Dave Smith > wrote in
:


>
>> Instead of looking at the outside of the rim, look at the hub.... you
>> moron.
>
> Only a moron would think that made sense in this context.



Your simplistic view of the world is showing.


>
>
>> OMG!! Breaking news!! The US Govt held and *Australian* citizen in
>> Gitmo after he was caught on the 'other' side in Afghanistan.
>
> Was that before or after they found an American fighting with the
> Taliban? For that matter, there have been quite a few American Muslims
> fighting jihad in various places, Afghanistan, Chechneya, Iraq....
>
>> He went there, and he trained there, like the Saudis did.
>


Do you even get a clue now?

You asked a question "How many Afghans and Iraqis were on the hijacked
planes"?

I'll ask you this.

Who trained and equipped the scum that hijacked the planes?


Think about this for a moment..... it doesn't matter where the
terrorists originate from, it's who trains them and equips them to do
their cowardly work. You take the hub out, the spokes fall out, and the
rim falls off. If you just take the rim out, it can be replaced.

Comprende?

--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

"People sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in
the night to do violence to those who would do them harm"
-- George Orwell

"Pete C." > wrote in news:46B233D6.83CE8673
@snet.net:

> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:56:34 +0000 (UTC), PeterLucas >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"MareCat" > wrote in
>> :
>> >
>> >> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
>> >> 0.25...
>> >>> "MareCat" > wrote in
>> >>> :
>> >>>
>> >>>> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
>> >>>> .25...
>> >>>>> "MareCat" > wrote in
>> >>>>> :
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> >>>>>> ...
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while
not
>> >>>>>>> being particularly well spent are at least being thrown in
the
>> >>>>>>> direction of a very real threat.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> What threat???
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Go hug a ****ing tree, then go stick your head back in the sand
>> >like
>> >>>>> a good
>> >>>>> little ostrich.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Predictable response...and of course you didn't answer my
question.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> No.......... *you* give us all a plausable explanation as to why
>> >there
>> >>> is no threat. And never will be any threat.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm sure the 9-11 victims families would *love* to hear it.
>> >>
>> >> Uh...9-11 had nothing to do with Iraq.
>> >
>> >
>> >You're right. It's got to do with *any* terrorist activity,
*anywhere*
>> >in the world that will either directly, or indirectly, affect your
>> >country.
>> >
>> >Isn't that right, leftie?
>> >
>> >
>> >You *are* an American, aren't you?
>> >You *do* love your country, don't you?
>> >You *are* willing to defend your country and your people, aren't
you?
>> >
>> >
>> >Or......... do you just want to sit on your arse and bitch and moan
>> >about what you think is right or wrong, and never do anything.
>> >Leave it up to everyone else, hey?
>> >
>>
>> the war on iraq is exacerbating the threat of terrorism, not reducing
>> it.
>
> No, actually it isn't. It may appear that way to the short sighted,
> however what it actually happening is it is drawing the marginal
> terrorists and terrorist supporters out of the woodwork so they can be
> dealt with.
>
> The hornets nest had been growing and the hornets started to venture
out
> and attack us. Now that we are fighting back, we've stirred them up
and
> we see more coming out of the nest. That doesn't mean our fighting
back
> created more of them, just that they are now in the open. Ultimately
we
> will destroy all of them.
>



Don't have heart failure, but I have to agree with you on that one.



--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

"People sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in
the night to do violence to those who would do them harm"
-- George Orwell

"Pete C." > wrote in
:

> The ultimate problem is the majority
> of the population is quite centrist,



Would that be the same as apathetic fence sitters?


--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

"People sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in
the night to do violence to those who would do them harm"
-- George Orwell

"Pete C." wrote:

> > Yes, there were some WMDs in the country. For some reason the US had no
> > problem with Saddam having and using chemical weapons on the Iranians back
> > in the 80s. they even gave them satellite intelligence to help them use
> > their chemical shells more efficiently. The weapons inspectors did find
> > some obsolete CW supplies and destroyed them.
>
> The UNSCOM inspectors found large chemical weapons production facilities
> and somewhat smaller biological weapons production facilities. They
> found very large stockpiles of ready to use chemical weapons and barrels
> of chemical agent. They also found the beginnings of nuclear weapons
> development facilities (gas centrifuges).

When did they find them? BEFORE the invasion. They had everything. There
was no more.

>
> The UN teams completed destruction of the production facilities and had
> begun destruction of the stockpiles when Saddam kicked them out.

You didn't read the timeline very well did you. The UN pulled them out
because the US was planning air strikes.

> A decade later when Saddam let the UN inspectors back in under threat of
> attack by Bush, the inspectors were unable to locate the remaining
> stockpiles they had inventoried years earlier.

They were pulled out by the UN in late 1998 and they were back in early
2002. That is a hell of a short decade.

> > They also had problems with
> > some of the missiles that the Iraqis had been building or modifying. That
> > was before the invasion, before Bush's ultimatum. Bush went ahead with the
> > invasion based on allegations of a vast arsenal of WMDS that they were not
> > able to find after they invaded.
>
> The only part you got right there was that the remaining stockpiles of
> WMDs have still not been located or accounted for.

If there was enough proof of their presence they should not have had
trouble finding them.

PeterLucas wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in
> :
>
> > The ultimate problem is the majority
> > of the population is quite centrist,
>
> Would that be the same as apathetic fence sitters?

Unfortunately, no, it wouldn't. The apathetic fence sitters are mostly
the younger folks who are either so disgusted that the don't vote, or so
clueless that they vote for marginal candidates that don't have a chance
of winning. The rest of us centrists are stuck trying to decide which of
the only two real choices is the least bad.

Pete C.

PeterLucas wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in
> :
>
> > PeterLucas wrote:
> >>
> >> "Pete C." > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Pete C.
> >> >
> >> > (Open water / Nitrox and I sure as hell wouldn't be diving there)
> >>
> >> Yeah......... you just run away "Pete C"...... and keep on running.
> >>
> >> Let the real men do the job.
> >
> > "Real men" understand the limits of their training and experience and
> > don't go jumping in doing something stupid where their inexperience is
> > likely to make them another casualty.
>
> S'funny, I would have thought that Emergency Services training was quite
> good over there. It is here.
> And, given your scenario, if someone has just completed a Police Rescue
> dive course, how long should they stand in the background before you
> deem them "experienced" enough to cope with this sort of job?

If that is the actual course just completed, he wouldn't be "just
certified" as there are prerequisites for such courses. Of course our
jam lady may not have used the correct terminology.

