This is insane...

 

Winfree, that's all very interesting, but you still haven't answered my questions (and you've only touched on a couple of them). They're listed in post #72 as:

• Post #52 questions 1-2
• Post #55 questions 1-6
• 3 additional questions (about what you wrote about David Kay) at the bottom of post #72

Again, I'm only asking for supporting details/links for statements that you made earlier in this thread. I'm looking for succinct answers, if possible.

 

Post 52 asked about the longevity of Sarin: I gave you three addresses directly on that, and an abstract on persistance by organophophate pesticides (these are milder but very similar)- these addresses suggest sarin, its components, and sarin like chemicals are presistant -
30 year old U.S. made sarin is still so dangerous that extra precautions must still take place when we try to get rid of it, and spills are very bad news. It is something that New Jersey did not want in its back yard. Therefore, Saddams. sarin/components may still be bad news!
Is sarin a weapon of mass destruction? Yes. Is old sarin or sarin components still nasty? yes. Weapons program - that where it get ugly - we can argue how much of a componet and its import or production constitutes a program, especially if it is need to make, for example a legal pesticide to control swarming locusts....
Now if you want to get down to the nitty gritty about why sarin presists and why it likes to combine with oils - that I can give you...if you really really want to know...

Were only 500 munitions found? Were they safe? If you will google CSPAN and carefully read the transcript and the Generals answers you will see that there was a closed door classified discussion that followed the open televised Senate hearing on the 500 munitions - Now, what do you suppose they were talking about in that classified briefing???

Was this information briefed to the Senate because an election was coming up? No I believe (that means I can't verify) but I believe that the reason for the Senate briefings and the revelation of more than 500 munitions being found was that information was reaching senate members, from back doors, from foreign military personnel who were helping us, and from our own military sources, and this information did not agree with data they were getting from some other specific sources (such as Kay's report)- The Senators wished to address this and get questions answered such as how much is really there. Is it sarin, if the components haven't been combined? Is it a chemical weapons program if they are importing or making the components. Is someone hiding the smoking gun under the cover of security and if so why? Who is it protecting? Could someone get their hands on this material or buy the parts and assemble it?

Now I also believe that if a Senator of either party found something to discredit a political opponent they would use it. If they could find some weakness in the military's efforts they would address it. If they could find any advantage they would use it. But I also credit both parties with trying to prevent worse events and find some acceptable truth and accountability - Remember these people are not out in the field. When they go to a battle zone they are wrapped in protective cotton and although they are trying to learn things, they may be wearing ear muffs and blinkers.

Your other questions were addressed, I did not ignore them, but sometimes when you ask a question, for good reasons, the answer may be no,
or it may be I cannot give you specificially what you are requesting because there are no postings (apparently French news did not post all information 20-30 years ago on the internet (how old is the international internet?) there are legal restrictions (patient records for example, cannot be randomly published), ethical restrictions (you don't fink on a friend). and common sense restrictions (what is your current security classification? Do you have a need to know? what will you do with the data once you have it? Who else is watching the postings?) Try re-reading the postings. They address all of your concerns.


Meanwhile, I have some questions for the gang on hybrids - does America produce enough organic oils (and not just french fry grease) to make it commerically possible to run cars on it, and what happened to efforts to make rotaries run on cheaper grades of gas?

 

I want a car that can be powered on sarin, anthrax, and ill-will towards infadels. Then I'll be set for life!

 

Saturn: A car that would run on chemicals? - well you got that already along with the ill will and "infadels" and if you are using mid-east oil, we might even find traces of sarin in it - but a car that would run on microbes- now that might have some interesting possibilities... anthrax does not look promising but yeasts make some rather nice alcohols...

Deslock: I see you are from Mass - Now suppose you wanted to find out about your Senator Kerry - Most Mass people have heard about him and could tell a little - his boat mates could tell about his Navy life - both good and bad, you could talk to his kids, his wives, and his house servants and they would tell you all sorts of things. You could talk to people he helped, people he ignored, Democrats, Republicans, people who attend church with him, people he boats with, people who owned houses where he used to sleep over, - each would give you a little snap shot. His medical records, his report cards, and his school chums, his published magazines, his senate hearings would all tell sad, happy, heroic, honest, cheating, hippy, intellectual, and unique stories about him. No single incident or story would be a complete or an absolute truth...but, if you have lived in Mass you will have accumulated information on him without trying - it just comes to you, you put it together and then you vote, for or against him.

