Guns and E-meters
Zinjifar
I'm a little surprised actually, while almost all other cults from Koresh to
Hare Krishna have been found to collect guns, I have never heard of Scientology
having an armory.
Despite Hubbards claims to explorerdom and military history; despite his cowboy
novels, I don't see any attraction by Hubbard for guns.
Nor any collection by the org as a whole.
Did shooting a mexican island put a horror of firearms into Hubbard's soul?
Especially if one is planning to clear a planet, and 'jokes' about R2-45, isn't
the lack of an armory strange?
Am I the only person who thinks that there is a cache of weapons at gold that
would be sufficient to arm guatamala?
Zinj
Keith Henson
Zinjifar (zinj...@inreach.com) wrote:
: I'm a little surprised actually, while almost all other cults from Koresh to
: having an armory.
You missed the Tabayoyon declaration which went by recently.
29. Church monies were used to purchase semi-automatic assault
rifles (HK 91 assault rifles capable of firing 300-350 rounds of
ammunition a minute, 45 caliber pistols, .380 automatic weapons and
twelve gauge shotguns were stockpiled. These weapons were not
registered. Church monies were also used to buy the ammunition.
30. Church monies were also used to purchase a large amount of
pounds of gunpowder for the construction of various types of explosiv
devices to be used in the defense of the base.
31. The motorcycle guards were trained to carry loaded cocked 45
caliber pistols. The eagle scout, mounted high above the base, was
trained to carry a high powered rifle with a telescopic scope. There is
also a 1,000 millimeter telescope up with 'eagle'.
32. I developed three classifications of intruder and established
the level of deadly force to use for each. In addition to firearms, the
guards were taught how to effectively wield little batons. The basic
things like striking to the center of the heart, the center of the solar
plex and then to the side of the head, etc.
33. At church expense, I trained the security guards and other
base personnel in the use of these weapons and explosives. I also
trained them in the close quarter use of fatal force. We built a combat
range for training purposes and I instructed Scientologists on various
ways of shooting people. I also trained them in night vision and ambush
techniques. We used a ravine that was a natural round shield so the
noise would not cause any noisy inquiries.
Keith Henson
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <34d9b...@news2.lightlink.com>, Zinjifar
<zinj...@inreach.com> writes
>I'm a little surprised actually, while almost all other cults from Koresh to
>Hare Krishna have been found to collect guns, I have never heard of Scientology
>having an armory.
read the Tabayoyon affidavit: arms stockpiling & training at Hemet.
>
>Despite Hubbards claims to explorerdom and military history; despite his cowboy
>novels, I don't see any attraction by Hubbard for guns.
>Nor any collection by the org as a whole.
Hubbard had pistols at various times on the ship.
>Did shooting a mexican island put a horror of firearms
or a horror of goats
>into Hubbard's soul?
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
David Gerard
On 5 Feb 98 13:26:20 GMT, zinj...@inreach.com (Zinjifar) wrote:
:I'm a little surprised actually, while almost all other cults from Koresh to
:Hare Krishna have been found to collect guns, I have never heard of Scientology
:having an armory.
The Andre Tabayoyon affidavit speaks of collecting guns, I believe. It's
amongst Pimoty's recent reposts.
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/
Stop JUNK EMAIL Boycott AMAZON.COM http://mickc.home.mindspring.com/index1.htm
"You make your own dinner nauseous" - Handbag Deb's beasties
WESFAGER
I think commodadore Hubbard got into a legal
tiff with states attorney James Russell when the
scios moved into Clearwater in 1975 over his gun
collection.
Wes
Lynette Warren
Archangel wrote:
> DANGER! [methylene cloride] May cause mild to severe skin irritation with
> pain and possible burns/dermatitis with prolonged contact. Vapors or
> liquid may cause severe eye irritation with pain and tearing. Inhalation
> and ingestioncauses irritation, headache, dizziness, weakness, drowsiness,
> mental confusion, nausea, irregular heartbeat, liver/kidney damage and
> possible death.
So for SIX HOURS the FBI injected severe concentrations of combustable CS
powder dissolved in a poisonous and flammable matrix of methylene cloride,
thereby rendering the weakest inhabitants (children and elderly) of Mt Carmel
disabled. The FBI did so knowing that the building was an extreme fire trap.
For six solid hours the Hostage "Rescue" Team destroyed vital egresses by
using tanks to knock down walls and destroy stairways and hallways.
And when the building finally erupted into flames at midday- as the FBI knew
it would inevitably do- onsite FBI commander Jeff Jamar held back the
firetrucks, not allowing them to fight the fire until the building burned to
the ground.
We don't know for sure what started the fire, but we do know who
intentionally allowed it to burn- the FBI.
Lynette
--
****Nominated for BEST DOCUMENTARY of 1997****
Visit the website for WACO: THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
http://www.waco93.com
john d.
Keith Henson (hkhe...@netcom.com) wrote:
: 29. Church monies were used to purchase semi-automatic assault
: rifles (HK 91 assault rifles capable of firing 300-350 rounds of
: ammunition a minute, 45 caliber pistols, .380 automatic weapons and
An HK 91 cannot fire 300-350 rounds per minute, unless it's
been illegally modified to be full auto. Perhaps the
BATF ought to be notified. Give the clams time to get
the children out of the compound, however, before the
US gov't burns it to the ground.
Jim Bianchi
I, too, was struck by the descriptions of firearms in this document.
For instance, what is a ".380 automatic weapon?" I've seen and handled an
Ingram MAC 10 in .380 -- it was real cute. Not very practical, but cute.
I've also had a Beretta M84 in .380. The first item (MAC 10) is a submach-
inegun, the second (the M84) is a autoloading handgun. Both can be referred
to as an "automatic weapon," even if technically, one of them is not. ".380
automatic weapons" sounds awfully like machineguns (or submachineguns) --
either one of which is kinda illegal to possess in Calif without BATF and
state DOJ licensing and restrictions on storage and use -- even for a
"church."
--
ji...@sonic.net
Eclectic Garbanzo BBS, (707) 539-1279
William Barwell
In article <34dcf...@feed1.realtime.net>, john d. <jo...@bga.com> wrote:
>Keith Henson (hkhe...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: 29. Church monies were used to purchase semi-automatic assault
>: rifles (HK 91 assault rifles capable of firing 300-350 rounds of
>: ammunition a minute, 45 caliber pistols, .380 automatic weapons and
>
>An HK 91 cannot fire 300-350 rounds per minute, unless it's
>been illegally modified to be full auto. Perhaps the
>BATF ought to be notified.
Modified to full auto would give an HK91 a cyclic rate of about 650
rounds per minute.
Give the clams time to get
>the children out of the compound, however, before the
>US gov't burns it to the ground.
>
No, Koreshians burnt the compound down, not the US government.
Stop peddling the far right's DA attacks please.
Koresh is teh clown that gave the children of the cult suicide lessons.
Not BATF.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
William Barwell
In article <slrn6dqe9g...@bolt.sonic.net>,
Jim Bianchi <ji...@sonic.net> wrote:
>In article <34dcf...@feed1.realtime.net>, john d. wrote:
>>Keith Henson (hkhe...@netcom.com) wrote:
>>
>>: 29. Church monies were used to purchase semi-automatic assault
>>: rifles (HK 91 assault rifles capable of firing 300-350 rounds of
>>: ammunition a minute, 45 caliber pistols, .380 automatic weapons and
>>
>>An HK 91 cannot fire 300-350 rounds per minute, unless it's
>>been illegally modified to be full auto. Perhaps the
>>the children out of the compound, however, before the
>>US gov't burns it to the ground.
>
>For instance, what is a ".380 automatic weapon?" I've seen and handled an
>Ingram MAC 10 in .380 -- it was real cute. Not very practical, but cute.
>I've also had a Beretta M84 in .380. The first item (MAC 10) is a submach-
>inegun, the second (the M84) is a autoloading handgun. Both can be referred
>to as an "automatic weapon," even if technically, one of them is not. ".380
>automatic weapons" sounds awfully like machineguns (or submachineguns) --
>either one of which is kinda illegal to possess in Calif without BATF and
>state DOJ licensing and restrictions on storage and use -- even for a
>"church."
>
carrying guns it appeared. A MAC10 might not be beyond them.
Terrorists in SA have long favored the .32 or .380 Skorpion automatic
pistol for assassination work from the back of a motorcycle.
A .380 auto, (not automatic) might have been aquired for other ugly
work. A Walther PPK in .380 would be a pocketsized pistol
long considered the epitome of concealed carry pistols. remember
that attempt to murder Paulette Cooper that failed because the gun jammed
and it was Paulette's sister that was attacked.
john d.
William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
: In article <34dcf...@feed1.realtime.net>, john d. <jo...@bga.com> wrote:
: >Keith Henson (hkhe...@netcom.com) wrote:
: >
: >: 29. Church monies were used to purchase semi-automatic assault
: >: rifles (HK 91 assault rifles capable of firing 300-350 rounds of
: >: ammunition a minute, 45 caliber pistols, .380 automatic weapons and
: >
: >An HK 91 cannot fire 300-350 rounds per minute, unless it's
: >been illegally modified to be full auto. Perhaps the
: >BATF ought to be notified.
: Modified to full auto would give an HK91 a cyclic rate of about 650
: rounds per minute.
Firing rate depends on the modification.
An HK 91 cannot fire 300-350 rpm without modification
to full auto.
: Give the clams time to get
: >the children out of the compound, however, before the
: >US gov't burns it to the ground.
: >
: No, Koreshians burnt the compound down, not the US government.
You're neglecting the fact that armored vehicles sprayed flammable
tear gas into the wooden building.
: Stop peddling the far right's DA attacks please.
Stop posting lies on behalf of the murderers of children.
: Koresh is teh clown that gave the children of the cult suicide lessons.
: Not BATF.
That is a blatant lie. The children did not commit suicide.
Why are you lying?
Lynette Warren
Tilman Hausherr wrote:
> >They used kerosene lanterns. The flame of the lanterns is sufficiently
> >hot to produce bright yellow or white flame.
>
> Yeah, sure, on a sunny day.
Tilman, don't flaunt your ignorance. The windows of Mt Carmel were blocked
with blackout curtains and haybales during the seige. The people inside kept
the lanterns going in the day and night.
WACO: THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT http://www.waco93.com
*** Academy Award Nominee for BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE of 1997 ***
Lynette
--
Lynette Warren
WACO: THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT http://www.waco93.com
*** Academy Award Nominee for BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE of 1997 ***
Reverend Reversible wrote:
>> This type of CS cannister has been banned by international convention,
>> because combusted methylene chloride produces HCl and
>> phosgene gas.
>
> Can you cite us any references for these claims please?
The use of CS has been banned by international agreement since January 1993.
As a signatory to the agreement, the United States government isn't allowed
to use CS against enemy soldiers in battle, but it's perfectly legal to
insert massive amounts of the stuff into enclosed rooms of our own civilian
children.
According to CS manufacturer Aldrich chemical company, CS does produce HCl
when in contact with high heat. It also produces HCN (hydrogen cyanide) the
gas we use to execute killers with in gas chambers. Some of the victims at
Mt Carmel showed significant levels of cyanide in their tissues upon autopsy.
> Speaking as a chemist with years of experience in industrial
> chemistry, I'm fairly certain that methylene chloride is not
> inflammable ("not flammable" for you non-chemists).
methylene cloride is flammable and CS powder is combustable. Check your
MSDS's. According to former ATF fire investigator Rick Sherrow, methylene
cloride is flammable and produces phosgene gas when exposed to heat.
> *IF* methylene chloride is inflammable I would expect very little
> visible flame or smoke. If you noticed, the explosions of the propane
> tanks were very obvious and produced no smoke.
Waco fire survivors David Thibodeau and Derek Lovelock report having seen a
fireball consistent with a vapor/suspended combustable explosion run the
length of a hallway after the initial fire began to spread. Such an
occurrence wouldn't have been observable from the outside of the structure.
Thibodeau and Lovelock were in two separate places inside the building but
what they separately described is consistent with a fireball having run the
length of the building.
The CS powder in methylene cloride may not have started the fire, but it
certainly could have contributed to the rapid spread of the fire. In light
of much of the evidence, some members of the media have begun to rethink the
FBI's assertion that the people inside intentionally set fire to the place.
> One more time, methylene chloride vapor is flammable. citation please
check the Material Safety Data Sheets or ask the manufacturer Fisher
Scientific Products. And while we're learning...
see WACO: THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT http://www.waco93.com
Lynette Warren
WACO: THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT http://www.waco93.com
*** Academy Award Nominee for BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE of 1997 ***
Archangel wrote:
>> According to former ATF fire investigator Rick Sherrow, methylene
>> cloride is flammable and produces phosgene gas when exposed to heat.
>
> The NFPA rating on the MSDS for flammability is 1 (slight). The same as
> a 2x4. The Merck index states that the vapor is non-explosive in air.
Methylene cloride is slightly flammable in a normal working environment. At
Mt Carmel it existed in extreme heat and severely high concentrations. Under
that type of condition, methylene cloride is flammable, at the MSDS states.
I don't know why you're disputing that point with John, as you yourself have
presented evidence to agree with him that methylene cloride is indeed
flammable, though only slightly so, in open air under normal lab or working
conditions.
The MSDS corroborates the former ATF arson investigator Rick Sherrow was
correct. He agrees with the MSDS that methylene cloride is flammable and
that it could have ignited in conditions of extreme heat and high
concentrations. It's not radical to state that the fireball seen in the
hallways by witnesses David Thibodeau and Derek Lovelock could have been due
to the ignition of methylene cloride and sustained by the combustable CS
powder that hung in suspension inside the enclosed areas of the building.
Lynette
--
William Barwell
In article <34de2...@feed1.realtime.net>, john d. <jo...@bga.com> wrote:
>William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
>: In article <34dcf...@feed1.realtime.net>, john d. <jo...@bga.com> wrote:
>: >Keith Henson (hkhe...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: >
>: >: 29. Church monies were used to purchase semi-automatic assault
>: >: rifles (HK 91 assault rifles capable of firing 300-350 rounds of
>: >: ammunition a minute, 45 caliber pistols, .380 automatic weapons and
>: >
>: >An HK 91 cannot fire 300-350 rounds per minute, unless it's
>: >been illegally modified to be full auto. Perhaps the
>: >BATF ought to be notified.
>
>: Modified to full auto would give an HK91 a cyclic rate of about 650
>: rounds per minute.
>
>Firing rate depends on the modification.
>An HK 91 cannot fire 300-350 rpm without modification
>to full auto.
Making an HK91 full auto would give it a rate of about 650 RPM.
You cannot adjust the cyclic rate.
>
>: No, Koreshians burnt the compound down, not the US government.
>
>You're neglecting the fact that armored vehicles sprayed flammable
>tear gas into the wooden building.
No, bullshit. Tear gas is NOT flammable, this lie is a
prime bit of baloney passed around by ignorant fear mongering
right wingers. What is flammable is kerosene which teh Koreshians
themselves spread and lit. You can see the black clouds of
smoke in the video of the conflaguration which is typical of
fires from kerosene or gasoline. One more time, tear gas
is NOT flammable. Please, do not mindlessly repeat dicreditied nonsense
form conspiracy-thing ignorami as if it is fact when it is not fact in the
least. One more time, tear gas is NOT flammable. Nor is CS gas not any
other gas that may have been used.
