Bulldozing US Homeland Defence.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:59:36 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:03:49 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

snip

Go and look at the report on what happened at
Flixborough

I have, in detail, often, with access to a lot that isn't
generally available.

Bingo. Another claim of access to information not available to the rest of
us--to go along with prior claims of attending sensitive briefings on what
US personnel were doing with the contras in Nicaragua, and battle update
briefings with a command that had troops engaged in Afghanistan? And you
wonder why more and more folks don't believe you?


I expalined quite directly why I had deeper knowledge than
generally available. Anybody who worked at Maitland or the Texas
plant (Victoria?) had the same. As you snipped that, I conclude
you're up to your old bull again, removing context so that you
can invent some. You've recently proven yourself grossly
dishonest three times, isn't that enough?

snip

The explosion was 15 tons equivalent of the BLEVE [1] type, the
fire lasted days becuase about 10% of the plant inventory had to
be allowed to burn out [2]. There was minimal effect past the
fence.

Gee, with all that access to information, you did not realize the true
extent of offsite damage and injury, as we can see from Keith's response
below...amazing, huh?

I certainly had a senior moment there. Kieth handled it nicely.
Do you have anything to contribute?



Wrong. Even though the explosion occurred on a rural site
53 members of the public received major injuries and
hundreds more sustained minor injuries. The plant was
destroyed as were several others on the same site and
close to two thousand houses, shops, and factories
were damaged with some 3000 residents being left homeless




Peter Skelton

"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:59:36 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:03:49 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

snip

Go and look at the report on what happened at
Flixborough

I have, in detail, often, with access to a lot that isn't
generally available.

Bingo. Another claim of access to information not available to the rest
of
us--to go along with prior claims of attending sensitive briefings on
what
US personnel were doing with the contras in Nicaragua, and battle update
briefings with a command that had troops engaged in Afghanistan? And you
wonder why more and more folks don't believe you?


I expalined quite directly why I had deeper knowledge than
generally available. Anybody who worked at Maitland or the Texas
plant (Victoria?) had the same. As you snipped that, I conclude
you're up to your old bull again, removing context so that you
can invent some. You've recently proven yourself grossly
dishonest three times, isn't that enough?

No, Keith has demonstrated quite amply that you are clueless regarding the
incident at hand, not to mention of questionable veracity regarding the
subject in general, despite your, as he put it "sekret" information...
Sounds like just another example of your trying to pad your background a bit
too much, and as I noted, it ain't the first time you have been caught out
like this.


snip

The explosion was 15 tons equivalent of the BLEVE [1] type, the
fire lasted days becuase about 10% of the plant inventory had to
be allowed to burn out [2]. There was minimal effect past the
fence.

Gee, with all that access to information, you did not realize the true
extent of offsite damage and injury, as we can see from Keith's response
below...amazing, huh?

I certainly had a senior moment there. Kieth handled it nicely.
Do you have anything to contribute?

Yeah. Keith did indeed "handle it nicely"; he made you out to be full of
bovine fecal materiel in spite of all that "sekret" stuff you have lying
about and you apparently haven't caught on to it as of yet.

Brooks




Wrong. Even though the explosion occurred on a rural site
53 members of the public received major injuries and
hundreds more sustained minor injuries. The plant was
destroyed as were several others on the same site and
close to two thousand houses, shops, and factories
were damaged with some 3000 residents being left homeless




Peter Skelton

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 00:44:39 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:59:36 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:03:49 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

snip

Go and look at the report on what happened at
Flixborough

I have, in detail, often, with access to a lot that isn't
generally available.

Bingo. Another claim of access to information not available to the rest
of
us--to go along with prior claims of attending sensitive briefings on
what
US personnel were doing with the contras in Nicaragua, and battle update
briefings with a command that had troops engaged in Afghanistan? And you
wonder why more and more folks don't believe you?