In a similar way, because it is part or your job, or a place you visited, or a friend with a shared interest, or a briefing you attended, information comes to you -
If you were to rattle around the CDC, present papers on toxicology in Israel and Spain, debrief military personnel coming from many different parts of the world, play chess with tired old Russians, build exciting new devices with avowed Chinese Communists who sing "Chase MacArther Across the Yaloo River", when they get drunk, share lab equiptment with mad Palestinians and Iraqis, work inside the Washington Beltway, surprise the Russian Surgeon General with computers that alternately show models of Soman docking with Acetylcholine-esterase and Bart Simpson saying "Eat My Shorts". then you tend to accumulate a eccentric body of knowledge that is sometimes as hard to document. Can you name, give the dates, and explain the circumstances of the last 6 people to say something good and the last 6 people to say something bad about John Kerry - with whom you share only a single state?

 

NO! I want to yell at my car and have it go forward. And if I get tired of yelling, I want to be able to put part of my large stockpile of sarin gas in my gas tank and have my car pwn all n00bs in sight. Make sense?

 

My questions in post#52 were:
Again, my question was never about whether degraded Sarin is dangerous. It was why don't you think it was relevant for them to ask about the military usefulness of these old canisters given what David Kay and the defense department official said. So while you touched on the first one, you never actually answered it. You didn't address the second one.

All I asked you to do was to backup what you wrote with some facts and links. A lot of BS gets posted in forums like this and if you're going to make sensational statements as you have, you should be able to support them... again, my other questions were:

1. So you claimed to have reliable sources that lead you to believe that more than just old munitions were found. If you came off as objective and non-partisan, I'd be more likely to take your word for it, but with all the BS that gets posted that would be foolish. So I asked you to back up your claims. I don't see where you answered this.

2. You cast doubt on David Kay's and the defense department official's assessment. Your lengthy posts about sarin do not contradict what David Kay or the DD official said, nor do they provide any reason to doubt what they said.

3. You said you were "briefed" on the French couple 20 years ago. As far as I can tell, you never said by whom or at least provided any context that would set this story apart from urban legends that we read about at snopes (I don't doubt that something like this happened, but unless you back it up, we don't know if your version is accurate or not).

4, 5, 6. You made a bunch of off-topic, sensational comments about people thinking this is all about political elections, the Toyko bombers, something-other-than planes hitting the Pentagon, etc. You never answered the questions about why you brought that stuff up.

- You never actually shared your 'war stories" on David Kay; instead you explained how war stories are shared with, "War stories - people talk! Kay was not a isolated man! He was not a lone figure out there". You claim to have war stories. What are those war stories?

- You never gave any reason for why you cast David Kay as overly-cautious if not cowardly. That seems like a typical political smear tactic, especially when it's not backed up with any substance.

- You never produced which of his statements made you doubt his data.

If you did actually answer any of those questions, then my apologies for missing it.

Otherwise, you brought up a lot of off-topic stuff that smells of partisan BS. I'm not saying that you're regurgitating political talking points, but frankly you've given us no reason to believe otherwise. But here's your chance... answer the questions and backup what you wrote. If you're not going to do that, then please have the courtesy of not polluting threads with your off-topic ramblings.

And with that I offer my apologies to everyone for contributing to the off-topic tangent by responding to Winfree.