For some treason, many far right creeps NEED the US government to have
MURDERED the Koreshians and no lie is too big for them to make up
to pretend that this is so. But it is not. Let the lie die.
Koresh is a creep that gave suicide lessons to the cult's children,
not the US government.
I am so disgusted so many will mindlessly pass along known lies YEARS
later. Why is truth so unpalatable to so many people?
>: Stop peddling the far right's DA attacks please.
>
>Stop posting lies on behalf of the murderers of children.
The Koreshians killed them self. Truth you obviously cannot accept.
What happened to your brain?
>
>: Koresh is teh clown that gave the children of the cult suicide lessons.
>: Not BATF.
>
>That is a blatant lie. The children did not commit suicide.
>Why are you lying?
>
I did not say that asshole. I said, "Koresh gave the children of the cult
suicide lessons". Which is true and we have several good witnesses
to that. Including a few ex-Koreshian children whe were so trained and
told of Koresh's habit.
Nowm, why is it that you are so messed up in the head you cannot read my
sentence and understand it, immediately misinterpreting a very simple
sentence with no fancy words to mean something I obviously did not say in
teh least?
What is it about right wing brainwashing crap that makes morons
elevate Koresh into All America Hero?
A clown that shows cult children how to commit suicide is
just the sort of guy who'll demand his followers spread kerosene
throughout the compound and light it.
Those who'd allow their children to be given suicide lessons
are just the sort to follow Koresh's orders. The black clouds
of soot and smoke you see in the video are typical from
fires started by such flammable liquids. Tear gas is not flammable.
Why do so many people at this late date STILL refuse to understand simply
facts?
Koresh was not a hero, the BATF not the bloodthirsty monsters
the irresponsible extreme right wants us to believe they are. They are
merely screwups, not evil psychs.
Damn I hate this sort of hate propaganda. The lies never end.
john d.
William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
: In article <34de2...@feed1.realtime.net>, john d. <jo...@bga.com> wrote:
: >Firing rate depends on the modification.
: >An HK 91 cannot fire 300-350 rpm without modification
: >to full auto.
: Making an HK91 full auto would give it a rate of about 650 RPM.
The cyclic rate is 500-600 rpm for the NATO 7.62mm G3
(aka HK21), HK91 being the semi-auto version of this.
So by replacing the parts, that's what a HK 91
would fire. The cyclic rate can be increased,
by polishing the appropriate surfaces of the bolt,
bolt carrier, and upper receiver. Modifying the
action spring (with or without other modifications)
can increase or decrease firing rate in any automatic
weapon. There are a number of other ways to affect
cyclic rate, but they're too complex for a moron
like you to understand.
: You cannot adjust the cyclic rate.
Barwell, you fucking moron, an HK 91 cannot be fired 300-350 rpm
without being modified to full auto. Firing rate is
(cyclic rate) X (fraction of time trigger depressed).
: >: No, Koreshians burnt the compound down, not the US government.
: >
: >You're neglecting the fact that armored vehicles sprayed flammable
: >tear gas into the wooden building.
: No, bullshit. Tear gas is NOT flammable, this lie is a
: prime bit of baloney passed around by ignorant fear mongering
: right wingers. What is flammable is kerosene which teh Koreshians
Barwell, you are a blatant liar and a moron. The CS cannisters
fired by the Bradley armoured vehicles contained CS powder
suspended in methylene chloride. Methylene chloride vapor,
in an enclosed building, is flammable. 400 rounds of CS of
this type were fired into the wooden building in less than
2 hours. The manufacturers of the CS label their product
with a warning that it is not to be used indoors, because
they know the flammability of their product. This type
of CS cannister has been banned by international convention,
because combusted methylene chloride produces HCl and
phosgene gas.
: themselves spread and lit. You can see the black clouds of
: smoke in the video of the conflaguration which is typical of
: fires from kerosene or gasoline. One more time, tear gas
The black smoke is typical of burning petrochemocals.
Methylene chloride is a petrochemical. When it burns,
black smoke is produced.
: is NOT flammable. Please, do not mindlessly repeat dicreditied nonsense
: form conspiracy-thing ignorami as if it is fact when it is not fact in the
: least. One more time, tear gas is NOT flammable. Nor is CS gas not any
: other gas that may have been used.
One more time, methylene chloride vapor is flammable.
You are a blatant liar.
: For some treason, many far right creeps NEED the US government to have
For some reason, idiots like you, Barwell, watch teevee and
think that they've learned the truth about everything.
: MURDERED the Koreshians and no lie is too big for them to make up
: to pretend that this is so. But it is not. Let the lie die.
: Koresh is a creep that gave suicide lessons to the cult's children,
: not the US government.
That is a lie. You are a liar and a moron.
Some of the children who died were 1-2 years old.
Would you like to explain how they were taught to
commit suicide, dumb fuck?
(Barwell's repetitive bullshit deleted)
: Damn I hate this sort of hate propaganda. The lies never end.
Watch some teevee, Barwell. That's the only thing you
can handle. Convince yourself that everything that the
US gov't says on teevee is true, and you'll never have
to think for yourself.
Archangel
john d. wrote:
>
>
> One more time, methylene chloride vapor is flammable.
> You are a blatant liar.
Actually, most chlorinated hydrocarbons (Methylene
chloride/dichloromethane, chloroform, PVC, etc) are NOT flammable. Yes,
they will burn if you get them hot enough, but they are NOT considered
flammable in the same sense that alcohol or gasoline are. A spark or
open flame will NOT ignite methylene chloride/dichloromethane.
Dichloromethane will give you cancer though. Maybe in twenty years the
waco survivors can sue the BATF on that basis.
Sorry to add to this thread--it seems to have gotten a wee bit off-topic
Archangel
Tilman Hausherr
In <6bmt11$ic4$1...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
(William Barwell) wrote:
>For some treason, many far right creeps NEED the US government to have
>MURDERED the Koreshians and no lie is too big for them to make up
>to pretend that this is so. But it is not. Let the lie die.
>Koresh is a creep that gave suicide lessons to the cult's children,
>not the US government.
Sadly not only far right creeps, also leftist creeps like this one:
COLUMN LEFT/ ALEXANDER COCKBURN
FROM SALEM TO WACO, BY WAY OF THE NAZIS
THE DAVIDIANS WERE A 'CULT,' AND THUS EXEMPTED FROM JUSTICE AND NORMAL RULES OF
EVIDENCE.
Los Angeles Times
April 27, 1993, Tuesday, Home Edition
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN, Alexander Cockburn writes for the Nation and
other publications.
Rodney King's beating captured the nation's attention for more than a year.
The extermination of more than 80 Americans during an armed attack by federal
agents outside Waco is already slipping off the front pages.
But then, King is a black man whose maltreatment came to symbolize police
violence against the poor. The Davidians were "a cult," and thus exempted from
justice and compassion. Atty. Gen. Janet Reno and her boss have thrown in
allegations of child abuse against David Koresh, the Davidians' leader. To call
someone a child abuser these days is like calling someone a communist in the
1950s or a witch in the 17th Century. Normal standards of evidence or reason
don't apply.
There was compelling evidence, claimed President Clinton's spokesman George
Stephanopoulos, that the children were being abused, even to instruction on how
to "clamp down" on cyanide pills. In fact, the FBI has conceded that there's no
evidence for these chilling claims. But child abuse is a headline-grabber and
conscience-absolver, as Reno knows well from her days as a prosecutor in Dade
County.
Locked in a fierce reelection battle for that office in 1984, Reno seized the
initiative with the highly publicized prosecution of a Latino couple running a
baby-sitting service. After psychiatric manipulation straight out of Stalin's
treason trials, the wife was induced to testify against husband, alleging ritual
abuse of her and her children. Reno had great personal involvement in this
process, even holding the wife's hand during her depositions.
Reno had less success in another "satanic abuse" case that she launched in
1989 against a 14-year Dutch boy, whom she managed to hold in the Dade Juvenile
Detention Center, often in solitary, for 20 months before a jury found him
innocent.
After that trial, a child psychiatrist named Stephen Ceci who testified for
the boy said of Reno, that "given the concern over child-abuse issues, she
(Reno) may be trumpeted as a kind of hero, a woman who will go the extra mile to
make sure our children are safe."
Outside Waco, Reno again went that extra mile, rejecting mediation offered by
prominent religious groups. Instead, for six hours the FBI pumped CS2 into a
compound containing children too small to wear the gas masks allegedly
stockpiled by the Davidians. It now seems likely that the M-60 tank knocked over
kerosene for the compound's lamps (which the Feds knew about) and almost
everyone burned alive.
This appalling event took place on April 19, 1943, the 50th anniversary of
the Nazi assault on the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw. The Nazis too regarded "cults"
as ripe candidates for persecution. On July 20, 1937, the SS Reichsfuehrer
Reinhard Heydrich ordered the banning and persecution of small religious sects,
including the Seventh-day Adventists.
Today, in the United States, similar intolerance is being sedulously fanned,
not only by such bodies as the Cult Awareness Network, but by powerful
publications such as Time magazine, which illustrated its 1990 cover story
attack on the Church of Scientology with a graphic of an octopus, the
identical graphic used by the Nazis in their persecution of the sects.
The role in Waco of the Cult Awareness Network, whose members are
respectfully cited in the press as "experts," may well have been crucial. The
network's president, Patricia Ryan, was quoted by the Houston Post on April 9 as
saying that the FBI should use any means necessary to arrest Koresh, including
lethal force. Soon after the initial Feb. 28 federal raid, another
"deprogrammer" named Rick Ross, long associated with the network, said on
television that he had "consulted" with the ATF before the raid. The network's
former executive director, Priscilla Coates, raised allegations of child abuse.
The Cult Awareness Network has a long record of persecution of members of
what it deems to be cults. It promoted the infamous and illegal raid on the
Island Pond commune in Vermont in 1984. Some of its members either face
kidnaping charges or have already been convicted in other cases.
Outside Waco, the counsels of such experts assisted in what should be
regarded as the Bay of Pigs of the Clinton Administration, an event that will
forever mark his term. And as a final horrible irony in this saga of Nazi-like
affront to religious tolerance, the deprogrammers are demanding that they be
allowed to exercise their dark arts on the burned Davidian survivors so that
they testify correctly and desist from maintaining -- as they have -- that no
mass suicide was under way. The FBI says "this is worth considering," but the
decision is up to the U.S. attorney.
Onward to Salem: gas, fire and brainwashing, courtesy of the Justice
Department.
john d.
Tilman Hausherr (til...@berlin.snafu.de) wrote:
: Sadly not only far right creeps, also leftist creeps like this one:
You might take a look at "The Ashes of Waco"
by D. J. Reavis (Simon and Schuster 1995).
Apply stereotypes to Reavis as you wish.
john d.
Archangel (de1...@aol.com) wrote:
: john d. wrote:
: > One more time, methylene chloride vapor is flammable.
: > You are a blatant liar.
: Actually, most chlorinated hydrocarbons (Methylene
: chloride/dichloromethane, chloroform, PVC, etc) are NOT flammable. Yes,
: they will burn if you get them hot enough, but they are NOT considered
: flammable in the same sense that alcohol or gasoline are. A spark or
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I did not claim that they were. You didn't read carefully.
Mthylene chloride liquid is essentially nonflammable,
as you implied.
Methylene chloride vapor, in an enclosed area, is flammable.
Read your safety manual. You'll find something like:
Fire and explosion hazards: No flash point in conventional
closed tester, but forms flammable vapor-air mixtures in
larger volumes. May be an explosion hazard in a confined
space. Combustion may produce irritants and toxic gases.
Combustion byproducts include hydrogen chloride and phosgene.
: open flame will NOT ignite methylene chloride/dichloromethane.
: Dichloromethane will give you cancer though. Maybe in twenty years the
: waco survivors can sue the BATF on that basis.
Again, see your safety manual.
Methylene chloride is toxic, and is metabolized to form
carbon monoxide. So even if there was no fire in the
Branch Davidian building, the concentration of methylene
chloride could have caused carbon monoxide poisoning,
if the gas masks did not filter it.
Tilman Hausherr
>You might take a look at "The Ashes of Waco"
>by D. J. Reavis (Simon and Schuster 1995).
>
>Apply stereotypes to Reavis as you wish.
I also suggest reading "Right woes Left" by Chip Berlet, somewhere at
www.publiceye.org
Ali Baba
William Barwell wrote:
>
> In article <34de2...@feed1.realtime.net>, john d. <jo...@bga.com> wrote:
> >William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
> >: >Keith Henson (hkhe...@netcom.com) wrote:
> >: >
> >: >: 29. Church monies were used to purchase semi-automatic assault
> >: >: rifles (HK 91 assault rifles capable of firing 300-350 rounds of
> >: >: ammunition a minute, 45 caliber pistols, .380 automatic weapons and
> >: >
> >: >An HK 91 cannot fire 300-350 rounds per minute, unless it's
> >: >been illegally modified to be full auto. Perhaps the
> >: >BATF ought to be notified.
> >
> >: Modified to full auto would give an HK91 a cyclic rate of about 650
> >: rounds per minute.
> >
Who cares? Just slaughter the wacko's.
William Barwell
In article <34df2...@feed1.realtime.net>, john d. <jo...@bga.com> wrote:
>William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
>
>: >Firing rate depends on the modification.
>: >An HK 91 cannot fire 300-350 rpm without modification
>: >to full auto.
>
>: Making an HK91 full auto would give it a rate of about 650 RPM.
>
>The cyclic rate is 500-600 rpm for the NATO 7.62mm G3
>(aka HK21), HK91 being the semi-auto version of this.
>So by replacing the parts, that's what a HK 91
>would fire. The cyclic rate can be increased,
>by polishing the appropriate surfaces of the bolt,
>bolt carrier, and upper receiver. Modifying the
>action spring (with or without other modifications)
>can increase or decrease firing rate in any automatic
>weapon. There are a number of other ways to affect
>cyclic rate, but they're too complex for a moron
>like you to understand.
You can jack aropund with it a bit but you ain't gonna bring it down to a
300 RPM rate, fuckwit. A few companies have tried to make a slower
firing auto which would be easier to aim and it isn't trivial at all
to do it. Or everybody would. So it would be easier to aim, hit a target
and be a halfway useful weapon. Full auto 7.62 (.308 Winchester)
is all but about useless anyway.
Are you smart enough to know that little fact?
>
>: You cannot adjust the cyclic rate.
>
>Barwell, you fucking moron, an HK 91 cannot be fired 300-350 rpm
>without being modified to full auto. Firing rate is
>(cyclic rate) X (fraction of time trigger depressed).
>
Fuckwit boy, Change an semiauto HK to full auto, and it is not
going to fire at 300 RPM. RATE does not change depending
on how long you hold the trigger down, just how much ammo you waste is
affected. Like duh..., a trigger does not work like like yer pickup
truck's accelerator. Duuhhhh! Rate stays the same whether you fire 23
bullets or 100.
Obviously you know dirt all about this.
>: >: No, Koreshians burnt the compound down, not the US government.
>: >
>: >You're neglecting the fact that armored vehicles sprayed flammable
>: >tear gas into the wooden building.
>
>: No, bullshit. Tear gas is NOT flammable, this lie is a
>: prime bit of baloney passed around by ignorant fear mongering
>: right wingers. What is flammable is kerosene which teh Koreshians
>
>Barwell, you are a blatant liar and a moron. The CS cannisters
>fired by the Bradley armoured vehicles contained CS powder
>suspended in methylene chloride. Methylene chloride vapor,
BULLSHIT. It so happens I use melthylene chloride every day.
