong with JFK plot. |
05 Jun 2007 01:27:52 PM |
|
|
"Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@The_Beach.com> wrote in message
news:4665805e$0$9975$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:5VB8i.550$tb6.17@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
First "wanting to" and being "able to" are two different things. There
is no oxygen or vapor in the pipeline so it would not have blown up like
a stick of dynamite.
It would have been a progressive explosion.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0603jfk-terrorside0603.html
That difficulty apparently concerned one of the alleged plotters - an
engineer who, federal authorities said in their complaint, explained to his
associates that the tanks at JFK probably would require two explosions to
provide enough oxygen to ignite the fuel.
But even then, aviation security experts said, fire would not have spread
through the pressurized pipelines that bring fuel out to airplanes at gates.
"The probability that an explosion would travel through the pipeline and
destroy targets along the tarmac is almost nil," said Ron, now president of
New Age Security Solutions in Rockville, Md. "The exception would be
pipelines that are not in use and contain vapor."
Tanks and pipelines are hit by lighting strikes all the time and they
don't blow up.
Irrelevant.
You are right. Lighting strikes deliver much more energy than a mere
dynamite explosion.
Second, it is not a continuous pipeline. There are shut off valves all
along it's length. The supply of fuel could have been cut off.
In how much notice?
"Oil industry experts said safety shut-off valves would almost assuredly
have prevented an exploding airport fuel tank from igniting all or even part
of the network."
Fourth, airline fuel is designed not to burn at normal temperatures. I
believe it has to be heated before it will burn.
Nope. It can be easily ignited.
Jet fuel is similar to kerosene and, unlike gasoline, requires very high
temperatures to burn. Unless it is in vapor or mist form - which can be the
case in an airplane crash - jet fuel should not explode. Additives that
raise the flashpoint of jet fuel further reduce the likelihood that it will
burn, experts said.
and lastly, remember when the oil wells were set a fire at the beginning
of the Iraq war. There was no explosion. Just a lot of flame and smoke.
No, there was an initial explosion which both blew off the wellhead and
ignited the oil.
Interesting the most alarming statements came from the U.S. Attorney
appointed by Junior. I am not going to drink the fear kool-aid once again
provided by this administration but you go ahead and enjoy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patriot Games" |
|
| Title: Re: Something wrong with JFK plot. |
06 Jun 2007 08:17:19 AM |
|
|
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:IWh9i.13851$296.4975@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@The_Beach.com> wrote in message
news:4665805e$0$9975$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:5VB8i.550$tb6.17@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
First "wanting to" and being "able to" are two different things. There
is no oxygen or vapor in the pipeline so it would not have blown up like
a stick of dynamite.
It would have been a progressive explosion.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0603jfk-terrorside0603.html
That difficulty apparently concerned one of the alleged plotters - an
engineer who, federal authorities said in their complaint, explained to
his associates that the tanks at JFK probably would require two explosions
to provide enough oxygen to ignite the fuel.
But even then, aviation security experts said, fire would not have spread
through the pressurized pipelines that bring fuel out to airplanes at
gates.
"The probability that an explosion would travel through the pipeline and
destroy targets along the tarmac is almost nil," said Ron, now president
of New Age Security Solutions in Rockville, Md. "The exception would be
pipelines that are not in use and contain vapor."
Once ignited it would burn along the path of the fuel. Would an explosion
"travel through the pipeline?" No. Would fire? Of course it would.
Tanks and pipelines are hit by lighting strikes all the time and they
don't blow up.
Irrelevant.
You are right. Lighting strikes deliver much more energy than a mere
dynamite explosion.
Underground tanks and pipelines don't get hit by lightening.
Second, it is not a continuous pipeline. There are shut off valves all
along it's length. The supply of fuel could have been cut off.
In how much notice?
"Oil industry experts said safety shut-off valves would almost assuredly
have prevented an exploding airport fuel tank from igniting all or even
part of the network."