 

[QUOTE=Deslock]My questions in post#52 were:

Again, my question was never about whether degraded Sarin is dangerous. It was why don't you think it was relevant for them to ask about the military usefulness of these old canisters given what David Kay and the defense department official said. [ QUOTE]


PLEASE FORGIVE THE CAPTIAL LETTERS BUT IT MAKES IT EASIER TO COMPARE MY ANSWERS TO DESLOCKS QUOTES, WHICH REMAIN IN SMALL CASE:

AS YOU KNOW, KAY PRESENTED HIS FINDINGS BEFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE NERVE AGENT AND MUSTARD. HE INDICATED THAT SINCE NONE OF THESE THINGS HAD BEEN FOUND AT THE TIME OF HIS INVESTIGATION, AND SINCE HE COULD FIND NO EVIDENCE, AT THAT TIME, OF A RETURN TO A NUCLEAR PROGRAM HE THOUGHT THAT THERE WERE NO PROBLEMS PONS, BUT HE ALSO PROVIDED NO DATA ON BIOLOGICAL ISSUES THAT I WAS TRACKING. OTHERWISE I WOULD SHARE HIS BELEIFS. HIS FINDINGS LACKED DEPTH, AND ARE NOW LESS USEFUL, BASED ON THE RECENT FINDINGS OF TOXIC CHEMICALS IN IRAQ. THE RECENT TESTIFYING GENERAL GAVE HIS RELEVENT OPINIONS IN CLOSED CLASSIFIED SENATE SESSIONS FOR SECURITY REASONS. MILITARY USEFULNESS OF OLD CANISTERS WAS DEMONSTRATED WHEN ONE WAS USED TO ATTACK AMERICAN SOLDIERS. I CAN ONLY GUESS THAT THIS IS JUST ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THE SECURITY SURROUNDING THE DISCOVERIES.

(QUOTE) A lot of BS gets posted in forums like this and if you're going to make sensational statements as you have, you should be able to support them..(QUOTE)

I HAVE SUPPORTED MY STATEMENTS THAT EVEN 'OLD' AGENTS ARE DANGEROUS WITH 6 LINKS AND 2 ABSTRACTS, AT YOUR URGING.


(QUOTE) 1. So you claimed to have reliable sources that lead you to believe that more than just old munitions were found. If you came off as objective and non-partisan, I'd be more likely to take your word for it, but with all the BS that gets posted that would be foolish. So I asked you to back up your claims. I don't see where you answered this. (QUOTE)

YES, THAT IS MY CLAIM, AND I TOLD YOU WHY I CANNOT GIVE YOU NAMES AND DATES. THE DATA THAT I COULD PROVIDE, WAS MEDICAL, HISTORICAL AND NON-PARTISAN. I HAVE DISCUSSED THE FINDINGS WITHOUT ADDING THE INPUT OF ANY POLITICAL ORGANIZATION. BUT I AM BEGINING TO DOUBT YOUR REASONS FOR REPEATING AND REPEATING THESE QUESTIONS, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE ANSWERED. ARE YOU BEING DELIBERATE IN CREATING TANGENTS?

(QUOTE) 2. You cast doubt on David Kay's and the defense department official's assessment. Your lengthy posts about sarin do not contradict what David Kay or the DD official said, nor do they provide any reason to doubt what they said. (QUOTE)

THAT IS BECAUSE KAY'S AND OTHER OFFICAL'S ASSESSMENT MUST BE REEXAMINED IN LIGHT OF THE ADMITTED DISCOVERY OF THE 'OVER 500' NERVE AGENT AND MUSTARD MUNITIONS, WHICH APPEAR TO STILL HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO DO HARM. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT STILL MORE WILL BE DISCOVERED, INSPITE OF THOSE OPTIMISTIC EARLY ASSESSMENTS.


[QUOTE] 3. You said you were "briefed" on the French couple 20 years ago. As far as I can tell, you never said by whom or at least provided any context that would set this story apart from urban legends that we read about at snopes (I don't doubt that something like this happened, but unless you back it up, we don't know if your version is accurate or not).

THE STORY OF THE FRENCH COUPLE, WHICH I BOTH READ, PERSONALLY, AND WAS BREIFED ON, IN A MEDICAL SETTING, AND WHICH I ELABORATED ON EARLIER, DID APPARENTLY OCCUR, BASED ON TISSUE SAMPLES RECEIVED. ALTHOUGH I COULD NOT FIND AN ORIGINAL POSTING, I WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE ADDRESSES BY OTHER PEOPLE WHO ALSO WERE AWARE OF THE EVENT.