>
> >Particularly now when it's a
> > recovery operation which lacks the urgency of a rescue that might
> > justify pushing the limits of ones training.
> >
>
> You been tapdancing for long?

Recovery operations only serve to appease the relatives of the victims.
They do not by the wildest stretch of the imagination warrant risking
the lives of inexperienced personnel.

Do you dive? Are you qualified for an overhead environment with strong
currents, near zero visibility and jagged debris to get snagged on? Do
you have the slightest idea what that recovery operation is like? It
sure as hell isn't remotely like a dive on one of your nice reefs.

Pete C.

PeterLucas wrote:
>
>
> >> Instead of looking at the outside of the rim, look at the hub.... you
> >> moron.
> >
> > Only a moron would think that made sense in this context.
>
> Your simplistic view of the world is showing.

:-)

>
> >
> >> OMG!! Breaking news!! The US Govt held and *Australian* citizen in
> >> Gitmo after he was caught on the 'other' side in Afghanistan.
> >
> > Was that before or after they found an American fighting with the
> > Taliban? For that matter, there have been quite a few American Muslims
> > fighting jihad in various places, Afghanistan, Chechneya, Iraq....
> >
> >> He went there, and he trained there, like the Saudis did.
> >
>
> Do you even get a clue now?
>
> You asked a question "How many Afghans and Iraqis were on the hijacked
> planes"?
>
> I'll ask you this.
>
> Who trained and equipped the scum that hijacked the planes?

Do you know?
>
> Think about this for a moment..... it doesn't matter where the
> terrorists originate from, it's who trains them and equips them to do
> their cowardly work.

So someone should go after the American flight training schools that taught
then to fly?

You take the hub out, the spokes fall out, and the
> rim falls off. If you just take the rim out, it can be replaced.
>
> Comprende?

Sorry, but that is a stupid analogy. If you take away the rim the spokes
fly around. Spokes, hubs and rims can all be replaced.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> "Pete C." wrote:
>
> > > Yes, there were some WMDs in the country. For some reason the US had no
> > > problem with Saddam having and using chemical weapons on the Iranians back
> > > in the 80s. they even gave them satellite intelligence to help them use
> > > their chemical shells more efficiently. The weapons inspectors did find
> > > some obsolete CW supplies and destroyed them.
> >
> > The UNSCOM inspectors found large chemical weapons production facilities
> > and somewhat smaller biological weapons production facilities. They
> > found very large stockpiles of ready to use chemical weapons and barrels
> > of chemical agent. They also found the beginnings of nuclear weapons
> > development facilities (gas centrifuges).
>
> When did they find them? BEFORE the invasion. They had everything. There
> was no more.

The UN teams had only destroyed a small portion of the stockpiles before
Saddam kicked them out. If you want to be really technical, the UN
pulled them out because Saddam was preventing them from doing their
jobs, which is effectively the same thing.

>
> >
> > The UN teams completed destruction of the production facilities and had
> > begun destruction of the stockpiles when Saddam kicked them out.
>
> You didn't read the timeline very well did you. The UN pulled them out
> because the US was planning air strikes.

Incorrect, the UN pulled their teams out because Saddam was preventing
them from doing their jobs. The air strikes were a separate thing the
preceded the creation of the no-fly zones.

>
> > A decade later when Saddam let the UN inspectors back in under threat of
> > attack by Bush, the inspectors were unable to locate the remaining
> > stockpiles they had inventoried years earlier.
>
> They were pulled out by the UN in late 1998 and they were back in early
> 2002. That is a hell of a short decade.

Plenty of time for Saddam to move and hide the remaining WMDs.

>
> > > They also had problems with
> > > some of the missiles that the Iraqis had been building or modifying. That
> > > was before the invasion, before Bush's ultimatum. Bush went ahead with the
> > > invasion based on allegations of a vast arsenal of WMDS that they were not
> > > able to find after they invaded.
> >
> > The only part you got right there was that the remaining stockpiles of
> > WMDs have still not been located or accounted for.
>
> If there was enough proof of their presence they should not have had
> trouble finding them.

That is one of the most moronic things you've said. The stockpiles were
inventoried, the UN teams know exactly what is unaccounted for. Finding
them after Saddam and his cronies had literally years to hide them
anywhere in an entire country is absurdly difficult. The big fault of
the administration in selling the war is to focus on one reason and
ignore the dozen others, and of course they should have known that one
reason would be the most difficult to show results on.

Pete C.

MareCat wrote:
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ...
>> The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not being
>> particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the direction of a
>> very real threat.
>
> What threat???
>
>


Agreed. A drop in the bucket? No, a fortune that we're borrowing from
countries like China. And that bill will come due some day.

And meanwhile our roads, bridges, sewer and water systems get older and
older without sufficient maintenance and repair. Tax cuts be d*mned.

Not only are we leaving our grandchildren a humongous national debt, but
also a country whose infrastructure is falling apart.

gloria p

"Pete C." > wrote in :


>>
>> S'funny, I would have thought that Emergency Services training was quite
>> good over there. It is here.
>> And, given your scenario, if someone has just completed a Police Rescue
>> dive course, how long should they stand in the background before you
>> deem them "experienced" enough to cope with this sort of job?
>
> If that is the actual course just completed, he wouldn't be "just
> certified" as there are prerequisites for such courses. Of course our
> jam lady may not have used the correct terminology.


I've just been 'certified' in RAR (Road Accident Rescue...... 'Jaws of
Life', hydraulic rams etc).

I'm sure as hell that if I get a call out to an MVA entrapment the people
inside aren't going to give a rats ass *when* I completed my training......
they'll just want me to use my training to get them out.


>
>>
>> >Particularly now when it's a
>> > recovery operation which lacks the urgency of a rescue that might
>> > justify pushing the limits of ones training.
>> >
>>
>> You been tapdancing for long?
>
> Recovery operations only serve to appease the relatives of the victims.
> They do not by the wildest stretch of the imagination warrant risking
> the lives of inexperienced personnel.
>
> Do you dive?


In water....... not currently.

>Are you qualified for an overhead environment with strong
> currents, near zero visibility and jagged debris to get snagged on? Do
> you have the slightest idea what that recovery operation is like?


In a previous life (late '60s early 70s), I was a Salvage Diver. *Before*
there was a Police Dive Squad in Adelaide.
So yes, we did a lot of recovery work.


>It
> sure as hell isn't remotely like a dive on one of your nice reefs.
>


Never actually got to dive on the 'nice' reefs.


