what if: Pearl Harbor

[RichD]

You climb into your time machine, go back to Pearl Harbor,
Dec. 2, 1941. You command a battleship, moored at
Battleship Row. What do you do?

Suppose you decide to take her out for maneuvers,
after midnight, Dec. 7. How does that play out?

There's a book here, waiting for a serious writer. Or
perhaps it's already been done -

--
Rich

[gemjack]

Reminds me of the movie The Final Countdown.
-gj

[David Dyer-Bennet]

RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> writes:

> You climb into your time machine, go back to Pearl Harbor,
> Dec. 2, 1941. You command a battleship, moored at
> Battleship Row. What do you do?
>
> Suppose you decide to take her out for maneuvers,
> after midnight, Dec. 7. How does that play out?

Do you have the authority to do that on your own? (Might be worth doing
even without, if the rest of the officers will go along.)

One argument is that, the way things played out, we won, so it's best
not to mess with it. Especially since the absence of battleships was a
key point in swinging the power to the carrier admirals, who were in
fact mostly right.

> There's a book here, waiting for a serious writer. Or
> perhaps it's already been done -

Alternately -- there's an amusing hack for trying to enlist
Lt. R.A. Heinlein (ret.) and his contacts. By 1942 he's been publishing
SF three years, and is going to have a lot of the next few years ideas
in his head. Use your knowledge of what he's going to write to convince
him you really are from the future, and then he can try to convince navy
people to prepare for the attack. (This obviously goes against the
argument that messing with the outcome might not do what you think.)

--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[Scott Lurndal]

Try the movie _Final Countdown_. USS Nimitz zips through a time
storm from 1980 to Dec 6, 1941 just outside of Pearl.

Clever time travel story with great flight sequences, particularly in blu-ray.

scott

[Anthony Buckland]

On 23/05/2013 11:49 AM, RichD wrote:
> You climb into your time machine, go back to Pearl Harbor,
> Dec. 2, 1941. You command a battleship, moored at
> Battleship Row. What do you do?
>

Assuming that's "command", not "commandeer", about the
best you can try is to convince the Admiral that you
have a premonition (fat chance) or intelligence (which
you would be commanded to produce) that an attack
will take place.

> Suppose you decide to take her out for maneuvers,
> after midnight, Dec. 7. How does that play out?

Without orders? You will be immediately arrested.
Your XO, if told in time, will assume command and
return to the ship's berth. You will witness the
attack, if at all, by dull sounds reaching the ship's
brig. If the ship gets back to port before the
attack and is the Arizona, you will doubtless die
by water or perhaps fire or physical wounds.

Your time machine, OTOH, will be of great interest
if found after the invasion fears die down. Now
_there's_ an interesting possibility.

>
> There's a book here, waiting for a serious writer. Or
> perhaps it's already been done -
>

Oh yes, oh yes, oh yes.
> --
> Rich
>

[Cryptoengineer]

On May 23, 3:49 pm, Anthony Buckland <anthonybucklandnos...@telus.net>
wrote:

WIthout orders, you *could* order extra lookouts, call battlestations,
put your anti-aircraft and fire damage control crews on alert. At
best, you might be able to report the approaching attack in time to
make some difference, and knock down some of the topedo bombers before
the released their weapons. At worst, you'd save the lives of many of
your crew

pt

[Mighty Wannabe]

On May 23, 3:49 pm, Anthony Buckland <anthonybucklandnos...@telus.net>
wrote:

The crew at Pearl Harbour were ordered to stand down the day before
the attack. If you have been paying attention, the "sneak attack" was
not a sneak attack. CIA declassified documents have proven that the US
knew the Japanese fleet were crossing the Pacific during a typhoon to
attack Pearl Harbour, and that the US also lied about not knowing the
Japanese had already declared war on the US three days before the
attack. The "Pearl Harbour" tragedy was what the politicians were
preying for to get the US sheeple riled up to declare war and join
WWII.

Around the same number of people perished during 9/11 attack. Do you
really believe the CIA was so inept that they didn't know the
"terrorists" were flight training inside the US for 10 long years to
prepare for the attack? The result of that attack was the Iraq war
that has lasted for more than 10 years and counting.

[Rod Speed]

Mighty Wannabe <mightw...@gmail.com> wrote
> Anthony Buckland <anthonybucklandnos...@telus.net> wrote

>> RichD wrote

>>> You climb into your time machine, go back to Pearl Harbor,
>>> Dec. 2, 1941. You command a battleship, moored at
>>> Battleship Row. What do you do?

>> Assuming that's "command", not "commandeer", about the
>> best you can try is to convince the Admiral that you
>> have a premonition (fat chance) or intelligence (which
>> you would be commanded to produce) that an attack
>> will take place.

>>> Suppose you decide to take her out for maneuvers,
>>> after midnight, Dec. 7. How does that play out?

>> Without orders? You will be immediately arrested.
>> Your XO, if told in time, will assume command and
>> return to the ship's berth. You will witness the
>> attack, if at all, by dull sounds reaching the ship's
>> brig. If the ship gets back to port before the
>> attack and is the Arizona, you will doubtless die
>> by water or perhaps fire or physical wounds.

>> Your time machine, OTOH, will be of great interest
>> if found after the invasion fears die down. Now
>> _there's_ an interesting possibility.

>>> There's a book here, waiting for a serious writer.
>>> Or perhaps it's already been done -

>> Oh yes, oh yes, oh yes.

> The crew at Pearl Harbour were ordered
> to stand down the day before the attack.

And had been stood down lots of times before that too.

> If you have been paying attention, the "sneak attack" was not a
> sneak attack. CIA declassified documents have proven that the US
> knew the Japanese fleet were crossing the Pacific during a typhoon

Yes.

> to attack Pearl Harbour,

No.

> and that the US also lied about not knowing the Japanese had
> already declared war on the US three days before the attack.

No.

> The "Pearl Harbour" tragedy was what the politicians were preying
> for to get the US sheeple riled up to declare war and join WWII.

Even sillier.

> Around the same number of people perished during 9/11 attack.
> Do you really believe the CIA was so inept that they didn't know
> the "terrorists" were flight training inside the US for 10 long years
> to prepare for the attack?

They weren't flight training for anything
like 10 long years to prepare for the attack.

And when so many others did get flight training in the US
and never did anything like 9/11, its hardly surprising that the
CIA didn't see it as anything to do with any terrorist activity.

It wasn't even clear that when a plane of that size was flown
into those buildings that they would implode like that either.

> The result of that attack was the Iraq war that
> has lasted for more than 10 years and counting.

And Pearl Harbor didn't.

[David Johnston]

That's fascinating. Particularly since the CIA didn't exist yet.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

I didn't realize you were a truther wingnut.

Mighty Wannabe <mightw...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:0e20ba88-f053-4350...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.c
om:

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Scott Fluhrer]

"David Johnston" <Da...@block.net> wrote in message
news:knm1qe$4os$2...@dont-email.me...

Perhaps he was referring to the Cleveland Institute of Art...

--
poncho

[Mighty Wannabe]

It doesn't matter. The CIA is in charge of all those records. The
documents were declassied according to US law. I can't remember
exactly when, but I think it was all over the news agencies in the
1980s or 1990s. You must've been living under a rock, or you were
still a little sperm wriggling inside your mom's vagina trying to find
your egg.

[David Johnston]

Well there must be someone out there who is gullible enough to beleive
that. Never lose hope.

[Kurt Busiek]

You're certain this is true, even though you can't narrow down when
this stuff was "all over the news agencies" to less than a 20-year
period.

In fact, accusations that the US knew about the attack in advance date
back all the way to the 1940s, and have been a popular conspiracy
theory ever since, with various books being written that charge that
declassified documents "prove" their particular interpretation of
things, but the most that can be concluded from these things is that
the information was there so that the US could possibly have been aware
of the attack, but that much of the information was buried in the flood
of data that was coming in and was likely not communicated to the right
people in time, back when communications were far less automated than
they are now.

A NYT review of one of the more recent books on the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/15/books/books-of-the-times-on-dec-7-did-we-know-we-knew.html

The

Straight Dope's thoughts on the matter:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1889/did-roosevelt-know-in-advance-about-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor-yet-say-nothing

The

long and the short of it: You're insisting something has been "proven"
when you don't actually know the details, just a memory that there were
charges made at some point in the past and that you think they were
true.

But your charges also don't make much sense. The CIA is not in charge
of "all those records." The National Archives, the Navy and other
organizations are in charge of most of them. There was no "crew at
Pearl Harbor" -- there were multiple crews, as well as land-based
forces, and they weren't all stood down. And not all the relevant
documents were declassified in the 80s or 90s -- some are still
classiffied today.

Since your response is to insult those who don't take your vague,
ill-referenced and poorly-phrased word for it, I doubt any of this will
have much affect on your fervent belief, but maybe it'll encourage
others to take your claims with a grain of salt.

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!