THE EVENT WAS MENTIONED ONLY BECAUSE IT ILLISTRATED THE DANGERS OF OLD MUSTARD EVEN 70-80 YEARS AFTER PRODUCTION. WHEN I WAS UNABLE TO FIND FRENCH DOCUMENTATION ON THAT, I PROVIDED YOU WITH VERY RECENT DOCUMENTATION ON MEDICAL TREATMENTS FOR VERY RECENT INJURIES FROM OLD MUSTARD, WHICH IS NOW OVER 90 YEARS PAST PRODUCTION! YOUR DISCOUNTING THIS AS URBAN LEGEND SEEMS TO MAKE IT APPEAR THAT YOU YOURSELF HAVE A PARTISEN INTEREST IN MAINTAINING THE URBAN LEGEND THAT THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ, EVEN AFTER MORE THAN 500 HAVE BEEN PUBLICLY DISCLOSED.

(QUOTE) 4, 5, 6. You made a bunch of off-topic, sensational comments about people thinking this is all about political elections, the Toyko bombers, something-other-than planes hitting the Pentagon, etc. You never answered the questions about why you brought that stuff up. (QUOTE)

IT WAS BROUGHT UP BECAUSE SOMEONE, OTHER THAN MYSELF, SUGGESTED THAT THE INFORMATION ON THE MORE THAN 500 POTENTIAL WEAPONS WAS COMING TO LIGHT ONLY FOR POLITICAL REASONS.

- [QUOTE] You never actually shared your 'war stories" on David Kay; instead you explained how war stories are shared with, "War stories - people talk! Kay was not a isolated man! He was not a lone figure out there". You claim to have war stories. What are those war stories? [QUOTE]

KAY HAD GUARDS AND OTHER PEOPLE WHO WERE MAKING DISCOVERIES. NOT ALL WERE PLEASED WITH HIS EFFORTS. I HAVE NO REASON TO OFFER THEIR NAMES AS YOU ARE NOT EXACTLY TRUSTWORTHY, I PERSONALLY FELT KAYS EFFORTS ON BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS WAS SERIOUSLY LACKING, BUT I COULD UNDERSTAND THIS BECAUSE HIS SPECIALTY WAS NUKES.

-[QUOTE] You never gave any reason for why you cast David Kay as overly-cautious if not cowardly. That seems like a typical political smear tactic, especially when it's not backed up with any substance. [QUOTE]

DID HE RETURN HOME EARLY? DID HE EVER RETURN BACK TO IRAQ? DID HE OFFER HIS REPORT, AND THEN BEGIN TO MAKE POLITICAL SPEECHES CONTESTING THE WAR? REGRETABLY, HE DID NOT GIVE US THE DATA WE NEEDED TO REACH THIS SAME CONCLUSION. THIS IS NOT SMEAR, OR POLITICAL, THIS IS WHAT HE DID. COULD YOU BE TRYING A LITTLE SMEAR TACTIC WITH THESE QUESTIONS, YOURSELF???

-[QUOTE] You never produced which of his statements made you doubt his data [QUOTE].

COME NOW, YOU DON'T REALLY WANT ME TO POST KAYS COMPLETE REPORTS AND CRITICALLY REVIEW THEM - YOU JUST WANT IT TO APPEAR THAT I HAVE NOT PROPERLY PRESENTED A BASIS FOR MY OPINIONS - YOU HAVE LED ME ASTRAY ONE TOO MANY TIMES NOW, FOR ME TO BE LED OFF ON THIS TANGENT!

[QUOTE] If you did actually answer any of those questions, then my apologies for missing it.[QUOTE]

I WOULD ACCEPT YOUR APOLOGIES IF THEY WERE NOT MERELY DISGUISES FOR YOUR NEXT EFFORT IN DECEPTION AS FOLLOWS:

[QUOTE] Otherwise, you brought up a lot of off-topic stuff that smells of partisan BS. I'm not saying that you're regurgitating political talking points, but frankly you've given us no reason to believe otherwise. [QUOTE]

CUTE- - BUT I FEAR THAT IT IS YOURSELF WHO WISHES TO REGURGITATE SMELLY POLITICAL POINTS - NOT ONCE HAVE YOU OFFERED ANY INFORMATION OTHER THAN YOUR SKEPTICISM, YOUR DOUBTS, AND THE PRETENSE OF ERNEST INQUIRY.