Bullshit! I have been using this stuff 25 years.
You are one ignorant blowhard.
Meth under enough heat will decompose, but that was not what happened
was it? Oily black smoke is cause by hydrocarbons, and that is what the
film of the fire shows as it breaks out.
If it was not fo the fact that meth decompses and gives off phosgene gas
as one of its byproducts, it would make a pretty good fire extinguisher
chemical.
Go worship Koresh elsewhere and peddle your far right crap elsewhere.
A man that made his followers turn his wives and daughters over to him for
insemination because THEIR sperm was not holy like his, is a crackpot
and a idiot. That his followers did so makes them stupid.
That these same jerks allowed him to give their children suicide lessons
is unspeakeable. That these same cretins spread kerosene throughout their
compound and purposefully lit it is a tragedy. That cretins like
like you would never admit this truth in a million years shows
that mankind's brain is faulty and evolution has a lot of work to do.
I am simply amazed at how many assholes all but worship Koresh to this
day.
William Barwell
In article <34DF56...@aol.com>, Archangel <de1...@aol.com> wrote:
>john d. wrote:
>>
>>
>> One more time, methylene chloride vapor is flammable.
>> You are a blatant liar.
>
>Actually, most chlorinated hydrocarbons (Methylene
>chloride/dichloromethane, chloroform, PVC, etc) are NOT flammable. Yes,
>they will burn if you get them hot enough, but they are NOT considered
>flammable in the same sense that alcohol or gasoline are. A spark or
>Dichloromethane will give you cancer though. Maybe in twenty years the
>waco survivors can sue the BATF on that basis.
>
>
>Archangel
You can spray an open flame with meth and it will put the flame out.
Meth decomposes with enough heat, one of it's components is phosgene gas.
john d.
William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
: In article <34DF56...@aol.com>, Archangel <de1...@aol.com> wrote:
: You can spray an open flame with meth and it will put the flame out.
: Meth decomposes with enough heat, one of it's components is phosgene gas.
"Previously thought to be inflammable except at elevated
temperature or in oxygen-enriched air, it (dichloromethane)
is in fact flammable in the range 12-19% in ambient air, given
a sufficiently high level of ignition energy."
The reference cited for this is RSC Lab. Hazard Data Sheet
No. 3, 1982, which is a bit out of date. However, as far
back as 1982, the flammability range in air was known.
Source: Bretherick's Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards
5th ed. Vol. 1 p. 158
"Flammable in the range 12-19% in air, but ignition
is difficult. Explosive when vapor is exposed to heat
or flame."
Source: Academic Laboratory Chemical Hazards Guidebook,
W. J. Mahn (van Nostrand Reinhold 1991) p. 210
Also see Table 4-1 in Handbook of Chemical Compound Data for
Process Safety (Gulf Publishing Co. Houston TX 1997),
in which a flashpoint of 25 F is listed for dichloromethane.
So, Barfwell, recent references list not only the flammability
range in air, but a flashpoint as well.
john d.
William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
: In article <34df2...@feed1.realtime.net>, john d. <jo...@bga.com> wrote:
: >William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
: >: In article <34de2...@feed1.realtime.net>, john d. <jo...@bga.com> wrote:
: >
: >: >Firing rate depends on the modification.
: >: >An HK 91 cannot fire 300-350 rpm without modification
: >: >to full auto.
: >
: >: Making an HK91 full auto would give it a rate of about 650 RPM.
What about your bullshit lie about 650 rpm, Barfwell?
You can't defend your comic-book lie anymore, can you?
Of course not, because you're a dumbfuck liar.
: You can jack aropund with it a bit but you ain't gonna bring it down to a
: 300 RPM rate, fuckwit. A few companies have tried to make a slower
I never claimed it could, asshole.
You sure are a liar and a dumbfuck.
: firing auto which would be easier to aim and it isn't trivial at all
: to do it. Or everybody would. So it would be easier to aim, hit a target
No they would not, you lying sack of shit.
A slow rate of fire would tend to jam under
combat conditions. But you wouldn't know that.
: and be a halfway useful weapon. Full auto 7.62 (.308 Winchester)
: is all but about useless anyway.
: Are you smart enough to know that little fact?
: >
: >: You cannot adjust the cyclic rate.
: >
: >Barwell, you fucking moron, an HK 91 cannot be fired 300-350 rpm
: >without being modified to full auto. Firing rate is
: >(cyclic rate) X (fraction of time trigger depressed).
: Fuckwit boy, Change an semiauto HK to full auto, and it is not
: going to fire at 300 RPM. RATE does not change depending
Read the above text, you lying sack of shit.
Firing rate is (cylic rate) X (fraction of time trigger depressed)
Firing a weapon at full auto wears the barrel down.
But you wouldn't know that, because you're a fucking moron
and a pretentious liar.
: on how long you hold the trigger down, just how much ammo you waste is
: affected. Like duh..., a trigger does not work like like yer pickup
: truck's accelerator. Duuhhhh! Rate stays the same whether you fire 23
: bullets or 100.
: Obviously you know dirt all about this.
More than you, dumbfuck. The firing rate of automatic
weapons is typically less than the cyclic rate,
because if the weapon is fired until the clip empties,
the barrel overheats. HK91's are not designed with
good barrel cooling. But you wouldn't know that,
since you're a stupid lying fuck.
: >Barwell, you are a blatant liar and a moron. The CS cannisters
: >fired by the Bradley armoured vehicles contained CS powder
: >suspended in methylene chloride. Methylene chloride vapor,
: BULLSHIT. It so happens I use melthylene chloride every day.
: Bullshit! I have been using this stuff 25 years.
You've been sniffing it, right, dumbfuck?
That's why you're so fucking stupid.
: You are one ignorant blowhard.
You're a lying sack of shit.
: Meth under enough heat will decompose, but that was not what happened
: was it? Oily black smoke is cause by hydrocarbons, and that is what the
: film of the fire shows as it breaks out.
: If it was not fo the fact that meth decompses and gives off phosgene gas
: as one of its byproducts, it would make a pretty good fire extinguisher
: chemical.
: Go worship Koresh elsewhere and peddle your far right crap elsewhere.
I'm not worshipping anybody, you lying sack of shit.
You're a fucking liar.
: A man that made his followers turn his wives and daughters over to him for
: insemination because THEIR sperm was not holy like his, is a crackpot
Those are media lies, but you belive them, because you're
a moron.
William Barwell
In article <34dff...@feed1.realtime.net>, john d. <jo...@bga.com> wrote:
>William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
>: In article <34df2...@feed1.realtime.net>, john d. <jo...@bga.com> wrote:
>: >William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
>: >: In article <34de2...@feed1.realtime.net>, john d. <jo...@bga.com> wrote:
>: >
>: >: >Firing rate depends on the modification.
>: >: >An HK 91 cannot fire 300-350 rpm without modification
>: >: >to full auto.
>: >
>: >: Making an HK91 full auto would give it a rate of about 650 RPM.
>
>What about your bullshit lie about 650 rpm, Barfwell?
>You can't defend your comic-book lie anymore, can you?
>Of course not, because you're a dumbfuck liar.
>
trigger, like you spewed, is ignorant beyond help. Screaming and mewling
and calling names does not hide your great igniorance about guns, tear
gas, who torched the Koreshian compound and other crap of which you know
zilch.
Keep displaying your ignorance, feeb.
Go away, this is alt.religion.scientology, not
alt.confused.rightwinged.koresh.worshippers.conspiracy-think.
You are depressingly foolish.
Archangel
>
> : You can spray an open flame with meth and it will put the flame out.
> : Meth decomposes with enough heat, one of it's components is phosgene gas.
>
> "Previously thought to be inflammable except at elevated
> temperature or in oxygen-enriched air, it (dichloromethane)
> is in fact flammable
You must have copied this wrong. Inflammable and flammable are
synonyms.
>in the range 12-19% in ambient air, given
> a sufficiently high level of ignition energy."
Note how this agrees precisely with what I said--difficult to ignite
> The reference cited for this is RSC Lab. Hazard Data Sheet
> No. 3, 1982, which is a bit out of date. However, as far
> back as 1982, the flammability range in air was known.
>
> Source: Bretherick's Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards
> 5th ed. Vol. 1 p. 158
>
> "Flammable in the range 12-19% in air, but ignition
> is difficult. Explosive when vapor is exposed to heat
> or flame."
Again "ignition is difficult"
>
> Source: Academic Laboratory Chemical Hazards Guidebook,
> W. J. Mahn (van Nostrand Reinhold 1991) p. 210
>
> Also see Table 4-1 in Handbook of Chemical Compound Data for
> Process Safety (Gulf Publishing Co. Houston TX 1997),
> in which a flashpoint of 25 F is listed for dichloromethane.
>
> So, Barfwell, recent references list not only the flammability
> range in air, but a flashpoint as well.
Listen moron. Citing sources without understanding them only reveals
your ignorance. A flashpoint is the temperature at which a substance
starts producing vapors. Almost every liquid (including water) has a
flashpoint. The flashpoint for silane is even lower, but you'll never
get it to burn, no matter how hard you try. Try to understand the
difference between things that are flammable (in the sense that they
will burn, like wood) And things that are flammable (in the regulatory
sense, like gasoline). Some things that we don't normally consider
flammable (like flour) are much more of an explosion hazard.
OK, I've pulled a 4L bottle of methylene chloride out from the solvent
room and I'm reading the label. Hmmm. Fisher, pesticide grade, UN1593,
lot #935075. Oh. Here we are. NFPA flammablity rating of 1. Like I
said, it'll burn, but you've got to work at it. Storage code blue--a
health hazard, not a flammability hazard. Here's the full warning
label:
DANGER! May cause mild to severe skin irritation with pain and possible
burns/dermatitis with prolonged contact. Vapors or liquid may cause
severe eye irritation with pain and tearing. Inhalation and ingestion
causes irritation, headache, dizziness, weakness, drowsiness, mental
confusion, nausea, irregular heartbeat, liver/kidney damage and possible
death. Chronic inhalation may cause heart disease, chest pains, high
blood pressure, nervous system toxicity, hallucinations and liver
damage. Reproductive/fetal effects have been reported in animals.
Potential cancer hazard.
Hmmm, nothing about a flammability hazard. no "keep away from heat,
spark, open flame or other sources of ignition" that all the
non-chlorinated solvents have on their warning labels.
As you can read though, it wouldn't make a good fire-fighting chemical
(unlike the halons, which are also halogenated hydrocarbons).
Dichloromethane IS nasty. in fact, the AOAC and EPA are trying to do
away with all chlorinated solvents due to health risks.
Mr. Barwell, I hope your employer has installed sufficient engineering
controls and that you use the proper PPE. I'd hate to have to take over
your job of implanting wgert.
Archangel
Gregg Hagglund
In article <34DFB8...@kitty.sumgf.mipt.ru>, bl...@blah.com wrote:
>William Barwell wrote:
>>
>> In article <34de2...@feed1.realtime.net>, john d. <jo...@bga.com> wrote:
>> >William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
>> >: In article <34dcf...@feed1.realtime.net>, john d. <jo...@bga.com> wrote:
>> >: >Keith Henson (hkhe...@netcom.com) wrote:
>> >: >
>> >: >: 29. Church monies were used to purchase semi-automatic assault
>> >: >: rifles (HK 91 assault rifles capable of firing 300-350 rounds of
>> >: >: ammunition a minute, 45 caliber pistols, .380 automatic weapons and
>> >: >
>> >: >An HK 91 cannot fire 300-350 rounds per minute, unless it's
>> >: >been illegally modified to be full auto. Perhaps the
>> >: >BATF ought to be notified.
>> >
>> >: Modified to full auto would give an HK91 a cyclic rate of about 650
>> >: rounds per minute.
>> >
>
>Who cares? Just slaughter the wacko's.
That is not a viable option. It is both reprehensible and
irresponsible of you to suggest.
It is just this kind of stupid destructive rhetoric which
the Co$ uses as an example of 'typical ARS content'.
That is a destortion of course, but it gets their foot in the
door when seeking TRO's against one effective tool:
Peaceful Informative Pickets.
I hope it is not your intent to give the Co$ more false
ammunition.
<<<oo{ At Constant Cause Over the toronto org.}oo>>>
oo>>>{ And sentenced to Death for this SP Act. }<<<oo
["You know, people die if they criticize scientology -
I should take care if I were you."
-Marcus Nyman, OSA (former GO), $cio-org, Stockholm, Sweden.]
Gregg Hagglund SP4
http://www.cgocable.net/~elrond
--
" I'm sure it's obvious to all who read my stuff, that I have
serious problems when it comes to being able to communicate."
- -RonsAmigo, Official OSA Shill on ARS
Download the latest Xemu Flyer:
http://www.cgocable.net/~elrond/2-1ZipArch.html
john d.
: > "Previously thought to be inflammable except at elevated
: > temperature or in oxygen-enriched air, it (dichloromethane)
: > is in fact flammable
: You must have copied this wrong. Inflammable and flammable are
: synonyms.
You're right. The reference states:
"Previously thought to be non-flammable except at elevated
temperature or in oxygen-enriched air, it is in fact flammable
in the range 12-19% in ambient air..."
: Note how this agrees precisely with what I said--difficult to ignite
But flammable in sufficient concentration, and explosive too.
: > The reference cited for this is RSC Lab. Hazard Data Sheet
: > No. 3, 1982, which is a bit out of date. However, as far
: > back as 1982, the flammability range in air was known.
: >
: > Source: Bretherick's Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards
: > 5th ed. Vol. 1 p. 158
: >
: > "Flammable in the range 12-19% in air, but ignition
: > is difficult. Explosive when vapor is exposed to heat
: > or flame."
: Again "ignition is difficult"
But explosive when the vapor is exposed to heat or flame.
: Listen moron. Citing sources without understanding them only reveals
: your ignorance. A flashpoint is the temperature at which a substance
: starts producing vapors. Almost every liquid (including water) has a
That is a lie. You are a liar. Trying to define words which are
too big for you only reveals that you are a liar and a moron.
A flash point is the temperature at which the liquid gives off
enough vapor to flash (combust) when exposed to an external ignition
source.
: Hmmm, nothing about a flammability hazard. no "keep away from heat,
: spark, open flame or other sources of ignition" that all the
: non-chlorinated solvents have on their warning labels.
Once again, note what the references state:
"Previously thought to be non-flammable..."
So containers of dichloromethane which were labelled more
than a few years ago, would have insuficient label warnings.
john d.
William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
: and be a halfway useful weapon. Full auto 7.62 (.308 Winchester)
: is all but about useless anyway.
Whoops! Neglected one of Barfwell's lies.
Full automatic fire with 7.62NATO isn't useless.
That's why the NATO G3 is selective fire (full & semi auto),
the old M14, and the Belgian FN. The M60 machinegun is
full auto too.
Here's how to fire a rifle such as the converted HK91's
that the CoS is alleged to have, Barfwell:
Get a good sight picture, then depress the trigger briefly.
This fires a burst. Repeat. This gives a firing rate equal
to (cyclic rate) X (fraction of time trigger depressed) of
reasonably well-aimed fire.
john d.