[Mighty Wannabe]

On May 23, 5:32 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mighty Wannabe <mightwann...@gmail.com> wrote

> > The "Pearl Harbour" tragedy was what the politicians were praying

> > for to get the US sheeple riled up to declare war and join WWII.
>
> Even sillier.
>

Read this and weep:
**
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/10/the-american-and-british-government-knew-down-to-the-day-of-the-coming-japanese-attack-on-pearl-harbor-and-let-it-happen-to-justify-american-entry-into-wwii.html
**

Indeed, as the following must-watch BBC documentary – with interviews
with many of the main players, including military officers and code-
breakers – shows, the American and British knew of the Japanese plan
to attack Pearl Harbor — down to the exact date of the attack — and
allowed it to happen to justify America’s entry into World War II.

Watch this and weep:
** http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7p1TOA99S88
**

> > Around the same number of people perished during 9/11 attack.
> > Do you really believe the CIA was so inept that they didn't know
> > the "terrorists" were flight training inside the US for 10 long years
> > to prepare for the attack?
>
> They weren't flight training for anything
> like 10 long years to prepare for the attack.
>
> And when so many others did get flight training in the US
> and never did anything like 9/11, its hardly surprising that the
> CIA didn't see it as anything to do with any terrorist activity.
>
> It wasn't even clear that when a plane of that size was flown
> into those buildings that they would implode like that either.
>
> > The result of that attack was the Iraq war that
> > has lasted for more than 10 years and counting.
>
> And Pearl Harbor didn't.

You are an idiot. Some of the flight schools tried to tip off the CIA
that some of the Arab students were suspicious, and that some of them
didn't seem to care about learning how to land the plane.

If the CIA didn't know about these people, how do you think the CIA
came up with all the idents of the attackers in just a few days?


9/11 was an Inside Job. Watch this and weep:
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEU61Cw7VCo **

[Mighty Wannabe]

On May 23, 6:38 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:

> http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/15/books/books-of-the-times-on-dec-7-d...

>
> The
>
> Straight Dope's thoughts on the matter:
>

> http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1889/did-roosevelt-know-in-a...

>
> The
>
> long and the short of it: You're insisting something has been "proven"
> when you don't actually know the details, just a memory that there were
> charges made at some point in the past and that you think they were
> true.
>
> But your charges also don't make much sense. The CIA is not in charge
> of "all those records." The National Archives, the Navy and other
> organizations are in charge of most of them. There was no "crew at
> Pearl Harbor" -- there were multiple crews, as well as land-based
> forces, and they weren't all stood down. And not all the relevant
> documents were declassified in the 80s or 90s -- some are still
> classiffied today.
>
> Since your response is to insult those who don't take your vague,
> ill-referenced and poorly-phrased word for it, I doubt any of this will
> have much affect on your fervent belief, but maybe it'll encourage
> others to take your claims with a grain of salt.
>
> kdb

I am not surprised that the USA is in a sorry state it is in today.
Look at your mirror and you can see a citizenry of fools who would
gladly swallow their government's lies, hook, line, and sinker.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <933e0662-6d77-427e...@fz1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

It might not make that much difference, because the USN's
aircraft carriers were all out on maneuvers and weren't damaged
-- and the Pacific war was fought mostly by aircraft launched
from carriers.

You COULD be court-martialed because you obviously had advance
knowledge of the attack.

Remember that an EM reported a unknown flight coming in toward
Pearl and his officer said Nonsense, it couldn't be.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:53:26 -0400, Scott Fluhrer
<sflu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
<news:1369345978.24687@rcdn-nntpcache-3> in
rec.martial-arts,soc.history.what-if,alt.military,rec.arts.sf.written:

Won't work: its name then was 'Cleveland School of Art'.

Brian

[Dimensional Traveler]

Its secret existence early is part of the conspiracy.

--
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with
methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate
wouldn't tolerate.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 23, 1:48 pm, Mighty Wannabe <mightwann...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The crew at Pearl Harbour were ordered to stand down the day before
> the attack.

It was, you know, a WEEKEND in PEACETIME...

> If you have been paying attention, the "sneak attack" was
> not a sneak attack.

They looked pretty surprised to me...

> CIA declassified documents have proven that the US
> knew the Japanese fleet were crossing the Pacific during a typhoon to
> attack Pearl Harbour,

No, they didn't. The US 'knew' the Japanese fleet was in port...

> and that the US also lied about not knowing the
> Japanese had already declared war on the US three days before the
> attack.

Wow, that's AMAZING, because not even the Japanese knew that...

> The "Pearl Harbour" tragedy was what the politicians were
> preying for to get the US sheeple riled up to declare war and join
> WWII.

There was no WWII to join... There was Germany messing around in
Europe, which FDR DID want the US in on, and Japan messing around in
China, which FDR did NOT want the US in on because it would distract
from Germany.

And, really, if they knew an attack was coming and wanted a war
anyway, why not alert the fleet in advace SO IT WOULDN'T BE SUNK???

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 20:25:06 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
<b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

>>> That's fascinating. Particularly since the CIA didn't exist yet.
>
>> Perhaps he was referring to the Cleveland Institute of Art...
>
>Won't work: its name then was 'Cleveland School of Art'.

Thus providing a perfect cover for their secret work for Jefferson
Davis and his successors...

[J. Clarke]

In article <ylfksj1d...@dd-b.net>, dd...@dd-b.net says...

>
> RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > You climb into your time machine, go back to Pearl Harbor,
> > Dec. 2, 1941. You command a battleship, moored at
> > Battleship Row. What do you do?
> >
> > Suppose you decide to take her out for maneuvers,
> > after midnight, Dec. 7. How does that play out?
>
> Do you have the authority to do that on your own? (Might be worth doing
> even without, if the rest of the officers will go along.)
>
> One argument is that, the way things played out, we won, so it's best
> not to mess with it. Especially since the absence of battleships was a
> key point in swinging the power to the carrier admirals, who were in
> fact mostly right.

There's also the issue of the fuel depot. The Japanese didn't attack
that. Take away one of their primary targets and they migth have gone
after the fuel depot instead. Destroy that and the US would have been
crippled far more thoroughly than by the damaging or destruction of a
few obsolete warships.

In any case, Pennsylvania took light damage and remained in service.
Maryland and Tennessee were back in service in two months. Arizona and
Oklahoma were the only US battleships involved in the attack that did
not return to service.

[J. Clarke]

In article <fe854261-f51c-4fe2-b1af-9780e75125c1
@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, pete...@gmail.com says...
>
> On May 23, 3:49ï¿œpm, Anthony Buckland <anthonybucklandnos...@telus.net>

> wrote:
> > On 23/05/2013 11:49 AM, RichD wrote:
> >
> > > You climb into your time machine, go back to Pearl Harbor,

> > > Dec. 2, 1941. ï¿œYou command a battleship, moored at
> > > Battleship Row. ï¿œWhat do you do?

> >
> > Assuming that's "command", not "commandeer", about the
> > best you can try is to convince the Admiral that you
> > have a premonition (fat chance) or intelligence (which
> > you would be commanded to produce) that an attack
> > will take place.
> >
> > > Suppose you decide to take her out for maneuvers,

> > > after midnight, Dec. 7. ï¿œHow does that play out?
> >
> > Without orders? ï¿œYou will be immediately arrested.

> > Your XO, if told in time, will assume command and

> > return to the ship's berth. ï¿œYou will witness the

> > attack, if at all, by dull sounds reaching the ship's

> > brig. ï¿œIf the ship gets back to port before the

> > attack and is the Arizona, you will doubtless die
> > by water or perhaps fire or physical wounds.
> >
> > Your time machine, OTOH, will be of great interest

> > if found after the invasion fears die down. ï¿œNow

> > _there's_ an interesting possibility.
> >
> >
> >

> > > There's a book here, waiting for a serious writer. ï¿œOr

> > > perhaps it's already been done -
> >
> > Oh yes, oh yes, oh yes.
>
> WIthout orders, you *could* order extra lookouts, call battlestations,
> put your anti-aircraft and fire damage control crews on alert.

Bring up steam on all boilers, set special sea detail, be ready to get
under way at the first fall of a bomb . . .

[J. Clarke]

In article <eac67f5f-988c-407a-990d-
d62301...@j7g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>, mightw...@gmail.com
says...

Hey, Wannabee, the reason you aren't Mighty is that you never saw a
conspiracy theory you didn't like. Overuse of "watch this pile of
bullshit and weep" doesn't help.

<plonk>

[Will in New Haven]

Neither am I, since you are a voter.

The brutal truth about intelligence work is that the information one
needs is almost always there but it is contained in a pile of other,
sometimes directly contradictory information, so it is often missed.

The brutal truth about the internet is that you won't shut up.

--
Will in New Haven

[Christian Weisgerber]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> One argument is that, the way things played out, we won, so it's best
> not to mess with it.

I seem to vaguely recall a time travel story... by S. Andrew Swann?...
where somebody killed (nuked?) Hitler and the outcome was very,
very bad.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de

[Rich Rostrom]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

> It might not make that much difference, because the USN's

> aircraft carriers were all out on maneuvers...