Are they automatic???
Fourth, airline fuel is designed not to burn at normal temperatures. I
believe it has to be heated before it will burn.
Nope. It can be easily ignited.
Jet fuel is similar to kerosene and, unlike gasoline, requires very high
temperatures to burn. Unless it is in vapor or mist form - which can be
the case in an airplane crash - jet fuel should not explode. Additives
that raise the flashpoint of jet fuel further reduce the likelihood that
it will burn, experts said.
You're wrong. Maybe this is too hard for you?
You said, "...airline fuel is designed not to burn at normal temperatures.
I believe it has to be heated before it will burn."
Facts are, "Jet fuel... requires very high temperatures to burn. Unless it
is in vapor or mist form."
UNLESS IT IS IN VAPOR OR MIST FORM.
Which is EXACTLY what an EXPLOSION creates.
and lastly, remember when the oil wells were set a fire at the beginning
of the Iraq war. There was no explosion. Just a lot of flame and
smoke.
No, there was an initial explosion which both blew off the wellhead and
ignited the oil.
Interesting the most alarming statements came from the U.S. Attorney
appointed by Junior. I am not going to drink the fear kool-aid once again
provided by this administration but you go ahead and enjoy.
I live in Clearwater, FL. Why would I have FEAR over a possible terrorist
attack in NY?
.
|
|
|
| User: "grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Something wrong with JFK plot. |
07 Jun 2007 09:12:45 AM |
|
|
"Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@The_Beach.com> wrote in message
news:4666de21$0$19464$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:IWh9i.13851$296.4975@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@The_Beach.com> wrote in message
news:4665805e$0$9975$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:5VB8i.550$tb6.17@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
First "wanting to" and being "able to" are two different things. There
is no oxygen or vapor in the pipeline so it would not have blown up
like a stick of dynamite.
It would have been a progressive explosion.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0603jfk-terrorside0603.html
That difficulty apparently concerned one of the alleged plotters - an
engineer who, federal authorities said in their complaint, explained to
his associates that the tanks at JFK probably would require two
explosions to provide enough oxygen to ignite the fuel.
But even then, aviation security experts said, fire would not have spread
through the pressurized pipelines that bring fuel out to airplanes at
gates.
"The probability that an explosion would travel through the pipeline and
destroy targets along the tarmac is almost nil," said Ron, now president
of New Age Security Solutions in Rockville, Md. "The exception would be
pipelines that are not in use and contain vapor."
Once ignited it would burn along the path of the fuel. Would an explosion
"travel through the pipeline?" No. Would fire? Of course it would.
There is no air in the pipe so it would not burn like a fuse.
<snipped due to drivel level exceeded>
I live in Clearwater, FL.
That explains it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patriot Games" |
|
| Title: Re: Something wrong with JFK plot. |
08 Jun 2007 08:35:59 AM |
|
|
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:xnU9i.19192$j63.18912@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@The_Beach.com> wrote in message
news:4666de21$0$19464$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:IWh9i.13851$296.4975@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@The_Beach.com> wrote in message
news:4665805e$0$9975$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:5VB8i.550$tb6.17@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
First "wanting to" and being "able to" are two different things.
There is no oxygen or vapor in the pipeline so it would not have blown
up like a stick of dynamite.
It would have been a progressive explosion.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0603jfk-terrorside0603.html
That difficulty apparently concerned one of the alleged plotters - an
engineer who, federal authorities said in their complaint, explained to
his associates that the tanks at JFK probably would require two
explosions to provide enough oxygen to ignite the fuel.
But even then, aviation security experts said, fire would not have
spread through the pressurized pipelines that bring fuel out to
airplanes at gates.
"The probability that an explosion would travel through the pipeline and
destroy targets along the tarmac is almost nil," said Ron, now president
of New Age Security Solutions in Rockville, Md. "The exception would be
pipelines that are not in use and contain vapor."