William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
: Any idiot that claims cyclic rate is dependent on how you pull the
: trigger, like you spewed, is ignorant beyond help. Screaming and mewling
I never claimed that, Barfwell. You are a liar.
Here it is, once again: firing rate is
(cyclic rate) X (fraction of time trigger depressed).
Why do you continually lie? Has 25 years of daily
exposure to dichloromethane had an effect on you?
: and calling names does not hide your great igniorance about guns, tear
: gas, who torched the Koreshian compound and other crap of which you know
: zilch.
You're a liar, Barfwell. Until I pointed it out,
you didn't even know that there was dichloromethane
in the 400 cannisters, fired into a wooden building
in less than 2 hours.
: Keep displaying your ignorance, feeb.
: Go away, this is alt.religion.scientology, not
: alt.confused.rightwinged.koresh.worshippers.conspiracy-think.
Nobody in this newsgroup has given any indication that
they worship Koresh. You are a liar. I'll be here for
a long time, Barfwell, to remind everyone that you are
a liar, and that you have had daily exposure to dichloro-
methane for 25 years.
: You are depressingly foolish.
You are a habitual liar. Perhaps you are mentally
disturbed, as a result of 25 years of exposure to
dichloromethane.
Joel Hanes
Ali Baba <an...@kitty.sumgf.mipt.ru> writes:
>
> Who cares? Just slaughter the wacko's.
I'm sure you meant this in jest, but it's a mighty poor one.
Even joking references to violence are unwelcome in a.r.s
There is to date no history of violent or coercive attacks
by critics of $cientology on either the persons of $cientologists
or the organizations of $cientology.
Remarks like yours above don't help.
Go away.
---
Joel Hanes SP4
Tilman Hausherr
In <34dff...@feed1.realtime.net>, jo...@bga.com (john d.) wrote:
>is in fact flammable in the range 12-19% in ambient air, given
>a sufficiently high level of ignition energy."
So where is the "high level of ignition energy" ? The only one I know is
the Davidians who set up their own fire.
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
Annoy scientology by buying books: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html
Archangel
> "Previously thought to be non-flammable except at elevated
> in the range 12-19% in ambient air..."
>
[...]
> : > The reference cited for this is RSC Lab. Hazard Data Sheet
> : > No. 3, 1982, which is a bit out of date. However, as far
> : > back as 1982, the flammability range in air was known.
> : >
> A flash point is the temperature at which the liquid gives off
> enough vapor to flash (combust) when exposed to an external ignition
> source.
So, you seem to be using the ASTM closed cup method definition. There
are three other legally acceptable definitions, you know this, right?
>
> : Hmmm, nothing about a flammability hazard. no "keep away from heat,
> : spark, open flame or other sources of ignition" that all the
> : non-chlorinated solvents have on their warning labels.
>
> Once again, note what the references state:
> "Previously thought to be non-flammable..."
>
> So containers of dichloromethane which were labelled more
> than a few years ago, would have insuficient label warnings.
I'm assuming from your post that the date of 1982 and the reference of
flammability go together. 1982? It's bad enough you call me a liar,
but now you're accusing me of using outdated chemicals? The referenced
CH2Cl2 was made/bottled/labeled 2/18/96. Also, I've done some
checking: MSDS from Baker, Fisher, EM scientific, Malinkrodt, Aldrich.
NONE of them is more than 3 years old and none of them list a
flammability/explosion hazard.
You want sources? Here you go:
From The Merck Index, 11th ed.:
5982. Methylene chloride ... Colorless liquid; vapor is not flammable
and when mixed with air is not explosive.
Now, I'm not going to argue this point with you anymore. The Merk
reference is authoritative. However, the real question is the relevance
of this whole mess. I believe that this all began with you and da pope
arguing about the murderous bastards at Wacko. Now, it may be that you
have some data from yesterday proving that CH2Cl2 is the most deadliest
poison/explosive hazard known to man. The question is: Did the ATF (or
whoever the hell was responsible) know this data? If they went by the
accepted scientific opinion of their day (that CH2Cl2 is not flammable)
then how could they have planned to use it as an incendiary? And why
the hell is this on a.r.s.? Put it where it belongs, on
alt.right.wing.paranoia
Archangel
john d.
: > : john d. wrote:
: >
: [...]
: > "Previously thought to be non-flammable except at elevated
: > temperature or in oxygen-enriched air, it is in fact flammable
: > in the range 12-19% in ambient air..."
: >
: [...]
: > : > The reference cited for this is RSC Lab. Hazard Data Sheet
: > : > No. 3, 1982, which is a bit out of date. However, as far
: > : > back as 1982, the flammability range in air was known.
: > : >
: [...]
: > A flash point is the temperature at which the liquid gives off
: > enough vapor to flash (combust) when exposed to an external ignition
: > source.
: So, you seem to be using the ASTM closed cup method definition. There
: are three other legally acceptable definitions, you know this, right?
Why don't you list them?
You've claimed that water has a flash point? What is the
temperature that is the flash point of water? What are the
combustion products of water?
You're using DA tactics, by refusing to acknowledge that you've
lied, even after it has been exposed as a lie.
: > : Hmmm, nothing about a flammability hazard. no "keep away from heat,
: > : spark, open flame or other sources of ignition" that all the
: > : non-chlorinated solvents have on their warning labels.
: >
: > Once again, note what the references state:
: > "Previously thought to be non-flammable..."
: >
: > So containers of dichloromethane which were labelled more
: > than a few years ago, would have insuficient label warnings.
: I'm assuming from your post that the date of 1982 and the reference of
: flammability go together. 1982? It's bad enough you call me a liar,
I called you a liar because you claimed that water has a flash
point. You're also a moron. What would be the combustion products of
water?
: but now you're accusing me of using outdated chemicals? The referenced
No, moron, I've made it clear that the *label* is based upon
outdated references. You made the point that there are different
methods of determining flash point. I made a similar point,
near the beginning of this thread, but you chose to ignore it.
You are using DA tactics.
: CH2Cl2 was made/bottled/labeled 2/18/96. Also, I've done some
: checking: MSDS from Baker, Fisher, EM scientific, Malinkrodt, Aldrich.
: NONE of them is more than 3 years old and none of them list a
: flammability/explosion hazard.
: You want sources? Here you go:
: From The Merck Index, 11th ed.:
: 5982. Methylene chloride ... Colorless liquid; vapor is not flammable
: and when mixed with air is not explosive.
What is the date of the reference cited by Merck?
: Now, I'm not going to argue this point with you anymore. The Merk
Because you're a liar who doesn't want to face up to your
silly claim that water has a flash point? You're using DA
tactics, just like Barfwell.
: reference is authoritative. However, the real question is the relevance
argumentum ad verecundiam: citing a reference, and declaring it
as authority to terminate discussion.
: of this whole mess. I believe that this all began with you and da pope
: arguing about the murderous bastards at Wacko. Now, it may be that you
So you didn't even bother to read the early part of
this thread. You just jumped into the middle of it.
You are indeed a moron.
: have some data from yesterday proving that CH2Cl2 is the most deadliest
No, I have information which is from recent references.
I made that point repeatedly. You refuse to acknowledge
that, because you're a blatant liar, using DA tactics,
just like Barfwell. I made a point of mentioning the 1982
reference, in order to emphasize that the FBI ought to
have known about the potential for an explosion.
: poison/explosive hazard known to man. The question is: Did the ATF (or
: whoever the hell was responsible) know this data? If they went by the
Senior members/agents of the FBI knew about it.
That's because two previous fires were started
under similar conditions: the Symbionese Liberation Army
"safe house" fire and another fire in Washington. However, the
new Attorney General, Janet Reno, did not know. Reno was
in overall control, and approved the plan for the assault.
Reno neglected to consult with senior FBI agents.
Reno neglected to do a lot of other things. The FBI
agents who actually fired 400 rounds of CS into the
building may, or may not, have known about the
potential fire and explosion hazards of dichloromethane.
If you took the time to find out about the Waco fire, instead
of stupidly believing everything you've heard and
seen on teevee, then you'd be aware of that. I've made
this point repeatedly, yet first Barfwell, and now you,
refuse to make any effort.
: accepted scientific opinion of their day (that CH2Cl2 is not flammable)
: then how could they have planned to use it as an incendiary? And why
: the hell is this on a.r.s.? Put it where it belongs, on
: alt.right.wing.paranoia
You're using the same DA tactics that Barfwell uses,
by labelling someone as "right wing" because they have
a different opinion than yours.
john d.
Tilman Hausherr (til...@berlin.snafu.de) wrote:
: In <34dff...@feed1.realtime.net>, jo...@bga.com (john d.) wrote:
: >is in fact flammable in the range 12-19% in ambient air, given
: >a sufficiently high level of ignition energy."
: So where is the "high level of ignition energy" ? The only one I know is
: the Davidians who set up their own fire.
They used kerosene lanterns. The flame of the lanterns is sufficiently
Archangel
O.K. I don't have you killfiled yet, and I think the truth needs to be
known, so here we go again....
john d. wrote:
>
> Archangel (de1...@aol.com) wrote:
> : john d. wrote:
> : >
> : > Archangel (de1...@aol.com) wrote:
> : > : john d. wrote:
> : >
> : [...]
> : > "Previously thought to be non-flammable except at elevated
> : > temperature or in oxygen-enriched air, it is in fact flammable
> : > in the range 12-19% in ambient air..."
> : >
> : [...]
> : > : > The reference cited for this is RSC Lab. Hazard Data Sheet
> : > : > No. 3, 1982, which is a bit out of date. However, as far
> : > : > back as 1982, the flammability range in air was known.
> : > : >
> : [...]
> : > A flash point is the temperature at which the liquid gives off
> : > enough vapor to flash (combust) when exposed to an external ignition
> : > source.
>
> : So, you seem to be using the ASTM closed cup method definition. There
> : are three other legally acceptable definitions, you know this, right?
>
> Why don't you list them?
ASTM OC, NFPA CC, NFPA OC. If you need any help with the acronyms, let
me know.
> You've claimed that water has a flash point? What is the
> temperature that is the flash point of water? What are the
> combustion products of water?
I don't know it off the top of my head. The flash point of water would
be the temperature at which the partial pressure of water vapor is
one-half the ambient pressure. Look it up. Water has no combustion
products. However, this question is completely irrelevant. It only
matters under YOUR definition. Not mine. Or the U.S. government's.
> You're using DA tactics, by refusing to acknowledge that you've
> lied, even after it has been exposed as a lie.
Hmmm. Who's throwing around the insults? I never lie. Sometimes I'm
mistaken, but not in this case. You on the other hand...
>
> : > : Hmmm, nothing about a flammability hazard. no "keep away from heat,
> : > : spark, open flame or other sources of ignition" that all the
> : > : non-chlorinated solvents have on their warning labels.
> : >
> : > Once again, note what the references state:
> : > "Previously thought to be non-flammable..."
> : >
> : > So containers of dichloromethane which were labelled more
> : > than a few years ago, would have insuficient label warnings.
>
> : I'm assuming from your post that the date of 1982 and the reference of
> : flammability go together. 1982? It's bad enough you call me a liar,
>
> I called you a liar because you claimed that water has a flash
> point. You're also a moron. What would be the combustion products of
> water?
Ahem. What was that you said about ignoring definitions and DA tactics?
>
> : but now you're accusing me of using outdated chemicals? The referenced
>
> No, moron, I've made it clear that the *label* is based upon
> outdated references. You made the point that there are different
> methods of determining flash point. I made a similar point,
> near the beginning of this thread, but you chose to ignore it.
> You are using DA tactics.
>
So, what you're saying, is that Malinkrodt, J.T. Baker, Fisher, EM
Scientific, Aldrich (and now I've found) VWR, Sigma, in short, most if
not ALL of the producers of are using the incorrect labels. Wow!
Imagine, you're right and they're wrong. Geez, the DOT is going to make
a lot of money off of all those fines.....
Sorry if I missed the multi-definition reference, however, it seems like
you're ignoring MY definitions now, so who's DAing?
> : CH2Cl2 was made/bottled/labeled 2/18/96. Also, I've done some
> : checking: MSDS from Baker, Fisher, EM scientific, Malinkrodt, Aldrich.
> : NONE of them is more than 3 years old and none of them list a
> : flammability/explosion hazard.
>
> : You want sources? Here you go:
>
> : From The Merck Index, 11th ed.:
> : 5982. Methylene chloride ... Colorless liquid; vapor is not flammable
> : and when mixed with air is not explosive.
>
> What is the date of the reference cited by Merck?
That particular datum is not referenced. Nor is the density, mp, by,
index of refraction or solubility. If you believe they are using
obsolete data, write to them at :
Susan Budavari
Merk Sharp & Dohne Research Laboratories
Rahway, NJ, 07065
>
> : Now, I'm not going to argue this point with you anymore. The Merk
>
> Because you're a liar who doesn't want to face up to your
> silly claim that water has a flash point? You're using DA
> tactics, just like Barfwell.
>
Ahem. This constant insulting is becoming annoying. If you want to
meet me in person, I'll be at Pittcon and at the ACS national meeting.
Oh, you weren't invited?
> : reference is authoritative. However, the real question is the relevance
>
> argumentum ad verecundiam: citing a reference, and declaring it
> as authority to terminate discussion.
>
You know, latin is much more impressive when properly applied. Appeal
to authority is completely justified WHEN THE AUTHORITY IS VALID. If
you were truly interested in applying logical standards, you would
realize that the burden of proof lies with you, and one reference from
1982 is not going to outweigh Merck, Aldrich et. al.
> : of this whole mess. I believe that this all began with you and da pope
> : arguing about the murderous bastards at Wacko. Now, it may be that you
>
> So you didn't even bother to read the early part of
> this thread. You just jumped into the middle of it.
> You are indeed a moron.
>
I didn't care about the earlier part. I don't like chemical untruths
being spread around.
> : have some data from yesterday proving that CH2Cl2 is the most deadliest
>
> No, I have information which is from recent references.
> I made that point repeatedly. You refuse to acknowledge
> that, because you're a blatant liar, using DA tactics,
> just like Barfwell. I made a point of mentioning the 1982
> reference, in order to emphasize that the FBI ought to
> have known about the potential for an explosion.
>
Get a clue. 16 years is NOT recent.
> : poison/explosive hazard known to man. The question is: Did the ATF (or
> : whoever the hell was responsible) know this data? If they went by the
>
> Senior members/agents of the FBI knew about it.
> That's because two previous fires were started
> under similar conditions: the Symbionese Liberation Army
> "safe house" fire and another fire in Washington. However, the
> new Attorney General, Janet Reno, did not know. Reno was
> in overall control, and approved the plan for the assault.
> Reno neglected to consult with senior FBI agents.
> Reno neglected to do a lot of other things. The FBI
> agents who actually fired 400 rounds of CS into the
> building may, or may not, have known about the
> potential fire and explosion hazards of dichloromethane.
>
> If you took the time to find out about the Waco fire, instead
> of stupidly believing everything you've heard and
> seen on teevee, then you'd be aware of that. I've made
> this point repeatedly, yet first Barfwell, and now you,
> refuse to make any effort.
>
And if you'd take a single organic chemistry course at an accredited
school, I wouldn't have to keep jumping in here.
> : accepted scientific opinion of their day (that CH2Cl2 is not flammable)
> : then how could they have planned to use it as an incendiary? And why
> : the hell is this on a.r.s.? Put it where it belongs, on
> : alt.right.wing.paranoia
>
> You're using the same DA tactics that Barfwell uses,
> by labelling someone as "right wing" because they have
> a different opinion than yours.