Not maneuvers, aircraft ferru missions.
On the morning of 12/7:

ENTERPRISE was returning to Pearl Harbor from
a mission to ferry aircraft to Wake Island.

LEXINGTON was two days out on a ferry mission
to Midway Island.

SARATOGA was in San Diego, re-embarking her
air group after refits in Seattle.

RANGER, YORKTOWN, HORNET, and WASP were all
in the Atlantic.

BTW, ENTERPRISE was due back in PH on the
evening of 12/6; but had to slow down due
to heavy weather.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com

[William Hyde]

On May 24, 12:09 pm, na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:

> David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> > One argument is that, the way things played out, we won, so it's best
> > not to mess with it.
>
> I seem to vaguely recall a time travel story... by S. Andrew Swann?...
> where somebody killed (nuked?) Hitler and the outcome was very,
> very bad.

In Steven Fry's "Making History" a well-intentioned person with access
to a handy time machine prevents Hitler from being born. It does not
turn out at all well.

William Hyde

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 06:36:28 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclark...@cox.net> wrote:

>In any case, Pennsylvania took light damage and remained in service.
>Maryland and Tennessee were back in service in two months. Arizona and
>Oklahoma were the only US battleships involved in the attack that did
>not return to service.

Well legally the Arizona is still in service (and I have seen it when
visiting Pearl Harbor) but obviously I know what you mean.

HMS Victory (Nelson's flagship) is legally still in service but it
wasn't sent on overseas duty in 1982 vs the Argentinians or to Kuwait
in 1991 either!

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 5/24/2013 1:50 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 06:36:28 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> In any case, Pennsylvania took light damage and remained in service.
>> Maryland and Tennessee were back in service in two months. Arizona and
>> Oklahoma were the only US battleships involved in the attack that did
>> not return to service.
>
> Well legally the Arizona is still in service (and I have seen it when
> visiting Pearl Harbor) but obviously I know what you mean.
>

Interesting. How do they reconcile that with it also being a registered
grave site?

[JRStern]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:49:17 -0700 (PDT), RichD
<r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>You climb into your time machine, go back to Pearl Harbor,

>Dec. 2, 1941. You command a battleship, moored at
>Battleship Row. What do you do?

>
>Suppose you decide to take her out for maneuvers,

>after midnight, Dec. 7. How does that play out?
>

>There's a book here, waiting for a serious writer. Or

>perhaps it's already been done -

One battleship couldn't stop the planes or make much counterattack.

Now, if you got there a few days earlier and could go out and
intercept the Japanese carriers and fleet, and radio in that they were
there so the whole base was prepared, well then. And if you even
survived the experience, all the better but it would seem unlikely.

Unless you believe the darker conspiracy theorists that TPTB wanted
the attack, or at least wanted not to prevent it.

J.

[Joseph Nebus]

In <4390q8hut9og045c6...@4ax.com> JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> writes:

>Now, if you got there a few days earlier and could go out and
>intercept the Japanese carriers and fleet, and radio in that they were
>there so the whole base was prepared, well then. And if you even
>survived the experience, all the better but it would seem unlikely.

>Unless you believe the darker conspiracy theorists that TPTB wanted
>the attack, or at least wanted not to prevent it.

Why is it always Pearl Harbor? Why don't time travellers ever
fiddle about with the attack on the Philippines? And are we *ever*
going to see the Eternals do something about the Japanese attack on
Kamchatka so the Soviets stand a chance against Germany? --
http://nebusresearch.wordpress.com/ Joseph Nebus
Latest: Reading the Comics, 16 May 2013 http://wp.me/p1RYhY-sf
--------------------------------------------------------+---------------------

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 5/24/13 9:06 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 5/24/2013 1:50 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 06:36:28 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In any case, Pennsylvania took light damage and remained in service.
>>> Maryland and Tennessee were back in service in two months. Arizona and
>>> Oklahoma were the only US battleships involved in the attack that did
>>> not return to service.
>>
>> Well legally the Arizona is still in service (and I have seen it when
>> visiting Pearl Harbor) but obviously I know what you mean.
>>
> Interesting. How do they reconcile that with it also being a registered
> grave site?
>
>

The world's only naval vessel crewed exclusively by zombies?


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[J. Clarke]

In article <knpbmd$hdk$1...@reader1.panix.com>, nebusj-@-rpi-.edu says...

> And are we *ever*
> going to see the Eternals do something about the Japanese attack on
> Kamchatka so the Soviets stand a chance against Germany?

?!?!?!?! In what way did the Soviets not "stand a chance against
Germany"? The main effect of the Normandy invasion was to stop the
Soviet advance before it got to the Atlantic.

[The Horny Goat]

Notwithstanding the fact that logistically the Japanese would have had
huge problems EVEN WITH NO SOVIET RESISTANCE AT ALL reaching a stop
line between 128E and 141E longitude which were the two suggested
German and Japanese 'fantasy' demarcation lines between Germany and
Japan in Siberia.

Even grabbing as much Siberian territory as Japan managed to grab in
the Russian Civil War (i.e. everything east of Lake Baikal) would have
been a major achievement facing Soviet opposition and while losing
everything east of Baikal no doubt would have hurt the Soviet cause I
don't see that being a war-winning scenario for Germany.

[Allen W. McDonnell]

"Joseph Nebus" <nebusj-@-rpi-.edu> wrote in message
news:knpbmd$hdk$1...@reader1.panix.com...

My favorite butterfly what if, what if the Panay managed to kill some of the
Japanese pilots who later attacked Pearl Harbor? If a key pilot is killed
the attack on PH might have been planned differently, and the planners might
have expected different results.

[Bill]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 19:43:09 -0700, JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid>
wrote:

>On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:49:17 -0700 (PDT), RichD
><r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>You climb into your time machine, go back to Pearl Harbor,
>>Dec. 2, 1941. You command a battleship, moored at
>>Battleship Row. What do you do?
>>
>>Suppose you decide to take her out for maneuvers,
>>after midnight, Dec. 7. How does that play out?
>>
>>There's a book here, waiting for a serious writer. Or
>>perhaps it's already been done -
>
>One battleship couldn't stop the planes or make much counterattack.
>

Probably the best move would be to find the commanding admiral one
evening in the officer's club and say:

"'The men are rusty on AA drill sir, I think we should have a fleet
wide AA drill at dawn one Sunday morning when nobody is expecting it,
keep them at it for hours and make it seem real, issue live
ammunition and everything, I'll organise it, December 7th sound OK to
you?..."

Then sit back and await promotion and medals...

[Walter Bushell]

In article <kno3br$2lkn$1...@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>,

na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
> > One argument is that, the way things played out, we won, so it's best
> > not to mess with it.
>
> I seem to vaguely recall a time travel story... by S. Andrew Swann?...
> where somebody killed (nuked?) Hitler and the outcome was very,
> very bad.

<http://joyreactor.com/post/700903>

SMBC guy returns after killing *Hartler*.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

[J. Clarke]

In article <msa1q85nm17ok4id5...@4ax.com>,
black...@gmail.com says...

Wouldn't really have made much difference. The AA armament on US
warships at the time was woefully inadequate What was needed was
fighter cover. Arrange a practice scramble and gunnery exercise for
7:30 AM Sunday and the Japanese might have ended up having a very bad
day. For that you need to get to General Short, not Admiral Kimmel.

Or, Hell, just kick short in the butt hard enough to get him to get his
B-17s out flying patrols. As a matter of pure bad luck the PBY that was
supposed to cover the sector in which the Japanese were approaching had
some kind of mechanical problem and wasn't where it was supposed to be.
If Short had been conducting his own patrols there would have been
double coverage and that wouldn't have happened.

Now, you really want to ruin the Japanese' day? Contrive to put a
radar-equipped PBY on the island. Load it and its 61 brethren with
torpedoes and use it as a pathfinder. Put 124 torpedoes into their
formation about two hours before sunrise. Go home and leave them
wondering what the Hell happened.

And yes, there were radar-equipped PBYs in existence in December, 1941,
and yes, they could successfully conduct night torpedo attacks.

[Raymond Daley]

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:ylfksj1d...@dd-b.net...

>
> Alternately -- there's an amusing hack for trying to enlist
> Lt. R.A. Heinlein (ret.) and his contacts. By 1942 he's been publishing
> SF three years, and is going to have a lot of the next few years ideas
> in his head. Use your knowledge of what he's going to write to convince
> him you really are from the future, and then he can try to convince navy
> people to prepare for the attack. (This obviously goes against the
> argument that messing with the outcome might not do what you think.)

Been done, I've read it.
The guy screws the timeline so badly by going back to meet Heinlein that the
funding for the time machine never comes about in the first place. Can't
recall the title but it's a good little short story.