I expalined quite directly why I had deeper knowledge than
generally available. Anybody who worked at Maitland or the Texas
plant (Victoria?) had the same. As you snipped that, I conclude
you're up to your old bull again, removing context so that you
can invent some. You've recently proven yourself grossly
dishonest three times, isn't that enough?

No, Keith has demonstrated quite amply that you are clueless regarding the
incident at hand, not to mention of questionable veracity regarding the
subject in general, despite your, as he put it "sekret" information...
Sounds like just another example of your trying to pad your background a bit
too much, and as I noted, it ain't the first time you have been caught out
like this.

I'm not going to argue about Kieth with you. You've been caught
yourself more than once recently, as I said. As usual, you have
nothing to contribute. I have two choices, switch things back to
one of your idiot statements, like the bit about artillery
hitting without knowing where the target is, or ignoring you.
I'll take the second.



Peter Skelton

"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 00:44:39 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:59:36 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:03:49 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

snip

Go and look at the report on what happened at
Flixborough

I have, in detail, often, with access to a lot that isn't
generally available.

Bingo. Another claim of access to information not available to the
rest
of
us--to go along with prior claims of attending sensitive briefings on
what
US personnel were doing with the contras in Nicaragua, and battle
update
briefings with a command that had troops engaged in Afghanistan? And
you
wonder why more and more folks don't believe you?


I expalined quite directly why I had deeper knowledge than
generally available. Anybody who worked at Maitland or the Texas
plant (Victoria?) had the same. As you snipped that, I conclude
you're up to your old bull again, removing context so that you
can invent some. You've recently proven yourself grossly
dishonest three times, isn't that enough?

No, Keith has demonstrated quite amply that you are clueless regarding
the
incident at hand, not to mention of questionable veracity regarding the
subject in general, despite your, as he put it "sekret" information...
Sounds like just another example of your trying to pad your background a
bit
too much, and as I noted, it ain't the first time you have been caught
out
like this.

I'm not going to argue about Kieth with you. You've been caught
yourself more than once recently, as I said.

Please specify. I have a complete list iof your falsifications; the ones you
always hate to answer and usually resort to just snipping away before
hurling your own utterly baseless allegations.

As usual, you have
nothing to contribute.

Except for the observation that you have again apparently stepped into the
trap of claiming you have some sort of restricted "insider" information
(about a truly wide ranging field of subjects, too!), and when questioned
further on it, this time by Keith, you wilt like a three day old cut-flower
on the sidewalk.

I have two choices, switch things back to
one of your idiot statements, like the bit about artillery
hitting without knowing where the target is, or ignoring you.
I'll take the second.

Give it your best shot--and while you are at it, can you refresh us as to
what it was you were supposedly teaching those marines who were part of the
spearhead into Afghanistan? You remember--you said quite clearly that your
involvement with their preparation over the "past year" (a year where you
also acknowledged that in fact you were working in that call center...)
would have been "wasted" if they had seen fit to follow the Patton Approach
to making the other poor SOB die for his country? Or was that another
"sekret" thing? If so, you are not too good at keeping "sekrets", are you,
Mr. Mitty? I believe this was all offered shortly before you claimed to have
"been there, done that" in regards to your supposedly being fully squared
away with the "meeting engagement", having never worn a uniform but having
maybe worked for the same conglomerate that produced some kind of simulator?
Did you even work in the same division that produced samesaid simulator, or
did you make *all* of that up? And speaking of "division", that does remind
one of your last (before this one) claim to have been in on "sekret"
information, what with all of those briefings you claimed to be attending
about ongoing actions in Afghanistan (again, at the same time that you
elsewhere acknowledged you were actually working in that call center, though
you later tried to claim that you were not doing so concurrently, forgetting
that you had made the contradicting claims on *the same day* and both were
set in the present tense) given by that "Mountain Division major"--have you
figured out which division is known as the "Mountain Division" in the US
Army yet?

Gee, all them "sekrets", and nary a clue... amazing.

Brooks




Peter Skelton