No, I never said YOU were right-wing. I said that this belonged more
properly on a right-wing conspiracy group than here. What's latin for
straw man?
Buh-bye
Archangel
Tilman Hausherr
>They used kerosene lanterns. The flame of the lanterns is sufficiently
>hot to produce bright yellow or white flame.
Yeah, sure, on a sunny day.
Cheri Dauben
I wish some honest to God Scientologists would read this. You people are
so dumb. Paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to some building that
looks like a hotel.
joey
joeyd...@hotmail.com
(please post replies to my email address above..thank you)
john d.
Archangel (de1...@aol.com) wrote:
: O.K. I don't have you killfiled yet, and I think the truth needs to be
: known, so here we go again....
: > You've claimed that water has a flash point? What is the
: > temperature that is the flash point of water? What are the
: > combustion products of water?
: I don't know it off the top of my head. The flash point of water would
: be the temperature at which the partial pressure of water vapor is
: one-half the ambient pressure. Look it up. Water has no combustion
What a liar you are. That's not the flash point, moron.
: products. However, this question is completely irrelevant. It only
No, it is relevant. You're totally clueless.
You don't know what flash point means, so you post some nonsense.
: matters under YOUR definition. Not mine. Or the U.S. government's.
(remaining nonsense deleted)
Ali Baba
Gregg Hagglund wrote:
>
> In article <34DFB8...@kitty.sumgf.mipt.ru>, bl...@blah.com wrote:
>
> >William Barwell wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <34de2...@feed1.realtime.net>, john d. <jo...@bga.com> wrote:
> >> >William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
> >> >: In article <34dcf...@feed1.realtime.net>, john d. <jo...@bga.com> wrote:
> >> >: >Keith Henson (hkhe...@netcom.com) wrote:
> >> >: >
> >> >: >: 29. Church monies were used to purchase semi-automatic assault
> >> >: >: rifles (HK 91 assault rifles capable of firing 300-350 rounds of
> >> >: >: ammunition a minute, 45 caliber pistols, .380 automatic weapons and
> >> >: >
> >> >: >An HK 91 cannot fire 300-350 rounds per minute, unless it's
> >> >: >been illegally modified to be full auto. Perhaps the
> >> >: >BATF ought to be notified.
> >> >
> >> >: Modified to full auto would give an HK91 a cyclic rate of about 650
> >> >: rounds per minute.
> >> >
> >
>
> irresponsible of you to suggest.
Point taken.
>
> It is just this kind of stupid destructive rhetoric which
> the Co$ uses as an example of 'typical ARS content'.
> That is a destortion of course, but it gets their foot in the
> door when seeking TRO's against one effective tool:
> Peaceful Informative Pickets.
>
> I hope it is not your intent to give the Co$ more false
> ammunition.
>
False ammunition? If the ammunition is false, then it's not ammunition.
Just wack the leadership then.
What about that Galactic fleet business? Maybe they could help. I want
to join the galactic fleet.
Ali Baba
Joel Hanes wrote:
Your opinion has been validated.
>
> Even joking references to violence are unwelcome in a.r.s
>
Why? No joshing around in here, eh?
> There is to date no history of violent or coercive attacks
> by critics of $cientology on either the persons of $cientologists
> or the organizations of $cientology.
Perhaps that's the problem.
>
> Remarks like yours above don't help.
I'm sorry I didn't help.
>
> Go away.
>
Make me.
> ---
> Joel Hanes SP4
What's SP4? whats with all the corny abreviations?
Feadog
Lynette Warren <ar...@surfari.net> wrote in article
<34DCE7...@surfari.net>...
> Archangel wrote:
> > DANGER! <methylene cloride info>
>
> So for SIX HOURS the FBI injected severe concentrations... <Waco info>
Sad, tragic; but off topic.
Feadog
--
Critical Scientology Links:
http://www.xenu.net/
http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/lisa.htm
THE man
john d. wrote:
>
> A flash point is the temperature at which the liquid gives off
> enough vapor to flash (combust) when exposed to an external ignition
> source.
Just adding my 0.02$ worth in that word definition:
I had an uncle who would demonstrate the difference between the two by
passing a *lit* match (skimming over it is more like it, actually) over an open
45 barrel of jet #2 fuel (which has a very high flash point (that is it does not
readily produce flammable fumes)).
He would then take a stick, dip it in and let a drop fall just beside the match.
The difference of surface to volume and air turbulence would be enough to permit
the drop to take fire and burns. Of course if the drop fell *on* the match,
it would put it out. Nice demo.
THE man
Guys, just to give you all an example:
Wood is NOT an explosive. And it does take some doing to light
a piece of wood.
However, in wood shops, the sawdust in certain concentration in the very air
(depends on the kind of wood) is an *explosive* and can be sparked by
as less than a light bulb going pop or a light switch having a turn-on spark.
Scary, no ?
Bloody Viking
Ali Baba (an...@kitty.sumgf.mipt.ru) wrote:
: What about that Galactic fleet business? Maybe they could help. I want
: to join the galactic fleet.
Are you licenced to drive a DC-8? If so, you're qualified!
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
"A man's car is his battleship"
1905519 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
john d.
Reverend Reversible (rev...@earth.execpc.com) wrote:
: In message <34df2...@feed1.realtime.net>, jo...@bga.com said:
: > William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
: > : In article <34de2...@feed1.realtime.net>, john d. <jo...@bga.com> wrote:
: Can yo
Fuck off you silly shit.
Little Willie Barfwell has pushed it past the point
of Justifiable Retribution.
There shall be no quarter given.
Mike O'Connor
In article <34DD6B...@surfari.net>, Lynette Warren <ar...@surfari.net> wrote:
> WACO: [...]
Off topic in alt.religion.scientology. -Mike
Archangel
Lynette Warren wrote:
>
> WACO: THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT http://www.waco93.com
> *** Academy Award Nominee for BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE of 1997 ***
>
> Reverend Reversible wrote:
> >> This type of CS cannister has been banned by international convention,
> >> because combusted methylene chloride produces HCl and
> >> phosgene gas.
> >
> > Can you cite us any references for these claims please?
>
> The use of CS has been banned by international agreement since January 1993.
> As a signatory to the agreement, the United States government isn't allowed
> to use CS against enemy soldiers in battle, but it's perfectly legal to
> insert massive amounts of the stuff into enclosed rooms of our own civilian
> children.
>
> According to CS manufacturer Aldrich chemical company, CS does produce HCl
> when in contact with high heat. It also produces HCN (hydrogen cyanide) the
> gas we use to execute killers with in gas chambers. Some of the victims at
> Mt Carmel showed significant levels of cyanide in their tissues upon autopsy.
>
> > Speaking as a chemist with years of experience in industrial
> > chemistry, I'm fairly certain that methylene chloride is not
> > inflammable ("not flammable" for you non-chemists).
>
> methylene cloride is flammable and CS powder is combustable. Check your
> MSDS's. According to former ATF fire investigator Rick Sherrow, methylene
> cloride is flammable and produces phosgene gas when exposed to heat.
The NFPA rating on the MSDS for flammability is 1 (slight). The same as
a 2x4. The Merck index states that the vapor is non-explosive in air.
>
> > *IF* methylene chloride is inflammable I would expect very little
> > visible flame or smoke. If you noticed, the explosions of the propane
> > tanks were very obvious and produced no smoke.
>
> Waco fire survivors David Thibodeau and Derek Lovelock report having seen a
> fireball consistent with a vapor/suspended combustable explosion run the
> length of a hallway after the initial fire began to spread. Such an
> occurrence wouldn't have been observable from the outside of the structure.
> Thibodeau and Lovelock were in two separate places inside the building but
> what they separately described is consistent with a fireball having run the
> length of the building.
>
> The CS powder in methylene cloride may not have started the fire, but it
> certainly could have contributed to the rapid spread of the fire. In light
> of much of the evidence, some members of the media have begun to rethink the
> FBI's assertion that the people inside intentionally set fire to the place.
>
> > One more time, methylene chloride vapor is flammable. citation please
>
> check the Material Safety Data Sheets or ask the manufacturer Fisher
> Scientific Products. And while we're learning...
The Merck Index, 11th ed. p954;
5982. Methylene Chloride ... Colorless liquid; vapor is not flammable
and when mixed with air is not explosive.
>
> see WACO: THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT http://www.waco93.com
> *** Academy Award Nominee for BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE of 1997 ***
>
> Lynette
> --
Archangel
Archangel
Lynette Warren wrote:
>
> Archangel wrote:
> > pain and possible burns/dermatitis with prolonged contact. Vapors or
> > liquid may cause severe eye irritation with pain and tearing. Inhalation
> > mental confusion, nausea, irregular heartbeat, liver/kidney damage and
> > possible death.
>
> powder dissolved in a poisonous and flammable matrix of methylene cloride,
>
Next time, use my quotes in context. The above legally accurate warning
label was used to show both the true hazard (toxicity) of
dichloromethane, as well as trhe fact that it is NOT a fire/explosion
hazard. Again, check the Merck index, 11th ed. p954, entry 5982.
thereby rendering the weakest inhabitants (children and elderly) of Mt
Carmel
> disabled. The FBI did so knowing that the building was an extreme fire trap.
> For six solid hours the Hostage "Rescue" Team destroyed vital egresses by
> using tanks to knock down walls and destroy stairways and hallways.
>
> And when the building finally erupted into flames at midday- as the FBI knew
> it would inevitably do- onsite FBI commander Jeff Jamar held back the
> firetrucks, not allowing them to fight the fire until the building burned to
> the ground.
>
> We don't know for sure what started the fire, but we do know who
> intentionally allowed it to burn- the FBI.
>
> Lynette
> --
> ****Nominated for BEST DOCUMENTARY of 1997****
> Visit the website for WACO: THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
> http://www.waco93.com
Archangel
Archangel
> : known, so here we go again....
>
> : > temperature that is the flash point of water? What are the
> : > combustion products of water?
>
> : I don't know it off the top of my head. The flash point of water would
> : be the temperature at which the partial pressure of water vapor is
> : one-half the ambient pressure. Look it up. Water has no combustion
>
Yes it is (one definition). The reference will be available tomorrow
>
> : products. However, this question is completely irrelevant. It only
>
> No, it is relevant. You're totally clueless.
> You don't know what flash point means, so you post some nonsense.
Nonsense? The ASTM and NFPA definitions are nonsense? What's nonsense
is you acting like you're some kind of expert on chemistry/D.O.T.
regulations, when in reality you DON'T HAVE A CLUE.
Apparently YOU now choose to disregard your earlier statement that there
are multiple definitions of flash point. Your hypocricy, not mine.
>
> : matters under YOUR definition. Not mine. Or the U.S. government's.
>
> (remaining nonsense deleted)
Nonsense? That ALL the major manufacturers of dicholormethane disagree
with you? That The U.S. government (D.O.T.) disagrees with you? That
the International Maritime Organization Registry disagrees with you?
You claim that 16 years ago, someone made a discovery that -lo and
behold- a chemical thought for decades previously to not be an
explosion hazard, was in fact explosive. I point out that in all those
sixteen years NO major regulatory agency has confirmed/agreed with
this. Not even the State of California (which if you are involved with
environmental/transportation regulations means a lot.)
Hmmmm, a vast world wide consipracy, lasting sixteen years, to deceive
the public about the nature of one of the world most common chlorinated
solvents.
It seems that you are being non-sensical
Archangel
Archangel
>
> >> According to former ATF fire investigator Rick Sherrow, methylene
> >> cloride is flammable and produces phosgene gas when exposed to heat.
> >
> > The NFPA rating on the MSDS for flammability is 1 (slight). The same as
> > a 2x4. The Merck index states that the vapor is non-explosive in air.
>
> Mt Carmel it existed in extreme heat and severely high concentrations. Under
> that type of condition, methylene cloride is flammable, at the MSDS states.
>
> I don't know why you're disputing that point with John, as you yourself have
> presented evidence to agree with him that methylene cloride is indeed
> flammable, though only slightly so, in open air under normal lab or working
> conditions.
>
> The MSDS corroborates the former ATF arson investigator Rick Sherrow was
> correct. He agrees with the MSDS that methylene cloride is flammable and
> that it could have ignited in conditions of extreme heat and high
> concentrations. It's not radical to state that the fireball seen in the
> hallways by witnesses David Thibodeau and Derek Lovelock could have been due
> to the ignition of methylene cloride and sustained by the combustable CS
> powder that hung in suspension inside the enclosed areas of the building.
>
> Lynette
> --
I really hate to add to this extra-topical thread, but here goes:
Yes, CH2Cl2 will burn, but you've got to work at it. It is NOT
condidered flammable and the vapor is NOT explosive (Merck Index). That
is the reason is is used as a propellant/carrier in the first place
instead of the older alcohols/ethers. CFC's would be even safer, but
they're banned. When I say it is not considered flammable--look at the
MSDS (you're using one from Fisher, right?) near the back there should
be shipping information. It lists the DOT placard as being class 6
(toxic) not class 3 (flammable liquid). If the DOT considered it
explosive, they wiuld require both placards. OSHA does not consider it
a flammability hazard either. The upshot of all this is that the U.S.
gov't does not consider CH2Cl2 flammable. Because of this, assertions
that the FBI planned to burn Mt. Carmel by detonating dichloromethane
are absurd. It would be like them deciding to try to burn the place by
dousing it in silicon oil and dropping a match. They wouldn't use a
tactic that by their own data wouldn't work (unless you go with John's
assertion that they knew that methylene chloride was explosive 16 years
ago and have been keeping it a secret ever since).
Anyway--yes, if you work at it you can make dichloromethane burn. No I
don't believe that the U.S. government meant to slaughter the Davidians.
Why don't we let this die on a.r.s. and resume it somewhere more
appropriate?
Archangel
Lynette Warren
lep...@panix.com (Mike O'Connor) wrote:
> Off topic in alt.religion.scientology. -Mike
This thread has fifty posts in it concerning the subject matter I
*responded* to. I didn't intitiate the discussion on Waco, nor do I
agree that religious intolerance is off-topic in a.r.s. If you disagree
with what I have to say, ignore it or address it, but stop pretending to
play topic cop.
Lynette
--
WACO: THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT http://www.waco93.com
*** Academy Award Nominee for BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE of 1997 ***
--
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Lynette Warren
Archangel <de1...@aol.com> wrote:
> DANGER! [methylene cloride] May cause mild to severe skin irritation with
> pain and possible burns/dermatitis with prolonged contact. Vapors or
> liquid may cause severe eye irritation with pain and tearing. Inhalation
> and ingestioncauses irritation, headache, dizziness, weakness, drowsiness,
> mental confusion, nausea, irregular heartbeat, liver/kidney damage and
> possible death.
> Next time, use my quotes in context. The above legally accurate warning
> label was used to show both the true hazard (toxicity) of
> dichloromethane,
All I've done so far is reiterated the points you've already made, Arch.
That according to the manufacturer, methylene cloride is a serious
immediate health hazard and that it is, in fact, flammable. The fact
that it is only slightly flammable in a normally ventilated working area
does not preclude the probability that in conditions of confined areas in
high concentrations and at extreme heat- the very conditions that existed
at Mt Carmel during the FBI attack- CS powder in methylene cloride can
ignite and sustain combustion for a period of time long enough to cause
the rapid spread of an indoor fire.