[Rich Rostrom]

In article
<MPG.2c0a8cfe...@news.newsguy.com>,

"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:

> In article <msa1q85nm17ok4id5...@4ax.com>,
> black...@gmail.com says...
> >
> > On Fri, 24 May 2013 19:43:09 -0700, JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:49:17 -0700 (PDT), RichD
> > ><r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>You climb into your time machine, go back to Pearl Harbor,
> > >>Dec. 2, 1941. You command a battleship, moored at
> > >>Battleship Row. What do you do?
> > >>
> > >>Suppose you decide to take her out for maneuvers,
> > >>after midnight, Dec. 7. How does that play out?
> > >>
> > >>There's a book here, waiting for a serious writer. Or
> > >>perhaps it's already been done -
> > >
> > >One battleship couldn't stop the planes or make much counterattack.
> > >
> >
> > Probably the best move would be to find the commanding admiral one
> > evening in the officer's club and say:
> >
> > "'The men are rusty on AA drill sir, I think we should have a fleet
> > wide AA drill at dawn one Sunday morning when nobody is expecting it,
> > keep them at it for hours and make it seem real, issue live
> > ammunition and everything, I'll organise it, December 7th sound OK to
> > you?..."
> >
> > Then sit back and await promotion and medals...
>
> Wouldn't really have made much difference. The AA armament on US

> warships at the time was woefully inadequate.

Inadequate for proper defense. But sufficient to put up
a lot of opposition to the Japanese attack. The second
wave attack was much less effective and took more
losses and damage than the first wave - one reason why
Nagumo didn't send a third wave. Where the first wave
came in unopposed, the second wave encountered what
seemed to them like very heavy fire. IIRC, the torpedo
bombers, trying to make low-level runs across the
harbor, got shot up _very_ badly.

What was needed was
> fighter cover. Arrange a practice scramble and gunnery exercise for
> 7:30 AM Sunday and the Japanese might have ended up having a very bad
> day. For that you need to get to General Short, not Admiral Kimmel.

Which is hopeless. Short had no clue about air operations.
One might persuade his air deputy; but the chance of an
Army airman taking suggestions from a battleship captain
is nil.

> Or, Hell, just kick short in the butt hard enough to get him to get his
> B-17s out flying patrols. As a matter of pure bad luck the PBY that was
> supposed to cover the sector in which the Japanese were approaching had
> some kind of mechanical problem and wasn't where it was supposed to be.

AFAIK, there were no PBYs assigned to patrol N of Oahu.
Pac Fleet didn't have enough PBYs for training ops _and_
270-360 degree patrols. The patrols that _were_ sent out
were sent south and east, toward the Japanese-held
Marshall Islands, and over the area where fleet maneuvers
were being held every few days and Japanese subs might
be lurking.

> If Short had been conducting his own patrols there would have been
> double coverage and that wouldn't have happened.

If the Army planes had been used on patrol, they would
have shared duties with the Navy, not run overlapping
patrols. Probably having extra aircraft would have
allowed additional patrols to cover the northern sector.
But I don't think the Army had many B-17s at Oahu; and
I doubt if they were trained for patrol operations.
(A long over-water flight wasn't trivial then; a lot
planes just disappeared on such missions.)

> Now, you really want to ruin the Japanese' day? Contrive to put a
> radar-equipped PBY on the island.

The U.S. had no airborne surface search radar in 1941.
The British had some early forms of it, but not very
good. Effective air-to-surface radar had wait for
for the strapped cavity magnetron to be fully developed
and put in production, which wasn't achieved until 1943.

[JRStern]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:13:34 -0500, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:

>> If Short had been conducting his own patrols there would have been
>> double coverage and that wouldn't have happened.
>
>If the Army planes had been used on patrol, they would
>have shared duties with the Navy, not run overlapping
>patrols. Probably having extra aircraft would have
>allowed additional patrols to cover the northern sector.
>But I don't think the Army had many B-17s at Oahu; and
>I doubt if they were trained for patrol operations.
>(A long over-water flight wasn't trivial then; a lot
>planes just disappeared on such missions.)

Also we weren't at war. The Japanese fleet might have sailed quietly
to within five miles of shore and launched all their planes while
people watched from the beach, without the American forces firing at
them - for all we know. In fact, that's an alternate history setting
that might work for a story.

Practically it would be a mistake, of course, to be in clear sight of
the US capital ships - and any land-based artillery that was around, I
have no idea what existed. But good for a story.

J.

[David Johnston]

On 5/24/2013 10:37 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <knpbmd$hdk$1...@reader1.panix.com>, nebusj-@-rpi-.edu says...
>> And are we *ever*
>> going to see the Eternals do something about the Japanese attack on
>> Kamchatka so the Soviets stand a chance against Germany?
>
> ?!?!?!?! In what way did the Soviets not "stand a chance against
> Germany"?

He was doing the "posting from an alternate timeline" thing.

[Bill]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 09:56:31 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclark...@cox.net> wrote:

>In article <msa1q85nm17ok4id5...@4ax.com>,
>black...@gmail.com says...
>>

>>

>> Probably the best move would be to find the commanding admiral one
>> evening in the officer's club and say:
>>
>> "'The men are rusty on AA drill sir, I think we should have a fleet
>> wide AA drill at dawn one Sunday morning when nobody is expecting it,
>> keep them at it for hours and make it seem real, issue live
>> ammunition and everything, I'll organise it, December 7th sound OK to
>> you?..."
>>
>> Then sit back and await promotion and medals...
>
>Wouldn't really have made much difference.

It would have made quite a bit of difference to those first wave
torpedo bombers who did a lot of damage.

Anyway, the promotion and medals would still turn up.

[J. Clarke]

In article <9ui2q8tb37hro2820...@4ax.com>,
black...@gmail.com says...

Don't bet on it. Shipboard AA at the start of the war was notoriously
ineffective. Even the Japanese at Midway, dealing with American torpedo
bombers that were absolute crap compared to the ones the Japanese used,
were not effective. While the torpedo bombers took heavy losses they
were mostly to the air cover, not to the AA. And they did not die in
vain--they pulled the air cover down and gave the dive bombers a clear
sky to work in.

[Des]

On May 23, 10:32 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

> They weren't flight training for anything
> like 10 long years to prepare for the attack.
>
> And when so many others did get flight training in the US
> and never did anything like 9/11, its hardly surprising that the
> CIA didn't see it as anything to do with any terrorist activity.
>
> It wasn't even clear that when a plane of that size was flown
> into those buildings that they would implode like that either.
>


It was.

Originally the steelwork was to have been protected with asbestos
insulation to prevent the exact catastrophic structural failures that
happened, although it was probably intended to deal with an accidental
collision rather than a terrorist attack.

The hysteria about asbestos resulted in a lesser insulating material
being substituted. The designers protested that this would mean that
if a large airliner with a significant amount of fuel crashed into the
building, the steelwork would be heated to the point where the yield
stress would be exceeded, resulting in the house of cards collapse we
all remember.

They were ignored in the interest of Political Correctness (how many
people that work/worked in a pre-1970's high-rise suffer from
asbestoses? Zero).

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Any time after the Japanese launch their planes, it doesn't need to be
air-to-surface; air-to-air would do fine. (I don't know who had what
when in what formst, that may also not be possible; but since you
emphasize air-to-surface, I point out that there were after all targets
not on the surface.)

--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[Christian Weisgerber]

Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> "'The men are rusty on AA drill sir, I think we should have a fleet
> >> wide AA drill at dawn one Sunday morning when nobody is expecting it,
> >

> >Wouldn't really have made much difference.
>
> It would have made quite a bit of difference to those first wave
> torpedo bombers who did a lot of damage.

Torpedo nets.

[D.F. Manno]

In article
<0e20ba88-f053-4350...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

Mighty Wannabe <mightw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The crew at Pearl Harbour were ordered to stand down the day before
> the attack. If you have been paying attention, the "sneak attack" was
> not a sneak attack. CIA declassified documents have proven that the US
> knew the Japanese fleet were crossing the Pacific during a typhoon to

> attack Pearl Harbour, and that the US also lied about not knowing the
> Japanese had already declared war on the US three days before the
> attack. The "Pearl Harbour" tragedy was what the politicians were
> preying for to get the US sheeple riled up to declare war and join
> WWII.
>
> Around the same number of people perished during 9/11 attack. Do you
> really believe the CIA was so inept that they didn't know the
> "terrorists" were flight training inside the US for 10 long years to
> prepare for the attack? The result of that attack was the Iraq war
> that has lasted for more than 10 years and counting.

You must buy tin foil by the boxcar.

--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
GOP delenda est!

[J. Clarke]

In article <e0a59135-2da1-43bf-81c9-948404a9bc74
@w15g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, desmond...@gmail.com says...

>
> On May 23, 10:32 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > They weren't flight training for anything
> > like 10 long years to prepare for the attack.
> >
> > And when so many others did get flight training in the US
> > and never did anything like 9/11, its hardly surprising that the
> > CIA didn't see it as anything to do with any terrorist activity.
> >
> > It wasn't even clear that when a plane of that size was flown
> > into those buildings that they would implode like that either.
> >
>
>
> It was.