--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

"People sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in
the night to do violence to those who would do them harm"
-- George Orwell

Dave Smith > wrote in
:


>
> You take the hub out, the spokes fall out, and the
>> rim falls off. If you just take the rim out, it can be replaced.
>>
>> Comprende?
>
> Sorry, but that is a stupid analogy. If you take away the rim the
> spokes fly around. Spokes, hubs and rims can all be replaced.
>


Yeah, right, whatever.

You just keep running around in circles and convincing yourself that you're
the only one that's right.



--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

"People sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in
the night to do violence to those who would do them harm"
-- George Orwell

PeterLucas wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in :
>
> >>
> >> S'funny, I would have thought that Emergency Services training was quite
> >> good over there. It is here.
> >> And, given your scenario, if someone has just completed a Police Rescue
> >> dive course, how long should they stand in the background before you
> >> deem them "experienced" enough to cope with this sort of job?
> >
> > If that is the actual course just completed, he wouldn't be "just
> > certified" as there are prerequisites for such courses. Of course our
> > jam lady may not have used the correct terminology.
>
> I've just been 'certified' in RAR (Road Accident Rescue...... 'Jaws of
> Life', hydraulic rams etc).
>
> I'm sure as hell that if I get a call out to an MVA entrapment the people
> inside aren't going to give a rats ass *when* I completed my training......
> they'll just want me to use my training to get them out.

Irrelevant, the diving in question is not rescue, it is removing bodies,
they aren't saving anyone.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >Particularly now when it's a
> >> > recovery operation which lacks the urgency of a rescue that might
> >> > justify pushing the limits of ones training.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You been tapdancing for long?
> >
> > Recovery operations only serve to appease the relatives of the victims.
> > They do not by the wildest stretch of the imagination warrant risking
> > the lives of inexperienced personnel.
> >
> > Do you dive?
>
> In water....... not currently.
>
> >Are you qualified for an overhead environment with strong
> > currents, near zero visibility and jagged debris to get snagged on? Do
> > you have the slightest idea what that recovery operation is like?
>
> In a previous life (late '60s early 70s), I was a Salvage Diver. *Before*
> there was a Police Dive Squad in Adelaide.
> So yes, we did a lot of recovery work.

Then you would know that if the person in question just got something
like open water certification they sure as hell shouldn't be diving
recovery in those conditions. If there were actually live people to
potentially save from air pockets in submerged vehicles you might make
an exception, but not when you are just recovering bodies.

If jam lady used the wrong terminology and the person in question just
got an appropriate advanced certification as opposed to their first ever
certification then it's obviously a different situation.

>
> >It
> > sure as hell isn't remotely like a dive on one of your nice reefs.
> >
>
> Never actually got to dive on the 'nice' reefs.

Perhaps some day I will. Right now I'm sticking to cheaper destinations.

Pete C.

"Pete C." > wrote in
:

> PeterLucas wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >>
>> >> S'funny, I would have thought that Emergency Services training was
>> >> quite good over there. It is here.
>> >> And, given your scenario, if someone has just completed a Police
>> >> Rescue dive course, how long should they stand in the background
>> >> before you deem them "experienced" enough to cope with this sort
>> >> of job?
>> >
>> > If that is the actual course just completed, he wouldn't be "just
>> > certified" as there are prerequisites for such courses. Of course
>> > our jam lady may not have used the correct terminology.
>>
>> I've just been 'certified' in RAR (Road Accident Rescue...... 'Jaws
>> of Life', hydraulic rams etc).
>>
>> I'm sure as hell that if I get a call out to an MVA entrapment the
>> people inside aren't going to give a rats ass *when* I completed my
>> training...... they'll just want me to use my training to get them
>> out.
>
> Irrelevant, the diving in question is not rescue, it is removing
> bodies, they aren't saving anyone.


It started out as rescue. Which is where they needed *everyone* as
quickly as possible.

Which is probably where Melba's relative was thrown in at the deep end.


It's called 'on the job training'. Something you can't simulate in
practice.

I betcha by the end of this, Melba's "newly certified" relative is going
to be *very* experienced, the poor bugger :-(


>>
>> In a previous life (late '60s early 70s), I was a Salvage Diver.
>> *Before* there was a Police Dive Squad in Adelaide.
>> So yes, we did a lot of recovery work.
>
> Then you would know that if the person in question just got something
> like open water certification they sure as hell shouldn't be diving
> recovery in those conditions.


A diver, is a diver, is a diver.

It's water........ with stuff in it.

Like I said, how long do you think newly certified divers should stand
back and watch before you deem them 'experienced' enough?



>If there were actually live people to
> potentially save from air pockets in submerged vehicles you might make
> an exception, but not when you are just recovering bodies.


Until every vehicle is checked, they're never going to know.


--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

"People sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in
the night to do violence to those who would do them harm"
-- George Orwell

"Pete C." wrote:
>
>
> > > The UN teams completed destruction of the production facilities and had
> > > begun destruction of the stockpiles when Saddam kicked them out.
> >
> > You didn't read the timeline very well did you. The UN pulled them out
> > because the US was planning air strikes.
>
> Incorrect, the UN pulled their teams out because Saddam was preventing
> them from doing their jobs. The air strikes were a separate thing the
> preceded the creation of the no-fly zones.

They were there when the UN pulled then out because of the air strikes that
were being called.

>
> > > A decade later when Saddam let the UN inspectors back in under threat of
> > > attack by Bush, the inspectors were unable to locate the remaining
> > > stockpiles they had inventoried years earlier.
> >
> > They were pulled out by the UN in late 1998 and they were back in early
> > 2002. That is a hell of a short decade.
>
> Plenty of time for Saddam to move and hide the remaining WMDs.

Sure. He suspected that the US was about to attack so he hid his most
destructive weapons. He was waiting for something bigger. Right.


>
> > If there was enough proof of their presence they should not have had
> > trouble finding them.
>
> That is one of the most moronic things you've said.

Oh???? I am talking about having enough proof that he had WMDs to justify
invading a country almost half way around the world. Major invasions like
that are not supposed to be launched on the basis of suspicions and
doctored intelligence. At one time the US was claiming that he was trying
to build nukes and came up with forged documents about a sale of Yellow
cake from Nigeria.

> The big fault of
> the administration in selling the war is to focus on one reason and
> ignore the dozen others, and of course they should have known that one
> reason would be the most difficult to show results on.

The American people would not have supported regime change. They were fed a
crock about Saddam's vast arsenal of WMDs and an imminent threat to the US,
and the link to 9/11. Insurgents defending their country from the American
occupation are being called terrorists.