Mike O'Connor
In article <887251238....@dejanews.com>, Lynette Warren
<ar...@surfari.net> wrote:
> lep...@panix.com (Mike O'Connor) wrote:
> > Off topic in alt.religion.scientology. -Mike
>
> This thread has fifty posts in it concerning the subject matter I
> *responded* to. I didn't intitiate the discussion on Waco, nor do I
> agree that religious intolerance is off-topic in a.r.s. If you disagree
> with what I have to say, ignore it or address it, but stop pretending to
> play topic cop.
Threads drift. A thread that starts completely on topic can drift
completely off topic. It is normal and common. In this thread, no one has
spoken of Scientology or even religious intolerance lately. The thread is
about the characteristics of tear gas. You have a perfectly good
explanation for why it is off topic and that's fine. I'm just saying it is
off topic. If you disagree with what I have to say, you can ignore it or
address it and I won't mind in the least. -Mike
john d.
Archangel (de1...@aol.com) wrote:
: Lynette Warren wrote:
: >
: > WACO: THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT http://www.waco93.com
: > *** Academy Award Nominee for BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE of 1997 ***
: > >> According to former ATF fire investigator Rick Sherrow, methylene
: > >> cloride is flammable and produces phosgene gas when exposed to heat.
This is going in circles anyway, so I might as well take it
back to the start.
Bretherick's Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards
5th ed Vol 1 p158:
"Previously thought to be non-flammable except at elevated
temperature or pressure or in oxygen-enriched air, it is
in fact flammable in the range 12-19%..."
Seriously, Archangel, you need to get ahold of Bretherick's,
since it is one the indispensible safety handbooks for those
who do chemical synthesis, whether they're chemists, engineers,
etc. Reactions between otherwise unreactive chemicals could
result in something very unpleasant in the lab. That's what
Bretherick's is all about. Your lack of familiarity with
it says a lot about your lack of experience in the lab.
john d.
Archangel (de1...@aol.com) wrote:
(...)
: dousing it in silicon oil and dropping a match. They wouldn't use a
: tactic that by their own data wouldn't work (unless you go with John's
: assertion that they knew that methylene chloride was explosive 16 years
: ago and have been keeping it a secret ever since).
I never made that claim. You're lying.
You are a blatant liar.
: Anyway--yes, if you work at it you can make dichloromethane burn. No I
: don't believe that the U.S. government meant to slaughter the Davidians.
: Why don't we let this die on a.r.s. and resume it somewhere more
: appropriate?
Why don't you stop posting blatant lies?
BTW one of the points that you've missed is this:
Some of the children in the Waco compound were young, with
faces too small to fit into gas masks. The FBI knew that.
They also knew that dichloromethane metabolizes into carbon
monoxide. Hence the youngest children were essentially
assured a death by suffocation.
Considering that you've demonstrated, beyond any
reasonable doubt, that you are a liar and a moron,
this point will probably have to be reposted at
least 5 times before you can assimilate the information.
Even after that, you'd lie about it.
Martin Hunt
In article <34DE2A...@surfari.net>,
Lynette Warren <ar...@surfari.net> wrote:
>WACO: THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT http://www.waco93.com
> *** Academy Award Nominee for BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE of 1997 ***
This post was off-topic for alt.religion.scientology. Please
stick to discussing Scientology on this forum, thank you.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/
"I was involved in Scientology for five years. I am a Class IV
auditor and a Clear. The only thing they want from you is your
money." - hoo...@aol.com (HOOTkm)
William Barwell
Ahh, these right wingers.......
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
William Barwell
In article <6brdaa$b...@newsops.execpc.com>,
Reverend Reversible <rev...@mail.execpc.com> wrote:
>In message <6bmt11$ic4$1...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM said:
>> In article <34de2...@feed1.realtime.net>, john d. <jo...@bga.com> wrote:
>> >William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
>> >: >Keith Henson (hkhe...@netcom.com) wrote:
>> >: >
>> >: >: 29. Church monies were used to purchase semi-automatic assault
>> >
>> >An HK 91 cannot fire 300-350 rpm without modification
>> >to full auto.
>>
>>
>> Making an HK91 full auto would give it a rate of about 650 RPM.
>> You cannot adjust the cyclic rate.
>
>My understanding was that they were using devices that pull the trigger
>automatically as opposed to automatic guns. Perhaps they could reach 350
>rps?
>
In the case of the Branch Davidians, they were converting their rifles
illegally at a car mechanic's shop one of them owned. So I assume
it was more than bolting on a "Hellfire" trigger device. Shot Gun News
used to carry ads for conversion jigs and parts for doing this sort of
nonsense. For some rifles, it is necessary to drill a few holes for
mounting full auto parts. Illegal to do unless you have a Class II
license, illegal to have unless you have it properly registered and have
paid your $200 transfer fee to BATF. Which they did not do.
Archangel
> : >
> : > WACO: THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT http://www.waco93.com
> : > *** Academy Award Nominee for BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE of 1997 ***
> : > Archangel wrote:
> : > >> According to former ATF fire investigator Rick Sherrow, methylene
> : > >> cloride is flammable and produces phosgene gas when exposed to heat.
>
> This is going in circles anyway, so I might as well take it
> back to the start.
> Bretherick's Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards
> 5th ed Vol 1 p158:
>
> "Previously thought to be non-flammable except at elevated
> temperature or pressure or in oxygen-enriched air, it is
> in fact flammable in the range 12-19%..."
From 1982?
>
> Seriously, Archangel, you need to get ahold of Bretherick's,
> since it is one the indispensible safety handbooks for those
> who do chemical synthesis, whether they're chemists, engineers,
> etc. Reactions between otherwise unreactive chemicals could
> result in something very unpleasant in the lab. That's what
> Bretherick's is all about. Your lack of familiarity with
> it says a lot about your lack of experience in the lab.
Actually, Patty's Industrial Hygene and Toxicology is a much more widely
known, used, and respected source (OK, only the first five volumes are
actually used by most people) Your unfamiliarity it says a lot about
your lack of experience in the lab.
Next thing, you'll be telling me that the CRC is not a respectable
source.
Oh, and that source I promised you? Grace and Cooley, Physical
Chemistry for Life, 2nd ed., p 319.
See you at ACS nationals--oh that's right, you're not going.
Archangel
Archangel
>
> : dousing it in silicon oil and dropping a match. They wouldn't use a
> : tactic that by their own data wouldn't work (unless you go with John's
> : assertion that they knew that methylene chloride was explosive 16 years
> : ago and have been keeping it a secret ever since).
>
> I never made that claim. You're lying.
> You are a blatant liar.
You said that a 1982 study (which FedGov had knowledge of (or should
have had knowledge of) proved that CH2Cl2 is explosive. Now, if FedGov
knew (and believed) this, and didn't inform the rest of the country (by
not changing the DOT or OSHA regs) then they are, in fact, keeping this
a secret. Actually, since the IMO registry also remains unchanged, it
means the UN is also in on the conspiracy (damn those black
helicopters!)
Check it out: UN#1593.
>
> : Anyway--yes, if you work at it you can make dichloromethane burn. No I
> : don't believe that the U.S. government meant to slaughter the Davidians.
> : Why don't we let this die on a.r.s. and resume it somewhere more
> : appropriate?
>
> Why don't you stop posting blatant lies?
My opinons, by definition, CANNOT be lies. Your constant hysterical
screaming of a single phrase over and over, regardless of its accuracy,
is strongly reminiscent of wgert and justin.
>
> BTW one of the points that you've missed is this:
> Some of the children in the Waco compound were young, with
> faces too small to fit into gas masks. The FBI knew that.
> They also knew that dichloromethane metabolizes into carbon
> monoxide. Hence the youngest children were essentially
> assured a death by suffocation.
I don't know about this point, I don't care about this point. Why
should I argue this point with you?
>
> Considering that you've demonstrated, beyond any
> reasonable doubt, that you are a liar and a moron,
> this point will probably have to be reposted at
> least 5 times before you can assimilate the information.
> Even after that, you'd lie about it.
Hmmm. In this post you've posted 7 insults and a block of wholly new,
wholly irrelevant information. No counters to any of my points.
Thanks for playing
Archangel
Archangel
Reverend Reversible wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, but flash point is defined as "The temperature at which the vapor
> above a volatile liquid forms a combustible mixture with air. At the
> flash point the application of a naked flame gives a momentary flash
> rather than a sustained combustion, for which the temperature is too
> low." CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 70th edition, 1989-
> 1990.
>
OK. From now on, I'll bow to the CRC def. I was using (a rather
atiquated, I'll admit) def from a PChem text.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> The Lowly Exalted Arch Ünterlama of Reversibility, SP2
>
> SubGenius Tactical Recon Office for Kinetic Energy and
> Irrelevant Tastelessness
>
> Everything you know is wrong.
>
> Mind you, lama bites can be very nasty.
>
> Slack!
> [Palmtop News Reader - Version 1.2]
john d.
William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
: In the case of the Branch Davidians, they were converting their rifles
: illegally at a car mechanic's shop one of them owned. So I assume
Those allegations were never proven. You're merely repeating
the rumours which appeared in the media reports.
john d.
Reverend Reversible (rev...@earth.execpc.com) wrote:
: In message <34df6...@feed1.realtime.net>, jo...@bga.com said:
: I just this minute did a couple experiments for you, Johnny.
: First I soaked a paper towel in methylene chloride (MeCl2
: henceforth) and put it in a bunsen burner flame. The paper
: would NOT burn until the MeCl2 had all evaporated off. The
: escaping vapors did seem to burn weakly, but only in the
: immediate presence of the blue hot burner flame.
: Then I squirted about 2 ml of MeCl2 right into the flame.
: The flame was immediately extinguished.
Where did you do this ridiculous stunt?
Did you breath the vapor?
(...)
: But combustion requires exposure to temps greater than 1000F.
The flame of a kerosene lantern is bright yellow.
That's around 1000 C, well over the temp which you claim.
BTW, where did you get the number of 1000F?
(...)
: The take-home lesson here is that MeCl2 is so inert that for decades
: of practical use it was considered non-inflammable. Recent research
: has discovered that if you get the conditions *just* right and expose
: it to an ignition source of greater than 1000 F (yes, one thousand
: degrees Farhenheit) you can get a flame to propagate.
That's what I've been claiming, repeatedly.
It's probably necessary to repeat this a few times:
There were lighted kerosene lanterns throughout the building.
The flame of a kerosene lantern is bright yellow.
A bright yellow flame is well over 1000F, in fact it is
in the general vicinity of 1000 C, or 1800 F.
: This is o such little practical consequence that current bottles
: of MeCl2 are not labelled as inflammable or for storage in the
: Inflammables cabinet.
: Basically, Johnny has had his legs cut out from under him and
: has had to resort to name-calling as his primary instrument of
: debate.
You're a blatant liar. What you've claimed in the previous
paragraphs supports what I've been claiming, repeatedly, in this
thread.
Why are you lying?
Archangel
> > : john d. wrote:
> >
> > : > One more time, methylene chloride vapor is flammable.
> > : > You are a blatant liar.
> >
> > : Actually, most chlorinated hydrocarbons (Methylene
> > : chloride/dichloromethane, chloroform, PVC, etc) are NOT flammable. Yes,
> > : they will burn if you get them hot enough, but they are NOT considered
> > : flammable in the same sense that alcohol or gasoline are. A spark or
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > I did not claim that they were. You didn't read carefully.
> > Mthylene chloride liquid is essentially nonflammable,
> > as you implied.
> > Methylene chloride vapor, in an enclosed area, is flammable.
>
> We're talking about the difference between lawyer-speak (safety manuals)
> and practical experience. In practical experience, it is not
> inflammable.
>
> I just this minute did a couple experiments for you, Johnny.
>
> First I soaked a paper towel in methylene chloride (MeCl2
> henceforth) and put it in a bunsen burner flame. The paper
> would NOT burn until the MeCl2 had all evaporated off. The
> escaping vapors did seem to burn weakly, but only in the
> immediate presence of the blue hot burner flame.
>
> Then I squirted about 2 ml of MeCl2 right into the flame.
> The flame was immediately extinguished.
>
> produce an enclosed space and put a flaming wooden splint
> into the tube. The splint was immediately extinguished.
Inspiring work. Allow me to collaborate. I opened the cover on our
surplus Varian AA, turned on the nebulizer, but left the flame off. I
placed the sample inlet tube into a 50mL beaker of CH2Cl2 and attempted
to ignite the resulting mist with a long-nosed lighter. It didn't work.
>
>
> > Read your safety manual. You'll find something like:
> > Fire and explosion hazards: No flash point in conventional
> > closed tester, but forms flammable vapor-air mixtures in
> > larger volumes. May be an explosion hazard in a confined
> > space. Combustion may produce irritants and toxic gases.
> > Combustion byproducts include hydrogen chloride and phosgene.
>
> But combustion requires exposure to temps greater than 1000F.
>
> > : open flame will NOT ignite methylene chloride/dichloromethane.
> > : Dichloromethane will give you cancer though. Maybe in twenty years the
> > : waco survivors can sue the BATF on that basis.
> >
> > Again, see your safety manual.
> > Methylene chloride is toxic, and is metabolized to form
> > carbon monoxide. So even if there was no fire in the
> > Branch Davidian building, the concentration of methylene
> > chloride could have caused carbon monoxide poisoning,
> > if the gas masks did not filter it.
>
> The amount of carbon monoxide is on the order of that experienced
> from cigarette smoking.
>
> The take-home lesson here is that MeCl2 is so inert that for decades
> of practical use it was considered non-inflammable. Recent research
> has discovered that if you get the conditions *just* right and expose
> it to an ignition source of greater than 1000 F (yes, one thousand
> degrees Farhenheit) you can get a flame to propagate.
>
> This is o such little practical consequence that current bottles
> of MeCl2 are not labelled as inflammable or for storage in the
> Inflammables cabinet.
>
> Basically, Johnny has had his legs cut out from under him and
> has had to resort to name-calling as his primary instrument of
> debate.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> The Lowly Exalted Arch Ünterlama of Reversibility, SP2
>
> SubGenius Tactical Recon Office for Kinetic Energy and
> Irrelevant Tastelessness
>
> Everything you know is wrong.
>
> Mind you, lama bites can be very nasty.
>
> Slack!
> [Palmtop News Reader - Version 1.2]
May your 'frop stash never be empty
Archangel
john d.
Reverend Reversible (rev...@earth.execpc.com) wrote:
: In message <34dff...@feed1.realtime.net>, jo...@bga.com said:
: > "Previously thought to be inflammable except at elevated
: > temperature or in oxygen-enriched air, it (dichloromethane)
: > is in fact flammable in the range 12-19% in ambient air, given
: > a sufficiently high level of ignition energy."
: Care to speculate on the source of that high level of ignition energy
: in the Davidian compound?
There is no speculation required. It is well known that
there were lighted kerosene lanterns throughout the building.
The flame of a kerosene lantern is bright yellow.
A bright yellow flame has a temp in the vicinity of 1000C.
: > The reference cited for this is RSC Lab. Hazard Data Sheet
: > No. 3, 1982, which is a bit out of date. However, as far
: > back as 1982, the flammability range in air was known.