Of course you have documentation to cite that says "if struck by
commercial airliners the towers of the World Trade Center will
collapse"? I didn't think so.

> Originally the steelwork was to have been protected with asbestos
> insulation to prevent the exact catastrophic structural failures that
> happened, although it was probably intended to deal with an accidental
> collision rather than a terrorist attack.
>
> The hysteria about asbestos resulted in a lesser insulating material
> being substituted. The designers protested that this would mean that
> if a large airliner with a significant amount of fuel crashed into the
> building, the steelwork would be heated to the point where the yield
> stress would be exceeded, resulting in the house of cards collapse we
> all remember.

And of course you can show the documents in which this was stated.

[J. Clarke]

In article <knte1k$2m1s$1...@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>, na...@mips.inka.de
says...

>
> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> "'The men are rusty on AA drill sir, I think we should have a fleet
> > >> wide AA drill at dawn one Sunday morning when nobody is expecting it,
> > >
> > >Wouldn't really have made much difference.
> >
> > It would have made quite a bit of difference to those first wave
> > torpedo bombers who did a lot of damage.
>
> Torpedo nets.

Torpedo nets would have required more than a few days notice as there
was never any perceived need for them inside the harbor. It was
believed that the water was too shallow to allow the use of aerial
torpedoes, and in fact this assessment had been accurate up until a
little more than a year before. The Japanese worked very hard to
replicate the technique that the British had developed that allowed such
an attack.

[J. Clarke]

In article <ylfkfvx9...@dd-b.net>, dd...@dd-b.net says...

>
> Rich Rostrom <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> writes:
>
> > In article
> > <MPG.2c0a8cfe...@news.newsguy.com>,
> > "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Now, you really want to ruin the Japanese' day? Contrive to put a
> >> radar-equipped PBY on the island.
> >
> > The U.S. had no airborne surface search radar in 1941.

The PBY was first equipped with radar in July, 1941. I made very sure
to research that point.

> > The British had some early forms of it, but not very
> > good.

And the British radar is what was put on that PBY in July, 1941.

> > Effective air-to-surface radar had wait for
> > for the strapped cavity magnetron to be fully developed
> > and put in production, which wasn't achieved until 1943.

And yet somehow those radar-equipped PBYs racked up an enviable string
of successes. Google "black cat PBY".

> Any time after the Japanese launch their planes, it doesn't need to be
> air-to-surface; air-to-air would do fine. (I don't know who had what
> when in what formst, that may also not be possible; but since you
> emphasize air-to-surface, I point out that there were after all targets
> not on the surface.)

You missed the point, which was a pre-dawn preemptive strike on the
Japanese ships.

[J. Clarke]

In article <dfmanno-92E4C1...@news.albasani.net>,
dfm...@mail.com says...

If it took them "ten long years" to learn to crash an airliner they must
have the piloting aptitude of Inspector Clouesau.

[Rod Speed]

"Mighty Wannabe" <mightw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eac67f5f-988c-407a...@j7g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
> On May 23, 5:32 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mighty Wannabe <mightwann...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Anthony Buckland <anthonybucklandnos...@telus.net> wrote
>> >> RichD wrote

>> >>> You climb into your time machine, go back to Pearl Harbor,
>> >>> Dec. 2, 1941. You command a battleship, moored at
>> >>> Battleship Row. What do you do?

>> >> Assuming that's "command", not "commandeer", about the
>> >> best you can try is to convince the Admiral that you
>> >> have a premonition (fat chance) or intelligence (which
>> >> you would be commanded to produce) that an attack
>> >> will take place.

>> >>> Suppose you decide to take her out for maneuvers,
>> >>> after midnight, Dec. 7. How does that play out?

>> >> Without orders? You will be immediately arrested.
>> >> Your XO, if told in time, will assume command and
>> >> return to the ship's berth. You will witness the
>> >> attack, if at all, by dull sounds reaching the ship's
>> >> brig. If the ship gets back to port before the
>> >> attack and is the Arizona, you will doubtless die
>> >> by water or perhaps fire or physical wounds.
>> >> Your time machine, OTOH, will be of great interest
>> >> if found after the invasion fears die down. Now
>> >> _there's_ an interesting possibility.

>> >>> There's a book here, waiting for a serious writer.
>> >>> Or perhaps it's already been done -

>> >> Oh yes, oh yes, oh yes.

>> > The crew at Pearl Harbour were ordered
>> > to stand down the day before the attack.
>>

>> And had been stood down lots of times before that too.

>>
>> > If you have been paying attention, the "sneak attack" was not a
>> > sneak attack. CIA declassified documents have proven that the US
>> > knew the Japanese fleet were crossing the Pacific during a typhoon
>>

>> Yes.
>>
>> > to attack Pearl Harbour,
>>
>> No.

>>
>> > and that the US also lied about not knowing the Japanese had
>> > already declared war on the US three days before the attack.
>>

>> No.
>>
>> > The "Pearl Harbour" tragedy was what the politicians were praying

>> > for to get the US sheeple riled up to declare war and join WWII.
>>

>> Even sillier.
>>
>
> Read this and weep:
> **
> http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/10/the-american-and-british-government-knew-down-to-the-day-of-the-coming-japanese-attack-on-pearl-harbor-and-let-it-happen-to-justify-american-entry-into-wwii.html

Just because some fool claims something, doesn�t make it gospel.

> Indeed, as the following must-watch BBC documentary � with interviews
> with many of the main players, including military officers and code-
> breakers � shows, the American and British knew of the Japanese plan
> to attack Pearl Harbor � down to the exact date of the attack � and
> allowed it to happen to justify America�s entry into World War II.

Bullshit it does.

> Watch this and weep:
> ** http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7p1TOA99S88

Just because some fool claims something, doesn�t make it gospel.

>>> Around the same number of people perished during 9/11 attack.
>>> Do you really believe the CIA was so inept that they didn't know
>>> the "terrorists" were flight training inside the US for 10 long years
>>> to prepare for the attack?

>> They weren't flight training for anything
>> like 10 long years to prepare for the attack.

>> And when so many others did get flight training in the US
>> and never did anything like 9/11, its hardly surprising that the
>> CIA didn't see it as anything to do with any terrorist activity.

>> It wasn't even clear that when a plane of that size was flown

>> into those buildings that they would implode like that either.

>>> The result of that attack was the Iraq war that
>>> has lasted for more than 10 years and counting.

>> And Pearl Harbor didn't.

> You are an idiot.

We'll see...

> Some of the flight schools tried to tip off the CIA that some
> of the Arab students were suspicious, and that some of them
> didn't seem to care about learning how to land the plane.

That could be because they were having enough trouble
doing the simpler stuff of flying it and wanted to leave the
harder stuff like landing till later.

> If the CIA didn't know about these people, how do you think the
> CIA came up with all the idents of the attackers in just a few days?

They might have got real radical and rang around those who trained pilots.

> 9/11 was an Inside Job. Watch this and weep:
> ** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEU61Cw7VCo **

Just because some fool claims something, doesn�t make it gospel.

[Rich Rostrom]

"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:

> Torpedo nets would have required more than a few days notice as there
> was never any perceived need for them inside the harbor. It was
> believed that the water was too shallow to allow the use of aerial
> torpedoes, and in fact this assessment had been accurate up until a
> little more than a year before.

Until about two months before.

> The Japanese worked very hard to
> replicate the technique that the British had developed that allowed such
> an attack.

The British used no special techniques for
the Taranto raid. None were needed, as the
harbor was plenty deep enough for standard
air-dropped torpedos.

Pearl Harbor was not. An air-dropped torpedo
always plunged deep into the water before
returning to attack depth and leveling out.
In the shallows of Pearl Harbor, It would bury
itself in the bottom.

Therefore the Japanese had to develop a new,
completely original technique. They fitted panels
sticking out from the sides of their torpedoes, so
that when a torpedo hit the water, most of its
downward momentum would be absorbed, and the
torpedo would not plunge deep enough to strike
bottom.

This technique was entirely theirs, not a
replication of anyone else's method.

[J. Clarke]

In article <rrostrom.21stcentury-...@mx05.eternal-
september.org>, rrostrom.2...@rcn.com says...

>
> "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Torpedo nets would have required more than a few days notice as there
> > was never any perceived need for them inside the harbor. It was
> > believed that the water was too shallow to allow the use of aerial
> > torpedoes, and in fact this assessment had been accurate up until a
> > little more than a year before.
>
> Until about two months before.
>
> > The Japanese worked very hard to
> > replicate the technique that the British had developed that allowed such
> > an attack.
>
> The British used no special techniques for
> the Taranto raid. None were needed, as the
> harbor was plenty deep enough for standard
> air-dropped torpedos.

Your name would not by any chance be "Husband E. Kimmell" would it,
because that's what _he_ thought mostly because somebody in the War
Department screwed up and gave him an erroneous report of the battle,
probably the same one that you are using.

In point of fact Taranto was about the same depth as Pearl.