PeterLucas wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but that is a stupid analogy. If you take away the rim the
> > spokes fly around. Spokes, hubs and rims can all be replaced.
> >
>
> Yeah, right, whatever.
>
> You just keep running around in circles and convincing yourself that you're
> the only one that's right.


That is interesting because you keep telling us things that most of us
realize have already proven to be false. You have given us the Fox news
version.

In article >,
"Pete C." > wrote:

> PeterLucas wrote:
> >
> > "Pete C." > wrote in
> > :
> >
> > S'funny, I would have thought that Emergency Services training was quite
> > good over there. It is here.
> > And, given your scenario, if someone has just completed a Police Rescue
> > dive course, how long should they stand in the background before you
> > deem them "experienced" enough to cope with this sort of job?
>
> If that is the actual course just completed, he wouldn't be "just
> certified" as there are prerequisites for such courses. Of course our
> jam lady may not have used the correct terminology.

Don't know if I used correct terminology or not. He "passed the
certification requirements test" (my words, not his) the day before.
Does that help?

> > >Particularly now when it's a
> > > recovery operation which lacks the urgency of a rescue that might
> > > justify pushing the limits of ones training.
> > >

> >
> > You been tapdancing for long?
>
> Recovery operations only serve to appease the relatives of the victims.
> They do not by the wildest stretch of the imagination warrant risking
> the lives of inexperienced personnel.
>
> Do you dive? Are you qualified for an overhead environment with strong
> currents, near zero visibility and jagged debris to get snagged on? Do
> you have the slightest idea what that recovery operation is like? It
> sure as hell isn't remotely like a dive on one of your nice reefs.
>
> Pete C.

Sheriff (in charge of the divers) covered the safety measures in place
for the divers in a news conference today. They're not doing it
casually.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com - story and
pics of Ronald McDonald House dinner posted 6-24-2007

In article >,
PeterLucas > wrote:

> "Pete C." > wrote in
> :
>

> It started out as rescue. Which is where they needed *everyone* as
> quickly as possible.
>
> Which is probably where Melba's relative was thrown in at the deep end.
>
>
> It's called 'on the job training'. Something you can't simulate in
> practice.
>
> I betcha by the end of this, Melba's "newly certified" relative is going
> to be *very* experienced, the poor bugger :-(

I'll be eager to talk to him (or his mom) when the dust settles. He's
young and enthusiastic ‹ a bit of a late bloomer, perhaps, and it's a
pleasure watching him come into his own.

--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com - story and
pics of Ronald McDonald House dinner posted 6-24-2007

Melba's Jammin' > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> PeterLucas > wrote:
>
>> "Pete C." > wrote in
>> :
>>
>
>> It started out as rescue. Which is where they needed *everyone* as
>> quickly as possible.
>>
>> Which is probably where Melba's relative was thrown in at the deep
>> end.
>>
>>
>> It's called 'on the job training'. Something you can't simulate in
>> practice.
>>
>> I betcha by the end of this, Melba's "newly certified" relative is
>> going to be *very* experienced, the poor bugger :-(
>
> I'll be eager to talk to him (or his mom) when the dust settles.


You might find that he doesn't want to talk about it. Especially if he's
taking part in the recovery operations.



--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

"People sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in
the night to do violence to those who would do them harm"
-- George Orwell

Pete C. wrote:
> Stan Horwitz wrote:
>>
>> In article >, "Pete C."
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I just heard about the I-35 West bridge between Minneapolis and
>>>> St. Paul collapsing, sending cars plunging into the Mississippi
>>>> River. Please check in and let us know you're okay!
>>>>
> The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not being
> particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the direction of
> a very real threat. A good chunk of our tax dollars are being wasted
> on well intentioned but counterproductive "humanitarian aid". The
> largest portion of our tax dollars however are being wasted right
> here in the US.

.... so very sad, that some people are doing the very thing they've been
railing against in this thread - suddenly ignoring the bridge collapse, the
tragedy of the injured, the casualties and their grieving families and
friends. Instead it's been turned into a *rabid* political debate. (sigh)

Jill

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In article >,
> "Michael \"Dog3\" Lonergan" > wrote:
>
>> got on the plane to come back home. I've been glued to CNN since I
>> walked in the door. What a horrible thing to have happen. My
>> thoughts and prayers to all. I sure do hope you don't have any
>> friends involved Barb.
>>
>> Michael
>
> None I'm aware of, other than a grandnephew on a dive team to recover
> bodies. This is going to be ugly for at least a couple years until
> they get a new bridge -- or something, somewhere. Won't be much
> bother going to visit Small Child because while I live less than a
> mile from 35W, I also live about 4 miles for 35E -- both of which
> conjoin 40 miles north of us to become plain ol' I-35 go to Duluth.
> Means I'll go around downtown St. Paul instead of downtown
> Minneapolis. Going to visit sisters will be a PITA, though. But
> we're safe, thanks.

I emailed our sometime rfc'r, Steve Dropkin, who lives in St. Paul. He
assures me even though he crossed that bridge a lot he was no where near it
on Wednesday. One more rfc'r accounted for.

Jill

Gregory Morrow wrote:

> I used to think that our presence there could do some good, but it
> makes no matter when you are dealing with a bunch of backwards
> religious psychotics (which ALL muslims are)...

Up till WW I, Muslims in Europe was noticeably more religiously
tolerant than European Christians.

As for the Middle East now: things are complicated and complex. For
example, Saudi Arabia was conquered by religious fanatics, whose
descendants mostly still rule. However, most of them are a long way
from being fanatics -- they obey Islamic law in public, but in private
don't let it get in their way. (Osama Bin Laden was an exception.)

The Christians in Lebanon don't seem to be any more tolerant than
Lebanese Muslims.

--
Dan Goodman
"You, each of you, have some special wild cards. Play with them.
Find out what makes you different and better. Because it is there,
if only you can find it." Vernor Vinge, _Rainbows End_
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://dangoodman.livejournal.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood

On Aug 2, 3:00 pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> maxine in ri wrote:
> > > I think this event will reveal some fundamental flaws in their
> > > inspection regime. Whatever caused it, whether it's erosion
> > > of the pylons (known as scouring, it has caused collapses
> > > before. A major incident occurred in upstate NY) or deterioration
> > > of the structure itself, it should have been caught by their normal
> > > inspection regime.
>
> > > --
> > > Reg
>
> > There were no pylons. The bridge had a 450 foot unsupported span with
> > no suspension according to the report I heard.
>
> Of course is was supported, It has stood up since it opened in 1967. There
> was no suspension because it was not a suspension bridge. It was a steel
> arch Deck Truss bridge. Arches are supposed to be able to bear a lot of
> weight. Pylon may or may not be an accurate word to describe the concrete
> supports or pedestals, two on each side of the river, which support the
> ands of the arched metal structure.

