For Keith Willshaw...

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

In article ,
on Mon, 21 Jun 2004 23:45:33 -0400,
Peter Stickney attempted to say .....

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.

I had not heard that before, thanks.
Wheat chaff and flour have similar properties.



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.

I've read of concerns over magazine temperatures many times. And the powder
of the time was not as stable.


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