> Pearl Harbor was not. An air-dropped torpedo
> always plunged deep into the water before
> returning to attack depth and leveling out.
> In the shallows of Pearl Harbor, It would bury
> itself in the bottom.

Just as it would in the shallows of Taranto.

> Therefore the Japanese had to develop a new,
> completely original technique. They fitted panels
> sticking out from the sides of their torpedoes, so
> that when a torpedo hit the water, most of its
> downward momentum would be absorbed, and the
> torpedo would not plunge deep enough to strike
> bottom.

Which ify ou investigate, you will find to be pretty much what the
British had to do at Taranto.

> This technique was entirely theirs, not a
> replication of anyone else's method.

Except that of the British.

[Rod Speed]

Des <desmond...@gmail.com> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote

>> They weren't flight training for anything
>> like 10 long years to prepare for the attack.

>> And when so many others did get flight training in the US
>> and never did anything like 9/11, its hardly surprising that the
>> CIA didn't see it as anything to do with any terrorist activity.

>> It wasn't even clear that when a plane of that size was flown
>> into those buildings that they would implode like that either.

> It was.

Nope. No highrise has ever imploded so spectacularly before.

> Originally the steelwork was to have been protected with
> asbestos insulation to prevent the exact catastrophic
> structural failures that happened,

Nope, to protect them against fire.

> although it was probably intended to deal with
> an accidental collision rather than a terrorist attack.

It was just to protect against fire, not collision with planes.

> The hysteria about asbestos resulted in a lesser insulating material
> being substituted. The designers protested that this would mean
> that if a large airliner with a significant amount of fuel crashed
> into the building, the steelwork would be heated to the point
> where the yield stress would be exceeded, resulting in the
> house of cards collapse we all remember.

Bullshit. That was never predicted.

> They were ignored in the interest of Political Correctness (how many
> people
> that work/worked in a pre-1970's high-rise suffer from asbestoses? Zero).

It wasn't those working there that was the problem with asbestos.

[Rod Speed]

"JRStern" <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in message
news:dnp1q8t2chgn6u3cr...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:13:34 -0500, Rich Rostrom
> <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>>> If Short had been conducting his own patrols there would have been
>>> double coverage and that wouldn't have happened.
>>
>>If the Army planes had been used on patrol, they would
>>have shared duties with the Navy, not run overlapping
>>patrols. Probably having extra aircraft would have
>>allowed additional patrols to cover the northern sector.
>>But I don't think the Army had many B-17s at Oahu; and
>>I doubt if they were trained for patrol operations.
>>(A long over-water flight wasn't trivial then; a lot
>>planes just disappeared on such missions.)

> Also we weren't at war. The Japanese fleet might have sailed quietly
> to within five miles of shore and launched all their planes while
> people watched from the beach, without the American forces firing at
> them - for all we know.

Unlikely when an entire carrier battle group shows up within
5 miles of shore unexpectedly and didn't say they were coming.

> In fact, that's an alternate history setting that might work for a story.

No.

> Practically it would be a mistake, of course, to be in clear sight
> of the US capital ships - and any land-based artillery that was
> around, I have no idea what existed. But good for a story.

Not for anyone that knows anything about how things were done at that time.

There was a reason all those naval vessels were in Pearl Harbor at the time.

[Rod Speed]

"Allen W. McDonnell" <Tan...@peakoil.com> wrote in message
news:knq906$i20$1...@dont-email.me...

It'd be better to have Yamamoto shag himself to death in a US brothel before
the war.

[Wayne Throop]

:: although it was probably intended to deal with an accidental

:: collision rather than a terrorist attack.

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: It was just to protect against fire, not collision with planes.

The immediate cause of the structural failure *was* fire,
not the collision as such.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <dnp1q8t2chgn6u3cr...@4ax.com>,

JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:

> Also we weren't at war. The Japanese fleet might have sailed quietly
> to within five miles of shore and launched all their planes while
> people watched from the beach, without the American forces firing at
> them - for all we know. In fact, that's an alternate history setting
> that might work for a story.

Doubt it. There was no other reason for them to be there and there was
significant tension between the Empire of Japan and the USA. I think a
prophylactic launch of aircraft would have been done at least. You
don't run unannounced maneuvers far from you country and near another
country much less one with whom you are having peace talks with
without a reaction.

>
> Practically it would be a mistake, of course, to be in clear sight of
> the US capital ships - and any land-based artillery that was around, I
> have no idea what existed. But good for a story.
>
> J.

[Rich Rostrom]

In article
<MPG.2c0c84d1a...@news.newsguy.com>,

"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:

> In article <rrostrom.21stcentury-...@mx05.eternal-
> september.org>, rrostrom.2...@rcn.com says...
> >
> > "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Torpedo nets would have required more than a few days notice as there
> > > was never any perceived need for them inside the harbor. It was
> > > believed that the water was too shallow to allow the use of aerial
> > > torpedoes, and in fact this assessment had been accurate up until a
> > > little more than a year before.
> >
> > Until about two months before.

We're both wrong.

"The Myths of Pearl Harbor" http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/myths/

which is pretty much the official authority on this subject
says this is a myth. The site quotes a document

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/myths/taranto.html

issued by the CNO in June 1941 explicitly denying this:
"no minimum depth of water in which naval vessels may be
anchored can arbitrarily be assumed as providing safety
from torpedo-plane attack..."

The CNO did say that

"an attack launched in relatively deep water (10 fathoms
or more) is much more likely..."

Also, of course, the Japanese did not believe it was
possible until they got their shallow-depth technique
working, which was in September or October 1941.

> > > The Japanese worked very hard to replicate the
> > > technique that the British had developed that
> > > allowed such an attack.
> >
> > The British used no special techniques for
> > the Taranto raid. None were needed, as the
> > harbor was plenty deep enough for standard
> > air-dropped torpedos.

We're both wrong - the British did develop a special
technique for aerial torpedo attacks in shallow
water that was used at Taranto.

However, their method was to attach a wire cable to
the nose of the torpedo. The cable paid out from a
tensioned reel on the airplane, and held the torpedo
in a nose-up attitude, which prevented it from deep
diving.

The Japanese did _not_ "replicate" this technique.

> > Therefore the Japanese had to develop a new,
> > completely original technique. They fitted panels
> > sticking out from the sides of their torpedoes, so
> > that when a torpedo hit the water, most of its
> > downward momentum would be absorbed, and the
> > torpedo would not plunge deep enough to strike
> > bottom.

> > This technique was entirely theirs, not a
> > replication of anyone else's method.
>
> Except that of the British.

Wrong. The British never developed any technique
like this. One author mistakenly claimed this, but
in _The Attack on Taranto: Blueprint for Pearl Harbor_,
Lowry and Wellham dismiss this, and explain the
actual British technique.

The breakaway wooden fins used by the Japanese were
original to them.

[J. Clarke]

Now you are making pedantic distinctions that would cause any
neurotypical person to tune you out.

[JRStern]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:33:34 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:

>In article <dnp1q8t2chgn6u3cr...@4ax.com>,
> JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Also we weren't at war. The Japanese fleet might have sailed quietly
>> to within five miles of shore and launched all their planes while
>> people watched from the beach, without the American forces firing at
>> them - for all we know. In fact, that's an alternate history setting
>> that might work for a story.
>
>Doubt it. There was no other reason for them to be there and there was
>significant tension between the Empire of Japan and the USA. I think a
>prophylactic launch of aircraft would have been done at least. You
>don't run unannounced maneuvers far from you country and near another
>country much less one with whom you are having peace talks with
>without a reaction.

One would hope.

On the other hand, finding a peacenik general trying to conserve his
forces and not be personally responsible for "starting a war" is
hardly stretching things beyond believability. Or drunk, missing,
sick, or bribed. Or heck, all of the above!

J.

[Rod Speed]

"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:13696...@sheol.org...

Sure, but in the quoting you mindlessly deleted,
he claimed that the reason they objected to not
using asbestos was because not using it would
put those two buildings at risk of a plane crashing
into them. In fact it just risks a problem in case of fire.

[Wayne Throop]

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: Sure, but in the quoting you mindlessly deleted, he claimed that the

: reason they objected to not using asbestos was because not using it
: would put those two buildings at risk of a plane crashing into them.
: In fact it just risks a problem in case of fire.

What he said was "if a large airliner with a significant amount of fuel
crashed into the building". So yeah, he was obviously talking about
the physical, mechanical damage all that fuel would cause, not worried
about fire at all.

[Rod Speed]

"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:13696...@sheol.org...

But those who objected to the removal of the asbestos were not
talking about any planes at all, JUST about fire in those buildings.

[Wayne Throop]

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: But those who objected to the removal of the asbestos were not talking

: about any planes at all, JUST about fire in those buildings.

So, just because they discussed fire-onaccounta-jet-fuel rather
than fire in particular, largely because the fuel loads were starting
to get much larger, somehow they weren't talking about fire?

Riiiight. Pull the other one.

[Rod Speed]

"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:13696...@sheol.org...

> : "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
> : But those who objected to the removal of the asbestos were not talking
> : about any planes at all, JUST about fire in those buildings.