I stand corrected. Further reports I've heard have said that that
bridge was
built before they added redundant support systems. I'm not an
engineer, so
go only with what I understand of what I heard.

The real "joy" I've heard is that RI has the highest percentage of
problem bridges
of any state in the country. What fun. NOT.

maxine in ri

jmcquown wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
> > Stan Horwitz wrote:
> >>
> >> In article >, "Pete C."
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> jmcquown wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I just heard about the I-35 West bridge between Minneapolis and
> >>>> St. Paul collapsing, sending cars plunging into the Mississippi
> >>>> River. Please check in and let us know you're okay!
> >>>>
> > The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not being
> > particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the direction of
> > a very real threat. A good chunk of our tax dollars are being wasted
> > on well intentioned but counterproductive "humanitarian aid". The
> > largest portion of our tax dollars however are being wasted right
> > here in the US.
>
> ... so very sad, that some people are doing the very thing they've been
> railing against in this thread - suddenly ignoring the bridge collapse, the
> tragedy of the injured, the casualties and their grieving families and
> friends. Instead it's been turned into a *rabid* political debate. (sigh)
>
> Jill

We aren't ignoring anything, we're multitasking.

"maxine in ri" > wrote

> The real "joy" I've heard is that RI has the highest percentage of
> problem bridges
> of any state in the country. What fun. NOT.

Around here they are replacing and repairing bridges continually.
Lots of bridge work. But when you see those crazy numbers,
you have to remember that a lot of bridges are spans we don't even
think of, hardly realize we're on one ... little spans over little creeks,
not even a bump in the road.

Just saying that the news, as usual, is tossing around statistics to
make everyone think the sky is falling, it's an issue but I've been
reading about it seems forever, it's hardly been a big secret that
bridge maintenance is not up to snuff. That's probably true anywhere
in the world.

I think the design of this particular bridge played a big role. 40 years
is not old for a bridge. Fixing any bridges like it should be the first
thing.

nancy

On Aug 3, 8:08?am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> "maxine in ri" > wrote
>
> > The real "joy" I've heard is that RI has the highest percentage of
> > problem bridges
> > of any state in the country. What fun. NOT.
>
> Around here they are replacing and repairing bridges continually.
> Lots of bridge work. But when you see those crazy numbers,
> you have to remember that a lot of bridges are spans we don't even
> think of, hardly realize we're on one ... little spans over little creeks,
> not even a bump in the road.
>
> Just saying that the news, as usual, is tossing around statistics to
> make everyone think the sky is falling, it's an issue but I've been
> reading about it seems forever, it's hardly been a big secret that
> bridge maintenance is not up to snuff. That's probably true anywhere
> in the world.
>
> I think the design of this particular bridge played a big role. 40 years
> is not old for a bridge.

More than mechanical design probably inferior grade steel. I'd bet my
bipee when/if the original specs are checked against what's actually
there they'll find a lesser grade of steel than what was called out...
likely not in error, more at typical construction project graft. The
powers that be covered it up then, ditto now.

Sheldon

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 23:58:43 -0500, "jmcquown" > wrote:
>
>... so very sad, that some people are doing the very thing they've been
>railing against in this thread - suddenly ignoring the bridge collapse, the
>tragedy of the injured, the casualties and their grieving families and
>friends. Instead it's been turned into a *rabid* political debate. (sigh)
>
>Jill
>

When bad things happen, it's natural to speculate;
"What caused this, how could it have been prevented"

Unfortunately, Washington HAS been pre-occupied with
Iraq, and Afghanistan.

And too many serious issues in America have gone unfunded, or untended.


<rj>

"Sheldon" > wrote

> On Aug 3, 8:08?am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:

>> I think the design of this particular bridge played a big role. 40 years
>> is not old for a bridge.
>
> More than mechanical design probably inferior grade steel. I'd bet my
> bipee when/if the original specs are checked against what's actually
> there they'll find a lesser grade of steel than what was called out...
> likely not in error, more at typical construction project graft. The
> powers that be covered it up then, ditto now.

When I looked at the before picture I thought, what, were toothpicks
not available? Looked like Tinker Toys. Of course, I'm not an
engineer, and steel is deceptively strong. Apparently not *that*
strong.

nancy

<RJ> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 23:58:43 -0500, "jmcquown"
> > wrote:
>>
>> ... so very sad, that some people are doing the very thing they've
>> been railing against in this thread - suddenly ignoring the bridge
>> collapse, the tragedy of the injured, the casualties and their
>> grieving families and friends. Instead it's been turned into a
>> *rabid* political debate. (sigh)
>>
>> Jill
>>
>
> When bad things happen, it's natural to speculate;
> "What caused this, how could it have been prevented"
>
> Unfortunately, Washington HAS been pre-occupied with
> Iraq, and Afghanistan.
>
> And too many serious issues in America have gone unfunded, or
> untended.
>

Even if the U.S. were not involved with foreign politics the bridge still
would have collapsed. There's always going to be something with a "higher
priority" than re-vamping every bridge in the country. They were
resurfacing the bridge so money was at least being spent for *something* on
it. I think it was a matter of possible design flaw and, as Sheldon
mentioned, sub-standard materials being used during initial construction.
He's absolutely right when he says many construction projects are not built
to the original specs; substandard materials keep the contractor's costs
down.

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:35:02 GMT, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>Default User wrote:
>>
>> Stan Horwitz wrote:
>>
>> > Large parts of the infrastructure here in the states are poorly
>> > maintained, yet billions of dollars are sent to Iraq. Insane! I am
>> > truly sorry for the families who lost people in that bridge collapse.
>>
>> I'm grateful for the "ignore branch" feature of my newsreader.
>
>But, but, that's like censorship or political correctness. How are we
>ever supposed to solve the worlds ills if we can't have a
>(semi)civilized debate?

It's an interesting question. We've been discussing and debating on
rfc for many years by now.

Have we solved any global problems yet? World hunger or the issue of
menu planning from local ingredients in the face of escalating
transportation costs would seem to be appropriate for rfc. Bridges
and the Middle East are beyond our charter area

(It would be an interesting research project to see whether any of the
endless chat and blogging on the internet has solved any social ills
at all.)

As Meg W. would say... "Rage away!"