[QUOTE] But here's your chance... answer the questions and backup what you wrote. If you're not going to do that, then please have the courtesy of not polluting threads with your off-topic ramblings. [QUOTE]

FINALLY HE MAKES THE DIRECT ATTACK THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO REFUSE TO SEE - AND THEY THEN EXCUSE THEMSELVES FOR LEADING OTHER PEOPLE ASTRAY! I HAVE ANSWERED THESE TANGENTS FAR TOO MANY TIMES!



THUS, WITH YOUR OWN WORDS, YOU EXPLAIN THAT THIS HAS BEEN A TRAP AND A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO CREATE TANGENTS INSPITE OF MY EFFORTS TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS, GET IT BACK ON TRACK, AND DISCUSS THE SUBJECT FIRST PROPOSED BY OUR TREE HUGGER -IT APPEARS YOU WERE DOING ALL OF THIS SO TO MAKE SOME SORT OF POLITICAL GAIN RATHER THAN TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF ANY REAL DATA.

I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING SO EASILY LED DOWN THE PRIMROSE PATH! I CAN ONLY HOPE THIS EXERCISE IN FUTILITY WAS NOT COMPLETELY BORING AND THE DATA MIGHT HAVE LED SOME READERS TO CONSIDER CONCLUSIONS OTHER THAN THOSE PROPOSED BY THE SKEPTICAL GENTLEMAN FROM MASS. , AND THE POLITICS OF THE DAY-

 

... and this all relates to an RX-8 hybrid ... how?

 

For the nth time, I did not urge you to support the statement that old agents can be dangerous, which - also for the nth time - was never in dispute. You still haven't answered why you think it wasn't reasonable to ask about military usefulness of these munitions.

I keep repeating the question because you still haven't backed up your claim that more than old munitions were found. How can I create a new tangent by simply quoting you and asking you to support your original statement?

Quick recap: the 500 old and abandoned munitions were found. Some politicians (such as Santarum, who called a press conference to do it) announced that WMDs have been found. David Kay and a defense department official (DDO from here on) then said that comments like Santarum's are a misrepresentation of what this discovery actually means.

There's no question that any statements about this need to be examined... but your rational for your discounting Kay's and DDO's statements *about* the discovery is that their statements must be reexamined *because* of the discovery?

Uhhh... I quoted Kay in post #52 "The ISG found them and in my testimony in 2004 I said that I expect that we would continue to find them for a very long time". To that you reply that discovering more munitions will be inspite of Kay's assessments?

which was never in dispute.

Huh? I didn't write that it was urban legend... I wrote that you never provided any context that would set this story apart from urban legends that we read about at snopes. I also wrote "I don't doubt that something like this happened, but unless you back it up, we don't know if your version is accurate or not". You even quoted that!

I asked what your "war stories" are and where you got them. If your sources were guards and/or inspectors that you knew first-hand, you could simply say that. But you still haven't shared these war stories.

You still haven't offered anything of substance to backup your casting him as overly cautious if not cowardly. I know that Kay gave interviews a couple years back that got some people uppity (though what he said seemed pretty even-handed to me). I'm not aware of Kay making any political speeches. How can you equate my asking about your statements with a smear?

I led you astray by asking you to support your statements?

No, I don't want you to post his complete reports. I was hoping you'd quote exactly what he said that gave you concerns about his data. If you want to also link to his reports, quote the sections that you doubt, and *briefly* explain why you doubt them, feel free.

Because I quoted Kay and the DDO and ask you to support your statements?

This isn't a pretense of ernest inquiry... I've limited my posts to quoting people and asking you to backup your statements (in an effort to keep this off-topic tangent from expanding).

My asking you to have the courtesy not to pollute threads with off-topic ramblings is an attack?
Wow.

 

Also, while I've been mindful not to start new tangents, this has gone on far longer than I anticipated. I thought about asking WinFree to move our discussion to PM, but since it's about what he already posted here, I figured it was appropriate to ask him to backup his statements here. Once again, I hope everyone doesn't mind the hijack

 

Only as a tangent and a bedevilment!