: >
: > Source: Bretherick's Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards
: > 5th ed. Vol. 1 p. 158
: Nonetheless, it will put out an open flame. (see another post from me
: on this thread for my own experimental results)
The experiments performed by someone who pretends to
be an experienced chemical engineer, yet who sprays toxic,
carcinogenic chemicals about the lab, and then pretends
that the experiment is supposed to mean anything?
: > "Flammable in the range 12-19% in air, but ignition
: > is difficult. Explosive when vapor is exposed to heat
: > or flame."
: >
: > Source: Academic Laboratory Chemical Hazards Guidebook,
: > W. J. Mahn (van Nostrand Reinhold 1991) p. 210
: Were any explosion observed other than those caused by the
: propane tanks?
Yes. Learn something about what happened at Waco, before
posting. Alternately, you could read this thread before posting.
If you'd done either of these very
obvious things, then you'd know that several survivors
stated that there was a fireball inside the building.
: > Also see Table 4-1 in Handbook of Chemical Compound Data for
: > Process Safety (Gulf Publishing Co. Houston TX 1997),
: > in which a flashpoint of 25 F is listed for dichloromethane.
(...)
: I'm skeptical of your reference, 25 F is ludicrously low and runs
: counter to my experience and experiments.
Why don't get to the library, and read the handbook?
The journal papers are listed at the end of Ch 4.
Then attempt to refute the claims in that reference.
john d.
Reverend Reversible (rev...@earth.execpc.com) wrote:
: In message <34e07...@feed1.realtime.net>, jo...@bga.com said:
: > "Previously thought to be non-flammable except at elevated
: > temperature or in oxygen-enriched air, it is in fact flammable
: > in the range 12-19% in ambient air..."
: >
: >
: > : Note how this agrees precisely with what I said--difficult to ignite
: >
: > But flammable in sufficient concentration, and explosive too.
: But no explosion was observed at the compound until well into the fire,
: when the propane tanks went. If the MeCl2 was going to go at all,
: it would have been as a large fuel-vapor explosion. This was NOT
: observed.
Now you're engaging in unqualified speculation about
the characteristic appearance of a dichloromethane
explosion. Since dichloromethane has flammability
and explosive characteristics which are different
than fuels, the explosion would probably appear
different.
(...)
: > But explosive when the vapor is exposed to heat or flame.
: But no explosion was observed.
There was a fireball observed, inside the building.
Once again, if you'd bothered to find out what happened
at Waco, you'd know that. Alternately, if you'd bothered
to read this thread, you'd have seen that information.
john d.
: > This is going in circles anyway, so I might as well take it
: > back to the start.
: > Bretherick's Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards
: > 5th ed Vol 1 p158:
: >
: > "Previously thought to be non-flammable except at elevated
: > temperature or pressure or in oxygen-enriched air, it is
: > in fact flammable in the range 12-19%..."
: From 1982?
Yes, from 1982. The point of that is that the flammability
potential has been known for some years.
john d.
Reverend Reversible (rev...@earth.execpc.com) wrote:
: In message <34e07...@feed1.realtime.net>, jo...@bga.com said:
: Can you please point us to references regarding the label on the
: CS canisters? So far, all we have is your word that this compound
: is even in question.
Yes, it was previously posted in this thread.
Alternately, you could find out what happened at
Waco, by reading any number of references, before
you jump into this discussion.
john d.
Reverend Reversible (rev...@earth.execpc.com) wrote:
: Where is the reference that backs up your claim that CS is dispersed
: with MeCl2?
Previously posted in this thread.
Alternately, you could find out what happened at Waco,
by reading any number of references, before jumping
into this discussion.
john d.
: > (...)
: >
: > : dousing it in silicon oil and dropping a match. They wouldn't use a
: > : tactic that by their own data wouldn't work (unless you go with John's
: > : assertion that they knew that methylene chloride was explosive 16 years
: > : ago and have been keeping it a secret ever since).
: >
: > I never made that claim. You're lying.
: You said that a 1982 study (which FedGov had knowledge of (or should
: have had knowledge of) proved that CH2Cl2 is explosive. Now, if FedGov
No, I said that the 1982 study showed potential flammability.
: knew (and believed) this, and didn't inform the rest of the country (by
: not changing the DOT or OSHA regs) then they are, in fact, keeping this
: a secret. Actually, since the IMO registry also remains unchanged, it
No, I claimed that Atty Gen Janet Reno was unaware of the
flammability potential of CS with dichloromethane, whereas
senior FBI agents knew of it from prior experience.
I also pointed out that Reno was negligent in other areas.
You ought to take some time to find out what happened at Waco.
Archangel
john d. wrote:
> You ought to take some time to find out what happened at Waco.
BATF raids Mt. Carmel
Davidians murder ATF agents
Shit gets out of control
Bunch of people dead.
If I want to know more, I won't look for it on alt.religion.scientology
Archangel
john d.
In article <lqt40Mdlg8/T09...@islandnet.com> Martin Hunt (mar...@islandnet.com) wrote:
: In article <34DE2A...@surfari.net>,
: Lynette Warren <ar...@surfari.net> wrote:
:
: >WACO: THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT http://www.waco93.com
: > *** Academy Award Nominee for BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE of 1997 ***
:
: stick to discussing Scientology on this forum, thank you.
Scientology is bullshit!
Are you satisfied, Martin?
BTW, you can probably find "Waco: The Rules of Engagement"
at the local video rental store. In Texas, I believe that
the chain "I love Video" has it (the name of the store
actually has a large heart in it, not the word love).
john d.
Archangel (de1...@aol.com) wrote:
: Reverend Reversible wrote:
(...)
: > First I soaked a paper towel in methylene chloride (MeCl2
: > henceforth) and put it in a bunsen burner flame. The paper
: > would NOT burn until the MeCl2 had all evaporated off. The
: > escaping vapors did seem to burn weakly, but only in the
: > immediate presence of the blue hot burner flame.
The flammability range of dichloromethane is 12-19%
in air. This "experiment" was outside of that range.
: > Then I squirted about 2 ml of MeCl2 right into the flame.
: > The flame was immediately extinguished.
The flammability range of dichloromethane is 12-19%
in air. This "experiment" was outside of that range.
: > Next I put a ml in a test tube, warmed it in the flame to
: > produce an enclosed space and put a flaming wooden splint
: > into the tube. The splint was immediately extinguished.
The flammability range of dichloromethane is 12-19%
in air. This "experiment" was outside of that range.
: Inspiring work. Allow me to collaborate. I opened the cover on our
: surplus Varian AA, turned on the nebulizer, but left the flame off. I
: placed the sample inlet tube into a 50mL beaker of CH2Cl2 and attempted
: to ignite the resulting mist with a long-nosed lighter. It didn't work.
Recall the conditions for flammability of dichloromethane:
concentration of 12-19% in ambient air.
Your "experiment" was outside of that range.
You claim to be a chemist?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Archangel
john d. wrote:
>
> Archangel (de1...@aol.com) wrote:
> : Reverend Reversible wrote:
> (...)
>
> : > First I soaked a paper towel in methylene chloride (MeCl2
> : > henceforth) and put it in a bunsen burner flame. The paper
> : > would NOT burn until the MeCl2 had all evaporated off. The
> : > escaping vapors did seem to burn weakly, but only in the
> : > immediate presence of the blue hot burner flame.
>
> The flammability range of dichloromethane is 12-19%
> in air. This "experiment" was outside of that range.
>
> : > Then I squirted about 2 ml of MeCl2 right into the flame.
> : > The flame was immediately extinguished.
>
> The flammability range of dichloromethane is 12-19%
> in air. This "experiment" was outside of that range.
>
> : > Next I put a ml in a test tube, warmed it in the flame to
> : > produce an enclosed space and put a flaming wooden splint
> : > into the tube. The splint was immediately extinguished.
>
> The flammability range of dichloromethane is 12-19%
> in air. This "experiment" was outside of that range.
How do you know? Were you there to take a sampling of the vapor levels
in the tube? Do you know the vapor pressure of CH2Cl2 as a function of
temperature? At the right temperature, the airborne concentration will
be EXACTLY in that 12-19% range, you do realize this don't you? How do
you know the conditions in the Rev's lab?
>
> : Inspiring work. Allow me to collaborate. I opened the cover on our
> : surplus Varian AA, turned on the nebulizer, but left the flame off. I
> : placed the sample inlet tube into a 50mL beaker of CH2Cl2 and attempted
> : to ignite the resulting mist with a long-nosed lighter. It didn't work.
>
> Recall the conditions for flammability of dichloromethane:
> concentration of 12-19% in ambient air.
>
> Your "experiment" was outside of that range.
Really? How do you know? What was my sample/air mix? What is the
default setting for a Varian Nebulizer? What did I adjust it to?
>
> You claim to be a chemist?
>
You claim to be clairvoyant?
And let me guess--the FBI deliberately adjusts its tear gas grenades to
produce the optimum explosion hazard. Grow up. Get a life.
Oh, and why won't you be at the ACS meeting? Because you weren't
invited?
Archangel
john d.
Archangel (de1...@aol.com) wrote:
: Oh, and why won't you be at the ACS meeting? Because you weren't
: invited?
What will you be doing there? Working as a student usher, in
order to cover the expenses?
I'd be willing to go, and pay the higher, non-ACS member
registration fee, if you're going to present a paper.
john d.
Archangel (de1...@aol.com) wrote:
: > : > Next I put a ml in a test tube, warmed it in the flame to
: > : > produce an enclosed space and put a flaming wooden splint
: > : > into the tube. The splint was immediately extinguished.
: >
: > The flammability range of dichloromethane is 12-19%
: > in air. This "experiment" was outside of that range.
: How do you know? Were you there to take a sampling of the vapor levels
: in the tube? Do you know the vapor pressure of CH2Cl2 as a function of
: temperature? At the right temperature, the airborne concentration will
: be EXACTLY in that 12-19% range, you do realize this don't you? How do
: you know the conditions in the Rev's lab?
The reverend "chemical engineer for 25 years" reversible neglected
to measure the temperature, according to his description. Also,
the flaming wooden splint would have consumed some of the oxygen
in the test tube. Hence this experiment cannot lead to any useful
conclusions.
: > Your "experiment" was outside of that range.
: Really? How do you know? What was my sample/air mix? What is the
: default setting for a Varian Nebulizer? What did I adjust it to?
You neglected to report those parameters. From that, it could
be concluded that you don't have much experience reporting the
conditions of the experiments which you perform.
: > You claim to be a chemist?
: You claim to be clairvoyant?
abusive ad hominem (or is it tu quo que?)
: And let me guess--the FBI deliberately adjusts its tear gas grenades to
: produce the optimum explosion hazard. Grow up. Get a life.
abusive ad hominem
: Oh, and why won't you be at the ACS meeting? Because you weren't
: invited?
circumstantial ad hominem
You're using DA tactics by resorting to ad hominem attacks.
Tilman Hausherr
http://www.rickross.com/reference2/waco_report_08.html
VIII. The Fire
At 12:07 p.m., Central Standard Time, more than 6 hours after the
FBI began to implement the plan to end the standoff, fire was detected
inside the Branch Davidian residence. Within a period of 2 minutes, two
additional fires were detected in two other parts of the structure. In
less than 8 minutes the fire had spread throughout the structure. By the
end of the afternoon, the structure was completely destroyed.
The subcommittees received testimony from the leader of a team of
fire experts called together by the Texas Rangers to investigate the
origins of the fire,\601\ a fire expert retained by the Justice
Department to join with the team assembled by the Texas Rangers,\602\
and an independent arson investigator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\601\ U.S. Dept. of Justice, Report to the Deputy Attorney General
on the Events at Waco, Texas 329 (1993) [hereinafter Justice Department
Report].
\602\ These individuals visited the scene of the fire on April 22-
24, 1993. Hearings Part 3 at 119 (statement of James Quintiere).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the testimony of these witnesses, the subcommittees also
reviewed videotape recordings of the development and spread of the fire.
Included in this review was a videotape using ``forward looking
infrared'' (FLIR) technology, which was taken from an FBI observation
plane circling the Branch Davidian residence throughout the morning and
afternoon of April 19. The FLIR type of video, also called a Thermal
Imaging System, is a type of video photography which images thermal heat
sources. Because of its sensitivity to changes in the quantity of heat
given off by an object the FLIR videotape showed the beginning of the
fires within the Branch Davidian residence prior to the point at which
was the flames were visible to persons on the outside of the structure.
Time lapse indicators on the video tape recordings were used by the
witnesses to establish the times at which each fire within the Branch
Davidian residence began.
a. summary of the development of the fire
During the hearings, James Quintiere, professor of Fire Protection
Engineering at the University of Maryland and one of two fire experts
retained by the Justice Department to join the fire review team
assembled by the Texas Rangers, used the FLIR video tape to demonstrate
the development of the fire on April 19. Dr. Quintiere's
responsibilities as a part of the Review Team were to analyze the
development of the fire and draw interpretations and conclusions from
that analysis.\603\ In addition to reviewing the FLIR video, the fire
investigation team reviewed television coverage of the fire by the
Canadian Broadcasting Corp., which was also time dated, and television
coverage of the fire by a local Waco television station. The team also
reviewed aerial photographs and other materials. During his testimony to
the subcommittees, Dr. Quintiere played a video tape that simultaneously
played each of the three video tapes of the fire synchronized to the
same time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\603\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The videotape demonstration showed that the first fire began at
12:07:42 p.m. As part of his testimony to the subcommittees, Dr.
Quintiere narrated the videotape demonstration. As the first fire
developed, Dr. Quintiere testified,
If you look at this point here, you will see this window begin
to turn slightly grayish, it does right now. Nine seconds later
the window on the opposite side right here is going to also show
an illumination which is due to this temperature rise, and in my
opinion that is due to smoke being transported from the fire
started at one end of the room to the other end of the room. . .
. The room was a second floor room approximately 16 x 11 in
dimensions and about 8 feet high, which is presumed to have been
a bedroom. One minute later the second fire begins on the first
floor at the rear of the dining room.\604\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\604\ Hearings Part 3 at 135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Quintiere then described the development of the second fire.
We are looking at the development of the fire in that bedroom
area, the second floor right tower. What we are going to see
here at 12:09:42, we will see an event known to people who
investigate and study fire. That event is called flashover, and
that is a point when we have a transition in this fire in which
the fire goes from a discrete object that you could discern very
readily burning in a room such as this to a point where flames
now fill the room, and that transition can occur in seconds. It
is known as flashover. Before that time the room might be
survivable.
After that time it is definitely not, and now the fire is a
threat to spreading to other rooms.\605\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\605\ Id. at 136.
Finally, Dr. Quintiere described the inception of the third fire, which
occurred on the first floor in the chapel area.\606\ He also noted that
38 seconds later there emerged hot gases at a point 45 feet away from
the point where the third fire began. He testified that this could have
been a separately set, fourth fire, but that the development of this
fire was consistent with someone placing a trail of gasoline or other
liquid fuel between those two points and allowing the third fire to
spread over that trail.\607\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\606\ Id.
\607\ Id. at 136-137.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Dr. Quintiere summarized his conclusions:
If we can just pause at this point, you can see the fire here,
the first fire. A minute later, a fire began in the dining room
area, and a minute after that a fire began in this chapel. It
has not burned through the roof yet, but the ignition in the
debris area because of the wind has now propagated significantly
over that debris area. These are three distinct fires.