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Nancy Young wrote:
> "maxine in ri" > wrote
>
>> The real "joy" I've heard is that RI has the highest percentage of
>> problem bridges
>> of any state in the country. What fun. NOT.
>
> Around here they are replacing and repairing bridges continually.
> Lots of bridge work. But when you see those crazy numbers,
> you have to remember that a lot of bridges are spans we don't even
> think of, hardly realize we're on one ... little spans over little creeks,
> not even a bump in the road.
>
> Just saying that the news, as usual, is tossing around statistics to
> make everyone think the sky is falling, it's an issue but I've been
> reading about it seems forever, it's hardly been a big secret that
> bridge maintenance is not up to snuff. That's probably true anywhere
> in the world.
>
> I think the design of this particular bridge played a big role. 40 years
> is not old for a bridge. Fixing any bridges like it should be the first
> thing.
>
> nancy
>
>

We are paying for the "Walmart thinking" that was used to construct the
Interstate highway system. They had allocated sufficient funds to build
say 1,000 miles of road but chose to build 1,200 to make it seem even
more spectacular. So that means everything had to be stretched. If a
normal bridge deck used say 2 feet of concrete they used 18 inches.

It is interesting to note how many bridges that predate all of this are
still standing and in great condition.

The main artery through my area is an Interstate highway. There are
pretty much weekly "emergency bridge repairs" to try to put another
bandaid on the poorly built bridges. There is a large bridge system
crossing a local gorge. The northbound lanes use a bridge that was built
for an old highway that predates the interstate system by at least 30
years. The most they have had to do is paint it. The southbound lanes
use a cheepo interstate highway class bridge. They have replaced the
deck on the bridge at least twice and had 2 lanes closed last month to
do emergency repairs.

Nancy Young wrote:
> "Sheldon" > wrote
>
>> On Aug 3, 8:08?am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>
>>> I think the design of this particular bridge played a big role. 40
>>> years is not old for a bridge.
>>
>> More than mechanical design probably inferior grade steel. I'd bet
>> my bipee when/if the original specs are checked against what's
>> actually there they'll find a lesser grade of steel than what was
>> called out... likely not in error, more at typical construction
>> project graft. The powers that be covered it up then, ditto now.
>
> When I looked at the before picture I thought, what, were toothpicks
> not available? Looked like Tinker Toys. Of course, I'm not an
> engineer, and steel is deceptively strong. Apparently not *that*
> strong.
>
When I was dating Ray he was a construction superintendant. He said
government contracts were the *worse* because the contractor was forced to
lowball the bid to win the contract, then try to do the work using quality
materials and not go over cost. Obviously many contractors don't adhere to
the original specs; rather, as Sheldon says, they use inferior and hence
cheaper materials to get the job done. Go over cost and they're not likely
to get another big government contract. Big catch 22 at the expense of
safety.

They did a news report about the bridges over the Mississippi River from
Memphis to Arkansas shortly after the MN/St. Paul collapse. I always get
nervous driving over the main Memphis/Arkansas bridge. The river is a lot
deeper and a lot wider here than up in Minneapolis. The news report
indicated they are inspected every two years. Since we are located on the
New Madrid fault, the bridges were built (or upgraded) to withstand a level
8 on the Richter scale earthquake. I guess that's supposed to be comforting


Jill

On Aug 2, 9:05 am, "Pete C." > wrote:
> Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 9:34 pm, "Pete C." > wrote:
> > > Stan Horwitz wrote:
>
> > > > In article >, "Pete C." >
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > jmcquown wrote:
>
> > > > > > I just heard about the I-35 West bridge between Minneapolis and St. Paul
> > > > > > collapsing, sending cars plunging into the Mississippi River. Please check
> > > > > > in and let us know you're okay!
>
> > > > > > Jill
>
> > > > > Looks pretty bad, not just one section falling, the whole damn thing
> > > > > came down. Already three confirmed fatalities and I don't think they
> > > > > even have any info back from divers yet.
>
> > > > Large parts of the infrastructure here in the states are poorly
> > > > maintained, yet billions of dollars are sent to Iraq. Insane! I am truly
> > > > sorry for the families who lost people in that bridge collapse.
>
> > > The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket
>
> > EXCUSE ME!?!? Just "a drop in the bucket"????
>
> Compare a few hundred billion to the many trillions of the national
> budget. Iraq is a drop in the bucket, don't let the "billion" fool you,
> relative to the total national budget, Iraq is the equivalent of your
> morning coffee budget.
>
>
>
> > > and while not being particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the
> > > direction of a very real threat.
>
> > Are you one of those folks who believe that Saddam Hussein was
> > involved in the 9-11 attacks, perhaps even after the Liar-in-Chief
> > admitted he was not?
>
> No, I'm one of the folks who knows the real story with the WMDs from
> someone who was in Iraq on the UNSCOM team and saw them first hand.
>
There are other ways to get results than invasion.
>
> > > A good chunk of our tax dollars are being wasted on
> > > well intentioned but counterproductive "humanitarian aid".
>
> > Funny Uncle Sam gives candy to little countries because he wants
> > what's in their little panties.*
>
> That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the feel good
> humanitarian aid given to countries that have nothing we want, and only
> server to exacerbate the problems in those countries.
>
But what I mean is that even that is not done altruistically. It's no
accident that our policies "exacerbate the problems in those
countries."
>
> > > The largest portion of our tax dollars however are being
> > > wasted right here in the US.
>
> > OK, here's a challenge. Tell us EXACTLY WHAT that "largest portion of
> > our tax dollars" "are being wasted" on "right here in the US."
>
> Little things like the "war on drugs" which also includes a lot of
> foreign spending and by all objective assessments accomplishes next to
> nothing. Various superstition... er... "faith" based programs. Pet pork
> projects. Etc.

The issues with the War on Drugs are several, and cost a fortune in
lost productivity as well as prison/law enforcement costs.
The "superstition" programs don't cost that much in the whole scheme
of things. It's more the theocratic camel's nose under the tent of
the US Treasury.
Even the "pork," is not all just a bunch of wasted money. There are
worthy uses, such as replacing crumbling infrastructure. As NPR said
yesterday, unfortunately it is sexier to build a new bridge than to
spend the money on maintaining an old one. Federal spending also
results in the multiplier effect on local economies. I'm not
defending "bridges to nowhere," and do recognize there's waste, but
this Iraq thing seems like it has accomplished one thing, transferring
tax dollars into the hands of the mercenary companies, and in those I
include support and construction contractors.

--Bryan

On Aug 2, 1:20 pm, Sheldon > wrote:
> On Aug 2, 8:35?am, Bobo Bonobo? > wrote:
>
> > OK, here's a challenge. Tell us EXACTLY WHAT that "largest portion of
> > our tax dollars" "are being wasted" on "right here in the US."
>
> That's not any challenge,,, more dollars are wasted on welfare
> parasites than all other spending combined.

