For Keith Willshaw...

What super secret organization spanned that time frame and conducted the
operations ?

Step by step:
Who lured confederates to attack Ft.Sumter? Check out the book I referred to.

Who destroyed USS Maine and made "Remember Maine" US Battle cry?

Who lured japanese to attack Pearl Harbor?
(and eliminated the evidences about Phone conversions prior to Pearl Harbor
attack berween Churchill and FDR about Pearl Harbor attack)

Who made 9/11 happen.

Also a small addition to above list,who were the Melody guys that created high
tech (well at least for 60s) equipment that created impression that USS Maddox
was under attack?

A hint for you none of them came from another planet.

In article ,
on 14 Jun 2004 05:03:47 GMT,
Denyav attempted to say .....

What super secret organization spanned that time frame and conducted the
operations ?

Step by step:
Who lured confederates to attack Ft.Sumter? Check out the book I referred to.

A 70+ year old book ?
Sure, I have time to find a copy.


Who destroyed USS Maine and made "Remember Maine" US Battle cry?

A fire in a coal bunker adjacent to one of the powder magazines.


Who lured japanese to attack Pearl Harbor?
(and eliminated the evidences about Phone conversions prior to Pearl Harbor
attack berween Churchill and FDR about Pearl Harbor attack)

Lured ?
Have you actually done any reading of the events ?
Perhaps you might try reading some of the Japanese accounts.
What phone conversation ?
There being no evidence....



Who made 9/11 happen.

A bunch of fanatics


Also a small addition to above list,who were the Melody guys that created high
tech (well at least for 60s) equipment that created impression that USS Maddox
was under attack?

Do you hear the helocopters yet ?

A hint for you none of them came from another planet.

Are you sure ?


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

A 70+ year old book ?
Sure, I have time to find a copy.

Much better than new books.

A fire in a coal bunker adjacent to one of the powder magazines.

Exact cause of explosion is still not known,offical 1898 version was a spanish
mine !.
One thing is sure it was no accident and Spanians had nothing to do with it.
Maybe Aliens masquarading as Spanians did it.

Lured ?
Have you actually done any reading of the events ?
Perhaps you might try reading some of the Japanese accounts.
What phone conversation ?
There being no evidence....

Really,you did not even read hearing transcripts carefully

A bunch of fanatics

Surely fanatics,but the fanatics that four intel agencies,including our
own,closely followed.
(BTW there is no intel gaps prior to 9/11)

Do you hear the helocopters yet ?


Not yet but have you ever heard the name "Melody" and its ECM/ESM capabilities?

Are you sure ?

Pretty sure

Cheers.

In article ,
on 15 Jun 2004 05:33:03 GMT,
Denyav attempted to say .....

A 70+ year old book ?
Sure, I have time to find a copy.

Much better than new books.

Then why should we take you arguments that new information on Pearl harbor
is more acurate or truthful than the orginal reports ?



A fire in a coal bunker adjacent to one of the powder magazines.

Exact cause of explosion is still not known,offical 1898 version was a spanish
mine !.

The exact cause may never be know. I am aware of the original official
version.

One thing is sure it was no accident and Spanians had nothing to do with it.
Maybe Aliens masquarading as Spanians did it.

Now did you intend to contradict yourself ? Most naval experts consider it
to have been a coal bunker fire next to a powder magazine.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

hen why should we take you arguments that new information on Pearl harbor
is more acurate or truthful than the orginal reports ?

The mentioned book was about Ft.Sumter incident not for Pearl Harbor and author
based his case on (Union) war department documents,that means these documents
were available for the historians.

On other hand,recently surfaced documents were withheld from everbody,including
the Members of the Congress.
In other words,the Members of Congress were authorized to investigate Pearl
Harbor incident on behalf of American People,but they were not authorized to
see some critical Pearl Harbor documents,much less mere mortals.

If McCollum were Lincoln's personal routing officer the Author might not find
anything in War Department files implicating Lincoln administration.

The exact cause may never be know. I am aware of the original official
version.