Once ignited it would burn along the path of the fuel. Would an
explosion "travel through the pipeline?" No. Would fire? Of course it
would.
There is no air in the pipe so it would not burn like a fuse.
Of course there would be air in the pipe AFTER the explosion blows part of
it apart.
<snipped due to drivel level exceeded>
I live in Clearwater, FL.
That explains it.
You've been made to look like a fool.
Get used to it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Something wrong with JFK plot. |
09 Jun 2007 11:28:32 AM |
|
|
"Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@The_Beach.com> wrote in message
news:4669857f$0$1418$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:xnU9i.19192$j63.18912@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@The_Beach.com> wrote in message
news:4666de21$0$19464$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:IWh9i.13851$296.4975@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@The_Beach.com> wrote in message
news:4665805e$0$9975$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:5VB8i.550$tb6.17@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
First "wanting to" and being "able to" are two different things.
There is no oxygen or vapor in the pipeline so it would not have
blown up like a stick of dynamite.
It would have been a progressive explosion.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0603jfk-terrorside0603.html
That difficulty apparently concerned one of the alleged plotters - an
engineer who, federal authorities said in their complaint, explained to
his associates that the tanks at JFK probably would require two
explosions to provide enough oxygen to ignite the fuel.
But even then, aviation security experts said, fire would not have
spread through the pressurized pipelines that bring fuel out to
airplanes at gates.
"The probability that an explosion would travel through the pipeline
and destroy targets along the tarmac is almost nil," said Ron, now
president of New Age Security Solutions in Rockville, Md. "The
exception would be pipelines that are not in use and contain vapor."
Once ignited it would burn along the path of the fuel. Would an
explosion "travel through the pipeline?" No. Would fire? Of course it
would.
There is no air in the pipe so it would not burn like a fuse.
Of course there would be air in the pipe AFTER the explosion blows part of
it apart.
Maybe in Clearwater Florida air enters the pipes when the tap is turned on
but rest assured that does not happen in other parts of the country. High
pressure goes to low pressure. Evidently you believe the opposite.
<snipped due to drivel level exceeded>
I live in Clearwater, FL.
That explains it.
You've been made to look like a fool.
Get used to it.
Only in Florida would your argument make sense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patriot Games" |
|
| Title: Re: Something wrong with JFK plot. |
11 Jun 2007 01:38:47 PM |
|
|
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:QyAai.15146$296.3769@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@The_Beach.com> wrote in message
news:4669857f$0$1418$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:xnU9i.19192$j63.18912@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@The_Beach.com> wrote in message
news:4666de21$0$19464$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:IWh9i.13851$296.4975@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@The_Beach.com> wrote in message
news:4665805e$0$9975$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:5VB8i.550$tb6.17@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
First "wanting to" and being "able to" are two different things.
There is no oxygen or vapor in the pipeline so it would not have
blown up like a stick of dynamite.
It would have been a progressive explosion.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0603jfk-terrorside0603.html
That difficulty apparently concerned one of the alleged plotters - an
engineer who, federal authorities said in their complaint, explained
to his associates that the tanks at JFK probably would require two
explosions to provide enough oxygen to ignite the fuel.
But even then, aviation security experts said, fire would not have
spread through the pressurized pipelines that bring fuel out to
airplanes at gates.
"The probability that an explosion would travel through the pipeline
and destroy targets along the tarmac is almost nil," said Ron, now
president of New Age Security Solutions in Rockville, Md. "The
exception would be pipelines that are not in use and contain vapor."
Once ignited it would burn along the path of the fuel. Would an
explosion "travel through the pipeline?" No. Would fire? Of course
it would.
There is no air in the pipe so it would not burn like a fuse.
Of course there would be air in the pipe AFTER the explosion blows part
of it apart.
Maybe in Clearwater Florida air enters the pipes when the tap is turned on
but rest assured that does not happen in other parts of the country. High
pressure goes to low pressure. Evidently you believe the opposite.