> So, just because they discussed fire-onaccounta-jet-fuel

They never did.

[Chris]

> **http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/10/the-american-and-british-gover...
> **
>
> Indeed, as the following must-watch BBC documentary – with interviews

> with many of the main players, including military officers and code-

> breakers – shows, the American and British knew of the Japanese plan
> to attack Pearl Harbor — down to the exact date of the attack — and
> allowed it to happen to justify America’s entry into World War II.

>
> Watch this and weep:
> **  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7p1TOA99S88

> **

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Around the same number of people perished during 9/11 attack.
> > > Do you really believe the CIA was so inept that they didn't know

> > > the "terrorists" were flight training inside the US for 10 long years
> > > to prepare for the attack?

>
> > They weren't flight training for anything
> > like 10 long years to prepare for the attack.
>
> > And when so many others did get flight training in the US
> > and never did anything like 9/11, its hardly surprising that the
> > CIA didn't see it as anything to do with any terrorist activity.
>
> > It wasn't even clear that when a plane of that size was flown
> > into those buildings that they would implode like that either.
>

> > > The result of that attack was the Iraq war that
> > > has lasted for more than 10 years and counting.
>
> > And Pearl Harbor didn't.
>

> You are an idiot. Some of the flight schools tried to tip off the CIA

> that some of the Arab students were suspicious, and that some of them
> didn't seem to care about learning how to land the plane.
>

> If the CIA didn't know about these people, how do you think the CIA
> came up with all the idents of the attackers in just a few days?
>

> 9/11 was an Inside Job. Watch this and weep:
> **  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEU61Cw7VCo **

Oh. My. A real honest-to-gosh truther.

I was hoping they were extinct.

Chris

[Chris]

Unbelievable. Talk about survivor bias.

You idiot, the people who worked in older, asbestos-laden buildings
are all dead- as a direct result of working in the presence of
asbestos without protective gear.

Chris

(Sorry for tossing the lamb off the bridge so the troll can feed...)

[Wayne Throop]

:: So, just because they discussed fire-onaccounta-jet-fuel
:: [.. the speedy one snips in fear ..]

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: They never did.

Apparently, to the speedy one, "never" means "there's a message where
"they" did". Even if the speedy one meant engineers didn't consider
it, the assertion that engineers *did* so was mentioned, so a "nope"
doesn't cut it as persuasion. Here:

Message-ID:
<e0a59135-2da1-43bf...@w15g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>

The hysteria about asbestos resulted in a lesser insulating material
being substituted. The designers protested that this would mean
that if a large airliner with a significant amount of fuel crashed
into the building, the steelwork would be heated to the point where
the yield stress would be exceeded

See the bit there about "heated to the point"?
That's talking about fire. Yes, I know, it's an incredibly difficult
implication for some folks to work through, but that's what they were
talking about. You can tell (or rather, anybody sensible can tell)
because they were talking about "fuel" and "heat" together.

That there paragraph is talking about structural failures
due to heat of a fire.

[Rod Speed]

"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message

news:13697...@sheol.org...

> :: So, just because they discussed fire-onaccounta-jet-fuel
> :: [.. the speedy one snips in fear ..]
>
> : "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
> : They never did.
>

> Message-ID:
> <e0a59135-2da1-43bf...@w15g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
> The hysteria about asbestos resulted in a lesser insulating material
> being substituted. The designers protested that this would mean
> that if a large airliner with a significant amount of fuel crashed
> into the building, the steelwork would be heated to the point where
> the yield stress would be exceeded

Just because some fool claims something, doesn�t make it gospel, fuckwit.

They never did have anything to say about a large airliner, fuckwit.

[Wayne Throop]

:: 9/11 was an Inside Job. Watch this and weep:
:: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEU61Cw7VCo

: Chris <chris.li...@gmail.com>
: Oh. My. A real honest-to-gosh truther.

: I was hoping they were extinct.

Mimetic diseases like this, much like prions and some resistant viruses,
are almost impossible to wipe out entirely. Especially since hosting
a meme complex is so much easier than thinking.

[Wayne Throop]

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: Just because some fool claims something, doesn t make it gospel,

For a good example, people who say "Nope" and "They never did" and such
without any supporting evidence.

[Rod Speed]

"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:13697...@sheol.org...

YOU were the terminal fuckwit that was stupid enough to claim that they ever
did.

YOU get to provide the evidence that they ever did.

THAT’S how it works, fuckwit.

[Wayne Throop]

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: YOU were the terminal fuckwit that was stupid enough to claim that
: they ever did.

No, that would be the guy I referenced. The other poster,
you remember him? Do try to keep things a little straighter,
perhaps you won't foam at the mouth quite so often.
Wouldn't that be fun?

[david.sh...@ymail.com]

On May 27, 8:22 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> :: So, just because they discussed fire-onaccounta-jet-fuel
> :: [.. the speedy one snips in fear ..]
>

> : "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com>

> : They never did.
>
> Apparently, to the speedy one, "never" means "there's a message where
> "they" did".  Even if the speedy one meant engineers didn't consider
> it, the assertion that engineers *did* so was mentioned, so a "nope"
> doesn't cut it as persuasion.  Here:
>
>     Message-ID:

>     <e0a59135-2da1-43bf-81c9-948404a9b...@w15g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>

>     The hysteria about asbestos resulted in a lesser insulating material
>     being substituted.  The designers protested that this would mean
>     that if a large airliner with a significant amount of fuel crashed
>     into the building, the steelwork would be heated to the point where
>     the yield stress would be exceeded
>
> See the bit there about "heated to the point"?
> That's talking about fire.  Yes, I know, it's an incredibly difficult
> implication for some folks to work through, but that's what they were
> talking about.  You can tell (or rather, anybody sensible can tell)
> because they were talking about "fuel" and "heat" together.
>
> That there paragraph is talking about structural failures
> due to heat of a fire.

I think this is the rare case where Speed is in the right.

The conversion condenses into:

Des: Designers protested about risk of airplane collision causing a
fire.

Speed: Nope.

Somebody: But they were worried about fires

Speed: But not about fires-caused-by-airplane-collisions. They didn't
mention airplanes.

Throop: But look up above, Des says they did.

Speed isn't giving evidence either, but it just doesn't work
to say "What Des says is right, because,..., ..., because Des says
it."

[Paul F Austin]

On 5/27/2013 8:08 PM, Chris wrote:
.
>
> You idiot, the people who worked in older, asbestos-laden buildings
> are all dead- as a direct result of working in the presence of
> asbestos without protective gear.

All dead? Hardly. Asbestosis is a serious health hazard but it's a
health hazard that takes a long time (about 30 years) to manifest as
disease. Death rates have risen from less than a hundred per year until
the end of the 1970s to about 3000 per year now. The group most affected
is (not unexpectedly), of men over 65 years of age.

It's difficult to put asbestosis death rates in the same frame as other
causes of death because the death rate is so small. Heart disease kills
600,000 per year and counting down the CDC's top ten, flu and pneumonia
kills 50,000 and suicide carries off 38,000.

So it's hugely unlikely that "people who worked in older, asbestos-laden

buildings are all dead- as a direct result of working in the presence of

asbestos" or anything like "all".

Paul

[Wayne Throop]

: david.sh...@ymail.com
: Speed isn't giving evidence either, but it just doesn't work to say

: "What Des says is right, because,..., ..., because Des says it."

I'm not saying Des is right. I'm simply pointing out that Des' claims
aren't about the prompt mechanical damage of the airliners.

As to whether jet fuel fires were considered, that's easy:
a quick google finds

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out
studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare
if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that
the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.
Evidence of these studies includes interviews with and papers and
press releases issued by engineers who designed and oversaw
construction of the World Trade Center.
[...]
For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries
about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit
it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that
engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts,
but also of ensuing fires.

Of course, that leaves Des in a pickle, since he said it was known
(or at least feared) fire would cause the collapse, and there's no
particular evidence of that... however, there's plenty of evidence that
fire was considered. And it seems plausible that "fire was considered"
in terms of the design sans materials substitutions.

In any event. They were concerned about fire. One of the methods
by which fire could occur is airliner collision. So the notion that
"they were talking about fire, but not airliner collsisions", per:

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b0hvgp...@mid.individual.net>

But those who objected to the removal of the asbestos were not
talking about any planes at all, JUST about fire in those buildings.

doesn't hold water. IMO. YMMV of course. Speedy's definitely does.
But it seems simple enough: they were concerned with fire in those
buildings. One of the many methods by which a fire can start in those
buildings is by a crashing jetliner spilling and igniting its fuel.
There's fairly clear evidence that fires with that specific cause
were considered by the structural engineers. So... if they were
concerned with fire as such, then at lest part of their concern is
for jet fuel. Straightforward ven diagram stuff, really.