Again, I am still looking for answers to my questions -

(1) are there any efforts to make 8s and other rotar capable of running on cheaper grades of fuel? Even a hybrid runs on gasoline and it is the high price of gasoline (combined with environmental concerns) that gives pressure toward hybrid development.

(2) Can the U.S. grow enough replacements oils if those oils could be used as fuel? would we have to import plant oils from other countries?

 

Too bad Mazda won't develope a hybrid RX-8. I think the 8 lends itself well to hybridization. It would address some issues - namely, hp, torque and overall performance. Stalling and flooding would no longer be issues. Fuel efficiency would not be the reason to buy hybrid, rather it would provide performance gains, and a redundant powertrain in case you stall and flood your car.

As for hydrogen, it's a dead end road. There will never be enough of an infrastructure to support mass consumption of hydrogen vehicles. Whereas the electrical grid is already in place. I think a plug-in hybrid (currently being developed by several manufacturers) is the wave of the future.

Ethanol is a bunch of bunk It's a thinly veiled effort to support grain-growers. Think farm subsidy..... Also, I think growing corn is a pretty lousy way to cosume potable water (fresh water being the next commodity that will be in short supply in the future). IMHO the water cost does not justify mandating 15% ethanol content in gasoline. Even if E85 is generally made generally available, do you really think that we will lessen dependence on foreign oil?

Diesel will be dead next year. New emission standards are too tough. Again, think plug-in hybrid.

Our firm has a research piece that confirms hybrids cost between $4k-$9k more than a conventional car, but projected to be only a $2,000 differential by 2010 (think tax incentives). By 2030, we guesstimate that 85% of new vehicles sold will be hybrid. With Toyota commanding almost 60% market share, followed by Honda. This trend will leave domestic north american manufacturers vulnerable as they are a couple of generations behind in hybrid development.

The only downside to hybrid technology for the 8 would be weight. We'll probably have to wait until a new gneration of lighweight batteries is developed. But if they can make an electric sportscar (Tesla) then why not a hybrid one?

 

If Toyota (or ANY company for that matter) has 60% market share in 25 years, I will eat my hat.

 

Carification: 60% of hybrid powertrains. They currently have 77%. We see it slipping a few points.
Your hat or mine?

 

^ Good stuff. I think electric hybrids with improved batteries are probably the next big thing. I was a skeptic until I saw all the research being done to improve battery issues like memory and recharge times. The infrastructure is already there (electrical grid) and the technology to implement electrical power-assist options is already proven to some extent.

I still think hydrogen (or possibly methanol) fuel cells will be utilized at some point, but it's a long way off. The potential for fuel cells to outperform traditional batteries is just too real to be completely ignored. It may never be used for heating homes or powering cars, but has a great home in consumer electronics.

 

I just read about a new hydraulic system be developed and tested on UPS trucks. A small compressor a little bigger then a 16" softball stores and returns energy through compressed Nitrogen gas. They are projecting 40% to 50% increase in city mileage and it can adapt easily to existing drive trains. It is also very light. Sounds like a great fit for the RX.

 

When's the last time you've seen a softball that was 16"?

 

Fine. 60% of hybrid drivetrains, and you prognosticate that 85% of ALL new vehicles will be hybrids... So let's say 60% of that 85%, or 51% of the total new vehicle market.

I will STILL eat my hat if Toyota controls over 50% of the total vehicle market in 25 years.

I will also eat YOUR hat if you really think that Toyota will build 60% of the hybrid vehicle drivetrains in 25 years. They may build 77% NOW (I'll have to take your word for it), but I don't think it'll even be 50% in FIVE years, much less TWENTY-five. The other manufacturers may be behind the ball right now, but they aren't blind and see what a marketing coup the hybrid technology is. Note I didn't say an ENGINEERING coup.

Amazing that Toyota gets such good press for this hybrid thing when so many conventional vehicles are so close in "real world" mileage... Even Toyota and Honda's own products give their hybrid vehicles a run for their money... And just LOOK at the low-mileage SUV's Toyota will happily sell you. The 4wd Seqouia and 4Runner are rated at something like 13city/17hwy.

At least I know I can beat SOME vehicles in mileage.

 

I was wondering the same thing.