I didn't say "turned on."
I said "AFTER the explosion blows part of it apart."
And, of course, "high pressure goes to low pressure" and that's why the
burning fuel would LEAVE the pipe and be replaced by AIR which would 'run'
through the pipe following the fuel source.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce Olin" |
|
| Title: Re: Something wrong with JFK plot. |
03 Jun 2007 11:30:48 AM |
|
|
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:5VB8i.550$tb6.17@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
| IF the pipeline had been blown up the U.S. Attorney says "the devastation
| that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable."
|
| Officials and airport security experts said that an explosion at the
cell's
| primary targets -- JFK's fuel tanks and a small segment of the 40-mile
| petroleum pipeline that supplies the airport -- probably would have
resulted
| in major damage but relatively limited loss of life.
|
| This seems to be alarmist to me.
|
| First "wanting to" and being "able to" are two different things. There is
| no oxygen or vapor in the pipeline so it would not have blown up like a
| stick of dynamite. Tanks and pipelines are hit by lighting strikes all
the
| time and they don't blow up.
|
| Second, it is not a continuous pipeline. There are shut off valves all
| along it's length. The supply of fuel could have been cut off.
|
| Third, if it is easy to blow up a pipeline nothing would be left of Iraq
but
| a big crater. Pipelines and tanks are attacked almost dailey there.
|
| Fourth, airline fuel is designed not to burn at normal temperatures. I
| believe it has to be heated before it will burn.
|
| and lastly, remember when the oil wells were set a fire at the beginning
of
| the Iraq war. There was no explosion. Just a lot of flame and smoke.
Did Boris and Natasha think this one up or am I confusing this with their
plans to counterfeit boxtops or using metal munching moon mice to chew up
America's TV antennas? About the same chances of succeeding...
Bruce Olin
.
|
|
|
| User: "robw" |
|
| Title: Re: Something wrong with JFK plot. |
03 Jun 2007 08:11:48 PM |
|
|
And once again we have a "dangerous terrorist plot" where the participants
had no explosives and no financial backing.
"Bruce Olin" <bruce_olin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Y0C8i.10488$4Y.8575@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:5VB8i.550$tb6.17@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
| IF the pipeline had been blown up the U.S. Attorney says "the
devastation
| that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable."
|
| Officials and airport security experts said that an explosion at the
cell's
| primary targets -- JFK's fuel tanks and a small segment of the 40-mile
| petroleum pipeline that supplies the airport -- probably would have
resulted
| in major damage but relatively limited loss of life.
|
| This seems to be alarmist to me.
|
| First "wanting to" and being "able to" are two different things. There
is
| no oxygen or vapor in the pipeline so it would not have blown up like a
| stick of dynamite. Tanks and pipelines are hit by lighting strikes all
the
| time and they don't blow up.
|
| Second, it is not a continuous pipeline. There are shut off valves all
| along it's length. The supply of fuel could have been cut off.
|
| Third, if it is easy to blow up a pipeline nothing would be left of Iraq
but
| a big crater. Pipelines and tanks are attacked almost dailey there.
|
| Fourth, airline fuel is designed not to burn at normal temperatures. I
| believe it has to be heated before it will burn.
|
| and lastly, remember when the oil wells were set a fire at the beginning
of
| the Iraq war. There was no explosion. Just a lot of flame and smoke.
Did Boris and Natasha think this one up or am I confusing this with their
plans to counterfeit boxtops or using metal munching moon mice to chew up
America's TV antennas? About the same chances of succeeding...
Bruce Olin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Something wrong with JFK plot. |
03 Jun 2007 05:34:30 PM |
|
|
On Jun 3, 12:22?pm, "grinder" <sea...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
IF the pipeline had been blown up the U.S. Attorney says "the devastation
that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable."
Just a lot of smoke. CNN said that there is no oxygen in the pipe line
to spread the fire.