Ah, Sheldon, you are a little ray of sunshine. Everywhere you go, you
leave a profusion of daisies and unicorns in your wake.

--Bryan

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 08:24:51 -0500, "jmcquown" > wrote:

><RJ> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 23:58:43 -0500, "jmcquown"
>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> ... so very sad, that some people are doing the very thing they've
>>> been railing against in this thread - suddenly ignoring the bridge
>>> collapse, the tragedy of the injured, the casualties and their
>>> grieving families and friends. Instead it's been turned into a
>>> *rabid* political debate. (sigh)
>>>
>>> Jill
>>>
>>
>> When bad things happen, it's natural to speculate;
>> "What caused this, how could it have been prevented"
>>
>> Unfortunately, Washington HAS been pre-occupied with
>> Iraq, and Afghanistan.
>>
>> And too many serious issues in America have gone unfunded, or
>> untended.
>>
>
>Even if the U.S. were not involved with foreign politics the bridge still
>would have collapsed. There's always going to be something with a "higher
>priority" than re-vamping every bridge in the country. They were
>resurfacing the bridge so money was at least being spent for *something* on
>it. I think it was a matter of possible design flaw and, as Sheldon
>mentioned, sub-standard materials being used during initial construction.
>He's absolutely right when he says many construction projects are not built
>to the original specs; substandard materials keep the contractor's costs
>down.
>
I'd believe that of New York, Pennsylvania, Mass. ( and New Orleans )
East-coast politicians have a long history of graft, corruption and theft.

Minnesotans don't steal public money.... they waste it !
I'd lean more toward the bridge braces made of platinum, rather than steel.


<rj>

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:13:21 GMT, Reg > wrote:

>Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> maxine in ri wrote:
>>
>>>>I think this event will reveal some fundamental flaws in their
>>>>inspection regime. Whatever caused it, whether it's erosion
>>>>of the pylons (known as scouring, it has caused collapses
>>>>before. A major incident occurred in upstate NY) or deterioration
>>>>of the structure itself, it should have been caught by their normal
>>>>inspection regime.
>>>
>>>There were no pylons. The bridge had a 450 foot unsupported span with
>>>no suspension according to the report I heard.
>>
>> Of course is was supported, It has stood up since it opened in 1967. There
>> was no suspension because it was not a suspension bridge. It was a steel
>> arch Deck Truss bridge. Arches are supposed to be able to bear a lot of
>> weight. Pylon may or may not be an accurate word to describe the concrete
>> supports or pedestals, two on each side of the river, which support the
>> ands of the arched metal structure.
>
>"Footings" is probably the term I should have used.
>
>I think there's a reasonable chance one may have come down as a result
>of bridge scour, similar to the Schoharie Creek incident in 1987.
>This caused a progressive collapse.
>
>Another possible cause is structural failure due to metal fatigue.
>
>In any case, the design lacked sufficient redundancy to
>prevent a progressive collapse. One piece falls, causing them
>all to go down. Such older designs require stricter inspection
>and maintenance, which it appears didn't happen in this case.

on the contrary, it was inspected at least twice and found
'structurally deficient.' they just didn't fix it.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:23:42 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:05:49 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Aug 1, 9:34 pm, "Pete C." > wrote:
>> >> > Stan Horwitz wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > In article >, "Pete C." >
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > > jmcquown wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > I just heard about the I-35 West bridge between Minneapolis and St. Paul
>> >> > > > > collapsing, sending cars plunging into the Mississippi River. Please check
>> >> > > > > in and let us know you're okay!
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > Jill
>> >> >
>> >> > > > Looks pretty bad, not just one section falling, the whole damn thing
>> >> > > > came down. Already three confirmed fatalities and I don't think they
>> >> > > > even have any info back from divers yet.
>> >> >
>> >> > > Large parts of the infrastructure here in the states are poorly
>> >> > > maintained, yet billions of dollars are sent to Iraq. Insane! I am truly
>> >> > > sorry for the families who lost people in that bridge collapse.
>> >> >
>> >> > The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket
>> >>
>> >> EXCUSE ME!?!? Just "a drop in the bucket"????
>> >
>> >Compare a few hundred billion to the many trillions of the national
>> >budget. Iraq is a drop in the bucket, don't let the "billion" fool you,
>> >relative to the total national budget, Iraq is the equivalent of your
>> >morning coffee budget.
>> >
>> as of oct 2006:
>>
>> The empirical total of this lying crime in Iraq is $450 billion—that’s
>> what we’ve spent so far. An extremely conservative estimate is another
>> $550 billion for whenever we get the hell out of there and health care
>> costs for the wounded. A cool trillion dollars, easy, all for nothing
>> but horror, shame, death and international revulsion.
>>
>> That’s $9,480.86 per American family, money that will be paid out by
>> the American middle class next 30 years (one could tack on another
>> $300 billion for interest, but we’ll keep it simple and conservative).
>> Our corporate media tries to ignore it, but every day more and more
>> Americans are becoming aware and infuriated at this incredible waste
>> of such a vast fortune.
>
>I for one do not consider national defense a waste. Perhaps in you
>idealistic fantasy communist world everyone lives together in peace and
>there are no terrorists. I happen to live in the real world and am aware
>of the real world dangers the terrorists and their supporters.
>
>Iraq at present is a good example of why we can't negotiate some sort of
>peace with the terrorists. The culture of the entire middle east is one
>of violence, lies and extremism as the continuing sectarian violence
>clearly shows. If you think you have negotiated some sort of peace with
>them, while you have you head happily buried in the sand, they are
>quietly rearming and preparing to attack you yet again.
>

typical right-wing straw man. no one said we don't need to spend
money on defense. i said the war in iraq has made the terrorism
problem worse, not better.

