On 24 Feb 2005 12:59:16 -0800, wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:
On 23 Feb 2005 10:02:39 -0800,
wrote:

That situation has. It is a good thing he did not have WMD since
if he did there is a good chance they would now be in the hands
of fundamentalist Islamic paramilitary groups.

Amazing. Yes, that is a real danger, Fred. How do you propose to
know that this isn't exactly one of the places he got rid of them
to?

What exactly is your antecedent for 'this'?

"them" if you prefer. The destination known as a fundamental islamic
paramilitary group. Grammar games now, Fred?

That is precisely why IF Saddam Hussein had WMD it was better
not to distablilize Iraq. After all, Saddam Hussein was
not an Islamic extremist, but during a war, he could lose
control of those WMD and they could wind up in the hans of
Islamic extremists.

SH isn't an extremist. Right. Gotcha.

As I wrote: Saddam Hussein is not an Islamic extremist. Saddam
Hussein's government was one of the most secular in the Arab
world. Consider, for example, the numerous distilleries making
alcoholic beverages. I presume your omission of 'Islamic'
in your dishonest paraphrasal, was deliberate deception.

No, it's a matter of "extremist" being the operative word, and "Islamic"
being a modifier that doesn't change the fact that he's the sort of person
who is (wups, "was") likely to be a problem. Although, your assumption
that word-games intending deception are everywhere, tells me a lot about
how you think.


Well, _you_ would use those, maybe. Maybe their scientists know
more
about the problems than, say, you.

Shortly after these were found the scientist who designed the
trailers was interviewd. If you were interested in knowing
about these issues instead of spouting nonsense you'd find
some other sources fo your own and read up it. It is your
country that is at stake here, don't you think that is
worth a little bit of effort on your part?

You can find captured Iraqis to tell you any point of view you want,
Fred.

Oh, a variation of "You can find somebody who'll say anything
argument." Quite true. That is why a person must understand the
issues at hand in order to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

Indeed.


You'd have to be nuts to build a huge gas compression and
storage
system for a small fermenter like that. OTOH if you were using
NaOH reacting with Aluminum to make Hydrogen you'd need a system
just like that. Wanna bet the cylinders are nickel plated on the
inside?

Hard to say/care, Fred, isn't it. Why don't you go ask to see
them?

I'm sure they won't let me.

Well then, get used to not knowing what you're talking about then.

I do know about collecting and storing hydrogen. Hence the question.

Why would they hide hydrogen generating trailers, Fred?

So, you posted the link saying "Look, even the CIA backs up my
statement",

Now you're lying. I did not say that. Why is it that you
never check back to see what I did say?

OK, Fred, I'll play: "Why _did_ you post that link that says what
you're not saying, then?"

I posted it so that a person knowledgible about the issues could
see that the trailer was not for fermentation. In addition
to the other issues I raised, where is the equipment for
safely handling the deadly materials one would recover from
reaction vessel if it WERE a fermenter?

Um, "not in the trailer" maybe?

hydrogen than would be needed. IOW, the CIA claims that the
gas collection system is much larger than needed for a hydrogen
generator.

More of a "this wouldn't be a logical way to make hydrogen", but
sure, whatever.

Is 'sure whatever' what you say instead of adressing an issue?

No, it's my way of saying I disagree with your assumption.


If ao, is it not obvious that it is way, way
oversized for collecting fermentation gasses?

I guess it depends on what you're making and how much of it you
plan to have, doesn't it.

For any particular sized reaction vessel the Al and NaOH reaction,
with proper agitation, will produce gas at a rate orders of magnitude
greater than fgementation in the same sized vessel. That is
obvious to anyone who has done both.

Why would they hide hydrogen generating trailers, Fred?


Don't trust me. Check it out for yourself. Did you notice
that the CIA webpages omitted the part about urea?

No.

So, tell me. If these are to make something benign like hydrogen,
then
why oh why would they have been mothballed and hidden? Is hydrogen
suddenly a banned substance?

As opposed to what exactly, parking them in the open with a big
sign on top that said "NOT BANNED. DO NOT BOMB!"????

If they're doing the "unprecedented cooperation" thing, wouldn't
it be the sort of thing they'd, you know, disclose?

In the Fall of 2002 the Bush administration told us that Iraq
had chemical and biological weapons and an active nuclear weapons
program and demanded UN inspections. Iraq complied and during the
Winter of 2002-2003 UN inspectors had free reign to search Iraq.

Yes. As did the Clinton administration. Do you need the quotes
posted (again)?

They found no evidence of active WMD programs and the IAEA certified
^^^^^^

The Bush adminstration then claimed that WMD activity had been
moved to other sites. UNMOVIC inspected those other sites,
sometimes within hours of receiving the US intel. IN all
cases the Bush Administration's accusations were proven false.

Interesting wording. Says it all, really.