I am beginning to think these 5 terrorists are paid by the Bushies
(with our tax dollars) to pretend they had this plot to blow up JFK,
and to "take the fall".
They won't go to jail, further proving that the Bushies are behind
this smoke to take the attention off Iraq. Notice how it is already
off the news cycle, because people have already caught on to "the
plot". I am very skeptical after over 6 years of Lies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bombastic Bushkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Something wrong with JFK plot. |
03 Jun 2007 07:10:02 PM |
|
|
<DickCheneysTits@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1180910070.018178.178570@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 3, 12:22?pm, "grinder" <sea...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
IF the pipeline had been blown up the U.S. Attorney says "the devastation
that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable."
Just a lot of smoke. CNN said that there is no oxygen in the pipe line
to spread the fire.
I am beginning to think these 5 terrorists are paid by the Bushies
(with our tax dollars) to pretend they had this plot to blow up JFK,
and to "take the fall".
They won't go to jail, further proving that the Bushies are behind
this smoke to take the attention off Iraq. Notice how it is already
off the news cycle, because people have already caught on to "the
plot". I am very skeptical after over 6 years of Lies.
Not to mention, Jet fuel is almost identical to Kerosine. Have you
ever heard of a kerosine lamp exploding? You haven't because it
doesn't explode. It burns at a realtively slow pace.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Something wrong with JFK plot. |
03 Jun 2007 08:33:28 PM |
|
|
On Jun 3, 8:10 pm, <Bombastic Bushkin> wrote:
<DickCheneysT...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1180910070.018178.178570@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 3, 12:22?pm, "grinder" <sea...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
IF the pipeline had been blown up the U.S. Attorney says "the devastation
that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable."
Just a lot of smoke. CNN said that there is no oxygen in the pipe line
to spread the fire.
I am beginning to think these 5 terrorists are paid by the Bushies
(with our tax dollars) to pretend they had this plot to blow up JFK,
and to "take the fall".
They won't go to jail, further proving that the Bushies are behind
this smoke to take the attention off Iraq. Notice how it is already
off the news cycle, because people have already caught on to "the
plot". I am very skeptical after over 6 years of Lies.
Not to mention, Jet fuel is almost identical to Kerosine. Have you
ever heard of a kerosine lamp exploding? You haven't because it
doesn't explode. It burns at a realtively slow pace.- Hide quoted text -
But, that''s why kerosine is so good in jet engines
and blow torches, also.
Since with some forced air and nobody
there to stop the fire, it just keeps burning.
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lockheed Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Something wrong with JFK plot. |
10 Jun 2007 01:00:07 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:22:25 GMT, "grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid>
wrote:
IF the pipeline had been blown up the U.S. Attorney says "the devastation
that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable."
Officials and airport security experts said that an explosion at the cell's
primary targets -- JFK's fuel tanks and a small segment of the 40-mile
petroleum pipeline that supplies the airport -- probably would have resulted
in major damage but relatively limited loss of life.
This seems to be alarmist to me.
First "wanting to" and being "able to" are two different things. There is
no oxygen or vapor in the pipeline so it would not have blown up like a
stick of dynamite. Tanks and pipelines are hit by lighting strikes all the
time and they don't blow up.
Second, it is not a continuous pipeline. There are shut off valves all
along it's length. The supply of fuel could have been cut off.
Third, if it is easy to blow up a pipeline nothing would be left of Iraq but
a big crater. Pipelines and tanks are attacked almost dailey there.
Fourth, airline fuel is designed not to burn at normal temperatures. I
believe it has to be heated before it will burn.
and lastly, remember when the oil wells were set a fire at the beginning of
the Iraq war. There was no explosion. Just a lot of flame and smoke.
Yup once again the Bush admin is sounding the fear alarmist syrens
like the color coded alerts when elections were on their way.
GOPs are Conspiracy Nutcases over reacting and spreading their fears
for their gains as usual What Else is New to justify the war in Iraq
and dismantling the American Constitution
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