Now did you intend to contradict yourself ? Most naval experts consider it
to have been a coal bunker fire next to a powder magazine.


So coal caught fire in a very politically correct location and time.

In article ,
on 20 Jun 2004 03:48:41 GMT,
Denyav attempted to say .....

hen why should we take you arguments that new information on Pearl harbor
is more acurate or truthful than the orginal reports ?

The mentioned book was about Ft.Sumter incident not for Pearl Harbor and author
based his case on (Union) war department documents,that means these documents
were available for the historians.

On other hand,recently surfaced documents were withheld from everbody,including
the Members of the Congress.
In other words,the Members of Congress were authorized to investigate Pearl
Harbor incident on behalf of American People,but they were not authorized to
see some critical Pearl Harbor documents,much less mere mortals.

If McCollum were Lincoln's personal routing officer the Author might not find
anything in War Department files implicating Lincoln administration.


I was responding about McCollum.
You keep switching about like you arn't sure of yoru story.


The exact cause may never be know. I am aware of the original official
version.

Now did you intend to contradict yourself ? Most naval experts consider it
to have been a coal bunker fire next to a powder magazine.


So coal caught fire in a very politically correct location and time.

No, coal bunker fires were known in the period to burn for weeks before
flairing up.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article t,
Tank Fixer writes:
In article ,
on 20 Jun 2004 03:48:41 GMT,
So coal caught fire in a very politically correct location and time.

No, coal bunker fires were known in the period to burn for weeks before
flairing up.

Indeed they were - one of the factors on the catastrophic nature of
teh loss of the Lusitania was an ongoing bunker fire that had been
going for about half the voyage - when teh torpedos hit, they stirred
up the coal dust in the bunkers. Aerosol-ed coal dust is very
explosive.

Warships were blowing up all over the World, in just abpot all navies
at that time. Coal fires aren't great seeping conflagrations -
without some sort of draught, they're slichtly smouldering piles of
very hot rocks. Ammunition handling wasn't particularly rigorous,
either.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

From: Tank Fixer


In article ,
on 15 Jun 2004 05:33:03 GMT,
Denyav attempted to say .....


A fire in a coal bunker adjacent to one of the powder magazines.

Exact cause of explosion is still not known,offical 1898 version was a
spanish
mine !.

The exact cause may never be know. I am aware of the original official
version.

One thing is sure it was no accident and Spanians had nothing to do with
it.
Maybe Aliens masquarading as Spanians did it.

Now did you intend to contradict yourself ? Most naval experts consider it
to have been a coal bunker fire next to a powder magazine.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

From: Tank Fixer


In article ,
on 15 Jun 2004 05:33:03 GMT,
Denyav attempted to say .....



A fire in a coal bunker adjacent to one of the powder magazines.

Exact cause of explosion is still not known,offical 1898 version was a
spanish
mine !.

The exact cause may never be know. I am aware of the original official
version.

One thing is sure it was no accident and Spanians had nothing to do with
it.
Maybe Aliens masquarading as Spanians did it.

Now did you intend to contradict yourself ? Most naval experts consider it
to have been a coal bunker fire next to a powder magazine.

In fact the boat WAS raised and inspected before being resunk at sea. There is
footage of the boat as it sank.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article ,
on 20 Jun 2004 05:29:07 GMT,
B2431 attempted to say .....

From: Tank Fixer


In article ,
on 15 Jun 2004 05:33:03 GMT,
Denyav attempted to say .....



A fire in a coal bunker adjacent to one of the powder magazines.

Exact cause of explosion is still not known,offical 1898 version was a
spanish
mine !.

The exact cause may never be know. I am aware of the original official
version.

One thing is sure it was no accident and Spanians had nothing to do with
it.
Maybe Aliens masquarading as Spanians did it.

Now did you intend to contradict yourself ? Most naval experts consider it
to have been a coal bunker fire next to a powder magazine.

In fact the boat WAS raised and inspected before being resunk at sea. There is
footage of the boat as it sank.

Sometime in the 1920's IIRC ?


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.