>>
>> <http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/009046.php>
>>
>> ...but maybe you drink a **** of a lot of coffee.
>
>Two cups each morning. Don't think that counts as a lot.
>
have you spent nearly $10,000 dollars since march 2003? that's your
family's tab for the war in iraq, and climbing.
>> >>
>> >> > and while not being particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the
>> >> > direction of a very real threat.
>> >>
>> >> Are you one of those folks who believe that Saddam Hussein was
>> >> involved in the 9-11 attacks, perhaps even after the Liar-in-Chief
>> >> admitted he was not?
>> >
>> >No, I'm one of the folks who knows the real story with the WMDs from
>> >someone who was in Iraq on the UNSCOM team and saw them first hand.
>> >nwhat
>> and what is the 'real story,' pray tell? they were shipped to syria?
>> not even bush is rash enough to peddle that tale.
>
>The real story of what Saddam did with them during the years that
>Clinton and company had their heads in the sand and were undermining our
>intelligence services? If we're lucky, what really happened to them is
>Saddam hid them really well and now everyone who knew where they are
>hidden is dead.
>
more right-wing bullshit. did clinton ignore a report saying al qaeda
was likely to soon attack america, probably by plane, in august 2001?
nope. it was the decider-in-chief.
>>
>> why is this person saw them first hand talking to you and not the
>> media? no one else seems to 'know' the facts.
>
>How many UNSCOM team members have you seen talking to the media?
>

only the ones who couldn't find any w.m.d.'s. they had to leave iraq
because bush decided to invade anyway. too bad.

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 02:39:29 +0000 (UTC), PeterLucas >
wrote:

>Dave Smith > wrote in
:
>
>
>>
>> You take the hub out, the spokes fall out, and the
>>> rim falls off. If you just take the rim out, it can be replaced.
>>>
>>> Comprende?
>>
>> Sorry, but that is a stupid analogy. If you take away the rim the
>> spokes fly around. Spokes, hubs and rims can all be replaced.
>>
>
>
>Yeah, right, whatever.
>
>You just keep running around in circles and convincing yourself that you're
>the only one that's right.

he doesn't have to be the only one who is right to show that you are
wrong. and you are.

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 00:20:46 +0000 (UTC), PeterLucas >
wrote:

>Dave Smith > wrote in
:
>
>
>>
>>> Instead of looking at the outside of the rim, look at the hub.... you
>>> moron.
>>
>> Only a moron would think that made sense in this context.
>
>
>
>Your simplistic view of the world is showing.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> OMG!! Breaking news!! The US Govt held and *Australian* citizen in
>>> Gitmo after he was caught on the 'other' side in Afghanistan.
>>
>> Was that before or after they found an American fighting with the
>> Taliban? For that matter, there have been quite a few American Muslims
>> fighting jihad in various places, Afghanistan, Chechneya, Iraq....
>>
>>> He went there, and he trained there, like the Saudis did.
>>
>
>
>Do you even get a clue now?
>
>You asked a question "How many Afghans and Iraqis were on the hijacked
>planes"?
>
>I'll ask you this.
>
>Who trained and equipped the scum that hijacked the planes?
>
>
>Think about this for a moment..... it doesn't matter where the
>terrorists originate from, it's who trains them and equips them to do
>their cowardly work. You take the hub out, the spokes fall out, and the
>rim falls off. If you just take the rim out, it can be replaced.
>
>Comprende?

what i don't 'comprende' is why we attacked iraq when none of the
hijackers were from there, nor were they trained there. but that made
no never-mind to 'hit 'em where they ain't' bush.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:46:37 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 15:59:41 +0000 (UTC), PeterLucas >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"MareCat" > wrote in
>> :
>> >
>> >> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
>> >> .25...
>> >>> "MareCat" > wrote in
>> >>> :
>> >>>
>> >>>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> >>>> ...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not
>> >>>>> being particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the
>> >>>>> direction of a very real threat.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> What threat???
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Go hug a ****ing tree, then go stick your head back in the sand like
>> >>> a good
>> >>> little ostrich.
>> >>
>> >> Predictable response...and of course you didn't answer my question.
>> >
>> >
>> >No.......... *you* give us all a plausable explanation as to why there
>> >is no threat. And never will be any threat.
>> >
>> >
>> >I'm sure the 9-11 victims families would *love* to hear it.
>> >
>>
>> Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat
>>
>> By MARK MAZZETTI
>> Published: September 24, 2006
>>
>> WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by
>> American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion
>> and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic
>> radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the
>> Sept. 11 attacks.
>>
>> The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct
>> role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either
>> in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by
>> the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in
>> Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the
>> final document.
>>
>> The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal
>> appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies
>> since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16
>> disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global
>> Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that
>> Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and
>> spread across the globe.
>>
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ex=1316750400&en=da252be85d1b39fa&ei =5088>
>>
>> so, yes, the "9-11 victims families" are no doubt pleased as punch by
>> the whole war in iraq thing. and it costs just pennies a day!
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
>The "new" terrorists didn't just go from being quiet peaceful model
>civilized world citizens to radical terrorists because the US attacked
>Iraq. These "new" terrorists have been violent extremists for a long
>time and the US in Iraq just pushed them over the edge. They have been a
>threat to the civilized world for a long time.
>
>Pete C.

'u.s. in iraq just pushed them over the edge.' yet you think it's
still a fine idea?

why don't we just nuke mecca and medina and be done with it?

your pal,
blake

On Aug 3, 10:03 am, blake murphy > wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:13:21 GMT, Reg > wrote:
> >Dave Smith wrote:
>
> >> maxine in ri wrote:
>
> >>>>I think this event will reveal some fundamental flaws in their
> >>>>inspection regime. Whatever caused it, whether it's erosion
> >>>>of the pylons (known as scouring, it has caused collapses
> >>>>before. A major incident occurred in upstate NY) or deterioration
> >>>>of the structure itself, it should have been caught by their normal
> >>>>inspection regime.
>
> >>>There were no pylons. The bridge had a 450 foot unsupported span with
> >>>no suspension according to the report I heard.
>
> >> Of course is was supported, It has stood up since it opened in 1967. There
> >> was no suspension because it was not a suspension bridge. It was a steel
> >> arch Deck Truss bridge. Arches are supposed to be able to bear a lot of
> >> weight. Pylon may or may not be an accurate word to describe the concrete
> >> supports or pedestals, two on each side of the river, which support the
> >> ands of the arched metal structure.
>
> >"Footings" is probably the term I should have used.
>
> >I think there's a reasonable chance one may have come down as a result
> >of bridge scour, similar to the Schoharie Creek incident in 1987.
> >This caused a progressive collapse.
>
> >Another possible cause is structural failure due to metal fatigue.
>
> >In any case, the design lacked sufficient redundancy to
> >prevent a progressive collapse. One piece falls, causing them
> >all to go down. Such older designs require stricter inspection
> >and maintenance, which it appears didn't happen in this case.
>
> on the contrary, it was inspected at least twice and found
> 'structurally deficient.' they just didn't fix it.

Which is more important, giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest 2%,
or fixing infrastructure so that working people don't get killed on
the way home from work?
Don'tchya ever let anyone tell ya that America ain't got no class.
>
> your pal,
> blake

--Bryan