But then also there's the issue of whether asbestos would have done much
good, anti-collapse-wise. Asbestos couldn't *prevent* the collapse,
it could only *delay* it, possibly better than alternative materials.
I mean, if the outside temperatures remain high, eventually heat'll seep
through any coating; so the question becomes, would it have delayed
things *enough* to *prevent* collapse as the fuel runs out and things'
start cooling off. Not at all clear; I don't google specific studies
of the differential properties of flameproof coatings on that point.

Basically, near as I can tell, the position that the substitute insulation
was widely known ahead of time to be a significant collapse hazard
is ill-supported. But it's an extreme exageration to say that "those

who objected to the removal of the asbestos were not talking about any

planes at all". Seems clear they *were*, in part, takling aobut fires
from aircraft collisions.

[Rod Speed]

Some terminal fuckwit claiming to be
Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote
just the puerile shit it always ends up with when
it gets done like a fucking dinner, as it ALWAYS is.

[Rod Speed]

"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message

news:13697...@sheol.org...

They weren't talking about aircraft WITH THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER NOT USING ASBESTOS INCREASED THE RISK, fuckwit.

[Rich Rostrom]

"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:

> > The breakaway wooden fins used by the Japanese were
> > original to them.
>
> Now you are making pedantic distinctions that would cause any
> neurotypical person to tune you out.

I guess when anyone points out that you are
wrong, you tune them out.

[J. Clarke]

In article <rrostrom.21stcentury-...@mx05.eternal-
september.org>, rrostrom.2...@rcn.com says...
>

> "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > The breakaway wooden fins used by the Japanese were
> > > original to them.
> >
> > Now you are making pedantic distinctions that would cause any
> > neurotypical person to tune you out.
>
> I guess when anyone points out that you are
> wrong, you tune them out.

I am only "wrong" in the sense that the Japanese in attempting to
replicate the British solution came up with a different modification.
If you are so determined to be "right" that that makes you feel like a
big man or something then be my guest.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 02:29:50 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclark...@cox.net> wrote in
<news:MPG.2c0f6a69a...@news.newsguy.com> in
rec.martial-arts,soc.history.what-if,alt.military,rec.arts.sf.written:

The techniques are clearly different. He’s right. You’re
wrong. Again.

[J. Clarke]

In article <tmw165j2hbdm.3niw3r5znwkf$.d...@40tude.net>,
b.s...@csuohio.edu says...

> The techniques are clearly different. He?s right. You?re
> wrong. Again.

And we have another pedant who focuses on minute differences and misses
the big picture.

[Greg Goss]

4thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:

>:: although it was probably intended to deal with an accidental

>:: collision rather than a terrorist attack.
>

>: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
>: It was just to protect against fire, not collision with planes.
>
>The immediate cause of the structural failure *was* fire,
>not the collision as such.

The big deal is that a high-rise wouldn't normally have enough fuel to
bring down the building, unless you delivered a large planeload
(buildings 1 and 2), or unless the mayor exempted a huge generator
tankload from routine regulations for bizarre reasons (building 7).
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Greg Goss]

thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:


> For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries
> about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit
> it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that
> engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts,
> but also of ensuing fires.

...

>In any event. They were concerned about fire. One of the methods
>by which fire could occur is airliner collision. So the notion that
>"they were talking about fire, but not airliner collsisions", per:

...

>doesn't hold water. IMO. YMMV of course. Speedy's definitely does.
>But it seems simple enough: they were concerned with fire in those
>buildings. One of the many methods by which a fire can start in those
>buildings is by a crashing jetliner spilling and igniting its fuel.
>There's fairly clear evidence that fires with that specific cause
>were considered by the structural engineers. So... if they were
>concerned with fire as such, then at lest part of their concern is
>for jet fuel. Straightforward ven diagram stuff, really.

Lots of the documentaries also point out that designs for a 707's fuel
load to arrive and ignite were way off from the amount of fuel that
would arrive with a 757 or 767.

[Mark Zenier]

I have a tinfoil on tinfoil theory that the Truthers were supported or
created as a black operation by the Bush/Cheney machine* to discredit
the activists pointing out the real possibility of an deliberate effort
to ignore intelligence reports in an effort to allow/create an event
that enables military action. "Hit the Trifecta". The use of such an
event was predicted in one of the Project for a New American Century
documents that predated the 2000 presidential race.

(* machine = the administration, the party, and the various think tanks,
lobbyists, fund raisers and "campaign" consultants and PR/influence
firms, nongovernmental intelligence and foreign covert action agencies**,
and a TV network or two).

(** Check out what happened in Haiti and who got to be president, there).

Mark Zenier mze...@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

[David O'Daniel]

I'd so lover to get into this discussion but never have the time to read
through all the posts in the thread.

WHat if someone came from the futre & told us that future ppl would all
head out to colonize distante potential Earth-like planets in other
starsystems but needed larger populations to save humanity from
extinction? Future guy sent back to want against birth control &
abortions.

What if they came back to warn to not let Iran go nuclear & gave details
of when & how? Would any government act on it?

What if a future martial artist came back to study the deadliest martial
art ever, which as we ll know, is ballet hahaha. But if we could dream
to go back 50-100 500, etc years to our favorite master or event, what
if future guy came back to see not the assumed best masters & styles but
some bscure styles & ppl? What obscure now but mayve world famous in
history later, martial art or maser might they want to visit & train
with?


Bo
My, not fully informed, 2 center. ;-)

[William December Starr]

In article <MPG.2c0f6a69a...@news.newsguy.com>,

"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> said:

> rrostrom.2...@rcn.com says...
>> "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:

>>> [rrostrom.2...@rcn.com says...]

>>>
>>>> The breakaway wooden fins used by the Japanese were original to
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> Now you are making pedantic distinctions that would cause any
>>> neurotypical person to tune you out.
>>
>> I guess when anyone points out that you are
>> wrong, you tune them out.
>
> I am only "wrong" in the sense that the Japanese in attempting
> to replicate the British solution came up with a different
> modification.

Looks like an entirely different solution to me. But maybe I'm not
neurotypical.

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <MPG.2c0fcade3...@news.newsguy.com>,
"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> said:

> b.s...@csuohio.edu says...
>> "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote
>>

>>> I am only "wrong" in the sense that the Japanese in
>>> attempting to replicate the British solution came up with
>>> a different modification. If you are so determined to be
>>> "right" that that makes you feel like a big man or
>>> something then be my guest.
>>

>> The techniques are clearly different. He's right. You're

>> wrong. Again.
>
> And we have another pedant who focuses on minute differences
> and misses the big picture.

The techniques are clearly different. He's right. You're wrong.

-- wds

[J. Clarke]

In article <kpgfgl$elt$1...@panix2.panix.com>, wds...@panix.com says...

<pats wdstarr on head>
What a clever little boy you are.

[William December Starr]

In article <MPG.2c25a8a5e...@news.newsguy.com>,
"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> said:

> wds...@panix.com says...

>> "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> said:
>>> b.s...@csuohio.edu says...
>>>> "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> I am only "wrong" in the sense that the Japanese in
>>>>> attempting to replicate the British solution came up with
>>>>> a different modification. If you are so determined to be
>>>>> "right" that that makes you feel like a big man or
>>>>> something then be my guest.
>>>>
>>>> The techniques are clearly different. He's right. You're
>>>> wrong. Again.
>>>
>>> And we have another pedant who focuses on minute differences
>>> and misses the big picture.
>>
>> The techniques are clearly different. He's right. You're wrong.
>
> <pats wdstarr on head>
> What a clever little boy you are.

And still, he's right and you're wrong.

-- wds

[Wayne Throop]

::::: "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net>
::::: I am only "wrong" in the sense that the Japanese in attempting to

::::: replicate the British solution came up with a different
::::: modification.

If they came up with a completely different solution, why should anybody
conclude they were trying to "replicate the British solution"?
Is there any evidence that their attempt was to replicate an
already known solution, rather than having a completely independent
development, or alternatively, only trying to replicate the outcome?

[J. Clarke]

In article <13712...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org says...

You people have something wrong with you. You know that, don't you?

[Wayne Throop]

:: If they came up with a completely different solution, why should

:: anybody conclude they were trying to "replicate the British
:: solution"? Is there any evidence that their attempt was to replicate
:: an already known solution, rather than having a completely
:: independent development, or alternatively, only trying to replicate
:: the outcome?

: "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net>
: You people have something wrong with you. You know that, don't you?

So that would be a "no", then.
Thx for clearing that up.

[Allen W. McDonnell]

"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message

news:13712...@sheol.org...

Personally IMO they were trying to replicate the results without knowing
what the UK solution was, so they independently created a second solution
that also worked.

[J. Clarke]

In article <kpibv3$til$1...@dont-email.me>, Tan...@peakoil.com says...

Bingo.

[Wayne Throop]

:: Personally IMO they were trying to replicate the results without

:: knowing what the UK solution was, so they independently created a
:: second solution that also worked.

: "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net>
: Bingo.

I see. So that guy upthread, who claimed they were trying to
replicate the solution, he was all wet, and completely wrong, yes?
I mean, "wrong" in the sense of "to be wrong".