From this information I can conclude that these three fires
that occurred nearly 1 minute apart were intentionally set from
within the compound. Also, you have the time periods involved
and the very discrete different locations. None of these three
fires could have caused any of the others because their growth
rates would not provide sufficient heating to cause such remote
ignitions.\608\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\608\ Id. at 138.
The experts testified that they believed the fires were
intentionally set by Branch Davidian members in order to destroy the
structure.\609\ Supporting this conclusion is that fact that the fire
review team found that a number of accelerants were present in the
structure and on the clothing of some of the surviving Davidians,
including gasoline, kerosene, Coleman fuel, and other accelerants.\610\
As Dr. Quintiere testified,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\609\ Id. at 138, 191 (``I don't discount that the fires were
started inside by the people inside.'') (statement of Rick Sherrow).
\610\ Id. at 166, 187-188 (statement of Paul Grey).
Although normal furnishings and interior construction
characteristics would provide a means for fire propagation, the
more than usual rapid spread of these fires, especially in the
dining room and the chapel areas, indicates to me that some form
of accelerant was used to encourage to the rapid spread of these
fires.\611\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\611\ Id. at 138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. other theories concerning the development of the fire
1. Whether the methylene chloride in the CS riot control agent used by
the FBI caused the fire
One of the theories forwarded to the subcommittees concerning the
origin of the fire is that methylene chloride, a chemical used as a
dispersant to carry the CS riot control agent injected into the Branch
Davidian residence, may have ignited and started the fire. During the
hearings Dr. Quintiere testified that it was his opinion that the
methylene chloride in the CS agent neither caused nor contributed to the
spread of the fire.
According to Dr. Quintiere, methylene chloride, when a vapor in air,
is flammable at ambient air levels of 12 percent or greater.\612\ This
conclusion is supported by information provided by the manufacturers of
methylene chloride.\613\ The subcommittees review of the evidence
presented indicates that the levels of methylene chloride present in the
residence on April 19 was far below this concentration.\614\
Additionally, a spark, flame, or other source of heat is necessary for
methylene chloride to ignite and a fireball-like event would have
resulted. As Dr. Quintiere testified,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\612\ Id. at 140.
\613\ Letter from Peter Voytek, executive director, Halogenated
Solvents Industry Alliance, Inc. to Glenn R. Schmitt, counsel to the
Subcommittee on Crime (July 25, 1995). See also generally Mallinckrodt,
Inc., Material Data Safety Sheet 1 (1989); Dow Chemical, Inc., Material
Data Safety Sheet 1 (1988).
\614\ See section VII F of this report.
In other words, anything above 12 percent to approximately 20
percent, it would be in the flammable range, and if we had a
spark or a small match and if we had conditions like that, we
would have a fire propagating through the atmosphere much like a
fireball. There was no observation like that made for this
fire.\615\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\615\ Hearings Part 3 at 140.
The only fireball which did occur took place well after the fires had
engulfed the building, and was most likely due to the explosion of a
canister of propane gas.\616\ Accordingly, because there was no
explosion prior to the beginning of the fire, there is no evidence that
methylene chloride vapor present in the air caused the outbreak of the
fire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\616\ ``[T]he explosion happened well after the building was totally
destroyed. It was very unlikely that that explosion was anything other
than a propane cylinder. . . . There was, in fact, a hundred pound
propane cylinder with a piece of the top blown out about the size of a
football exactly where that explosion occurred, and I have no doubt that
that is what the big explosion is. . . .'' Id. at 175-176 (statement of
Paul Gray).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Quintiere also noted that methylene chloride is generally in a
liquid state and that as the methylene chloride vapor condensed and fell
in droplets to the floor of the structure after the CS was inserted the
methylene chloride generally would have evaporated. In some instances,
however, the chemical could have collected in a puddle. He testified
that such a puddle would have been difficult to ignite due to the
presence of chlorine in the chemical. He testified that ``in some sense
[methylene chloride] acts like an inhibitor.'' \617\ He further
testified that he conducted experiments using methylene chloride as a
``wetting'' agent by depositing it on wood, paper, and other flammable
objects that might have been found in the structure in an effort to
determine whether the methylene chloride might have burned along with
these items. As a result of these experiments, he concluded ``that the
methylene chloride had no enhancement effect on the fires spread over
the room furnishings and other things that burned in the compound.''
\618\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\617\ Id. at 140.
\618\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Whether the irritant chemical in the CS riot control agent used by
the FBI caused or contributed to the spread of the fire
At the hearings Dr. Quintiere testified that he had reviewed the
literature concerning the ignition point of the chemical irritant in CS
agent and noted that the temperature at which that chemical would ignite
was comparable ``to what we would find from most fuels around us.''
\619\ Based upon his review of the literature, Dr. Quintiere testified
that it was his opinion that the CS powder that is an active irritant in
the riot control agent did not enhance the spread of the fire.\620\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\619\ Id.
\620\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Whether the combat engineering vehicles used by the FBI on April 19
started the fire
Some theories concerning the origin of the fire involve an
explanation that one of the combat engineering vehicles used by the FBI
to inject CS chemical agent and to demolish portions of the Branch
Davidian residence may have actually caused the fire, either
intentionally or unintentionally.
At one point in the video record of the operation on April 19, a
combat engineering vehicle is seen driving into a portion of the
residence. The first fire begins in that same location shortly
thereafter. Some have suggested that the CEV might have overturned a
lighted kerosene lantern inside the residence, causing the fire to
begin. The fire that begins in that area, however, is not discernable in
the FLIR video until 1\621\ During the hearings, Dr. Quintiere was
questioned on the significance of this fact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\621\ Id. at 135 (statement of James Quintiere).
Mr. Schiff: Well, if there were lanterns in use and if you
had, either through vibrations of tanks hitting walls or through
a number of people, panicking inside at what they might have
perceived was an assault, notwithstanding the FBI broadcast
going to them, couldn't either or both of those factors easily
overturned lanterns inside the compound?
Dr. Quintiere: Well, the only evidence of a tank being in the
vicinity of one of the fires is the first fire, and that tank
has not left 1\1/2\ minutes after the fire has begun. If that
tank knocked over a lantern and the lantern were lit, we would
have seen it in that FLIR video because it would have been
sensitive enough to see that. If the tank had spilled a lantern
and there was no flame there to ignite it, that's possible, but
somebody would have to come in and put a flame in that.\622\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\622\ Id. at 143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some citizens have contacted the subcommittees to suggest that the
combat engineering vehicles used by the FBI at Waco carried flame
throwing devices which were used to intentionally set the fires inside
the Branch Davidian residence. During the hearings, the fire experts
were questioned about this theory.
Mr. Schumer: Another theory we have heard mentioned is that a
flame thrower from the tanks started the fire. Now as I
understand it, we would have to have seen on the FLIR a hot
streak going from the tank to the building for that to happen.
Dr. Quintiere: Absolutely.
Mr. Schumer: And we did not; is that correct?
Dr. Quintiere: Absolutely.
Mr. Schumer: So you are saying a flame thrower from the tanks
starting the fire--is that consistent--is that theory consistent
with what we saw on the tape?
Dr. Quintiere: No, indeed. There was no such thing as a flame
thrower on those vehicles.\623\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\623\ Id. at 144. See also Id. at 172 (``The flame-throwing tank
absolutely did not happen.'') (statement of Rick Sherrow).
On another day of the hearings, a Defense Department witness testified
that all of the military vehicles loaned by the Defense Department to
the Department of Justice and used at Waco were unarmed.\624\
Additionally, the subcommittees' interviews with other persons present
at the Branch Davidian residence on April 19 confirms that none of these
vehicles was armed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\624\ Id. at 314 (statement of Allen Holmes, Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. whether the davidians could have left their residence after the fire
began
Throughout the morning of April 19, none of the Davidians left their
residence. After the fire broke out, however, nine persons left the
building.\625\ This indicates that at least some opportunity existed for
the Davidians to safely leave the structure had they wanted to do so.
One of those who escaped the fire left the residence almost 21 minutes
after the outbreak of the first fire.\626\ Clearly, some means of escape
from the residence existed for a significant period of time after the
fire broke out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\625\ Justice Department Report at 298. Two of these persons, Clive
Doyle and David Thibodeau testified before the subcommittees at the
hearings.
\626\ Hearings Part 3 at 139 (statement of James Quintiere).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An important question, however, is whether the Davidians might have
been overcome by smoke and prevented from leaving the residence. The
autopsies of the Davidians indicate that deaths from smoke inhalation or
asphyxiation from carbon monoxide poisoning accounted for only half of
the Davidians who died in the residence. The other causes of death were
gunshot wounds, burns, or other trauma. Thus, even after the fires began
to consume the structure, at least half of the Davidians were not so
affected by the smoke and fumes from the fire that they were physically
unable to leave the structure.
Additionally, the location of the bodies of the Davidians indicates
that few of the Davidians actually attempted to escape the building.
Many of the bodies were huddled together in locations in the center of
the building.\627\ Few of the bodies were located at points of exit from
the building, and autopsies indicates that the cause of death of several
of the bodies at exit points were self-inflicted gunshot wounds or
gunshots from very close range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\627\ A chart indicating the location of the bodies found after the
fire in the remains of residence is contained in the Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the hearings before the subcommittees, Dr. Quintiere testified as
to his opinion as to whether the Davidians could have left the
structure. He testified,
I've estimated . . . that the occupants would have had
sufficient warning in no doubt [sic] that the fire occurred, and
this would have enabled them to escape for up to five minutes
from the start of that first fire or perhaps as many as 20
minutes in some protected areas of the building.
So between and interval of five minutes after the fire started
and maybe as much as 20 minutes, a person could have escaped
from some parts of the building.\628\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\628\ Hearings Part 3 at 139.
Paul Gray, Assistant Chief of the Houston Fire Department and leader of
the fire review team assembled by the Texas Rangers, agreed with this
opinion, ``I would take an educated guess of about 20 to 22 minutes from
the inception of the fire, from the first ignition that there may have
been some viable conditions inside the building.'' \629\ As the report
of the team led by Gray summarized,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\629\ Id. at 183.
[A] great many of the occupants could have escaped to the
outside of the compound even as the building burned. . . .
[C]onsidering the observable means of exit available, we must
assume that many of the occupants were either denied escape from
within or refused to leave until escape was not an option.\630\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\630\ Justice Department Report at 335.
In light of this evidence, the subcommittees conclude that there was
a period of time after the fires began within which the Davidians could
have escaped the residence. The evidence presented to the subcommittees
indicates that the Davidians did not attempt to leave the building
during the fire. In light of the Davidians' religious beliefs that fire
would play a part in the end of their worldly lives, the subcommittees
conclude that most of the Davidians either did not attempt to leave
their residence during the fire or were prevented from escaping by other
Davidians. Had they made such an attempt and not been hindered in the
attempt, however, conditions were such that for sufficient period of
time after the fires broke out many of the Davidians could have
survived.
d. the fbi's planning for the fire
According to the Justice Department Report, at a meeting in early
April, one of the government attorneys raised the possibility of fire at
the compound and suggested to the FBI that ``fire fighting equipment be
placed on standby on the scene.'' \631\ Additionally, the Medical Annex
to the operations plan for April 19, which listed the locations of
``primary'' and ``secondary'' hospitals in the area noted that local
hospitals should not be used to treat major burns but that one of the
secondary hospitals was ``primary for major burns.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\631\ Id. at 302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Justice Department Report, the FBI decided to not
have fire fighting equipment at the scene ``for fear that they would be
fired upon by Koresh and his followers.'' \632\ Yet shortly after the
reports of fire, the FBI command post requested fire fighting assistance
be requested. The first fire fighting vehicles arrived in the vicinity
20 minutes later and, at 12:41 p.m., approached the structure. In total,
the fire crews did not reach the structure until 31 minutes after the
fire had first been reported.\633\ The report also asserts that Jeffrey
Jamar, the FBI's on-scene commander at Waco, stated to Justice
Department officials during the their internal investigation of the
incident that ``even if the fire fighters had arrived at the compound
earlier he would not have permitted them to enter due to the great risk
to their lives.'' \634\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\632\ Id.
\633\ Id.
\634\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The subcommittees do not dispute the Justice Department's position
that at the outbreak of the fire it would have been dangerous for fire
fighters to approach the structure. Yet, the subcommittees find it
troubling that even though the government clearly believed there existed
a strong possibility of fire, no provision was made for fire fighting
units to be on hand, even as a precaution. If, as the Justice
Department's Report implies, the government had decided in advance that
it would not attempt to fight any fire that occurred (and thus did not
make provision for fire fighting units to be present at the compound),
it is difficult to understand why the FBI placed a call for fire
fighting units to be summoned to the scene immediately upon the
commencement of the fire.
e. findings concerning the fire
1. The evidence indicates that some of the Davidians intentionally
set the fires inside the Davidian residence. While the evidence is not
dispositive, the evidence presented to the subcommittees suggests that
some of the Davidians set the fires that destroyed their residence. The
evidence demonstrated that three distinct fires began in three separate
parts of the Branch Davidian residence within a 2 minute period on April
19. Additionally, the fire review team found that a number of
accelerants were present in the structure, including gasoline, kerosene,
and Coleman fuel, and that in at least one instance these accelerants
contributed to the spread of the fire in a manner that indicates an
intention to spread the fire.
2. The methylene chloride in the CS riot control agent used by the
FBI did not cause the fire. There is no evidence that methylene chloride
vapor in the air in the residence, present as the result of its use as a
disbursant for the CS riot control agent, caused the outbreak of the
fire. The evidence presented to the subcommittees indicated that for the
methylene chloride to have burned some spark must have ignited the
methylene chloride vapor and that a fireball would have resulted.
Because no fireball was observed until well after the fire had become
established, the subcommittees conclude that methylene chloride did not
cause the fire.
3. The subcommittees conclude that Federal law enforcement agents
did not intentionally set the fire. The evidence before the
subcommittees clearly demonstrates that no fire began at or near the
time when any of the combat engineering vehicles used by the FBI came
into contact with the structure. Had a flamethrower or similar device
been installed on one of the CEV's and used to start the fire its use
would have been observable in the infrared videotape of the fire. No
such use is recorded on the that videotape. Accordingly, the
subcommittees conclude that the FBI did not use any of the CEV's
intentionally to cause the fire.
4. The subcommittees conclude that Federal law enforcement agents
did not unintentionally cause the fire. The evidence presented to the
subcommittees suggests that it is highly unlikely that Federal law
enforcement officials unintentionally caused the fires to occur. The
evidence demonstrates that the fires broke out at points in time when no
vehicle used by the FBI was in contact with the structure or had been in
contact with the structure immediately prior to those points. Because
this would have been the case had these vehicles inadvertently caused
the fires to break out by disturbing flammable materials inside the
Davidian residence, the subcommittees conclude that it is highly
unlikely that the vehicles inadvertently caused the fires to occur.
5. The FBI should have made better preparations to fight the fire.
While it may have been too dangerous to fight the fire when it initially
erupted, it remains unknown as to whether it might have been safe for
fire fighters to approach the building at some point earlier than the
half hour later when they were allowed access. While fire fighting
efforts might not have extinguished the fire, they could have delayed
the spread of the fire or provided additional safe means of escape for
some of the Davidians. It also does not appear as though the FBI
considered obtaining armored fire-fighting vehicles from the military.
In any event, given the government's strong belief that a fire might
take place, and its action in summoning fire fighting units to the
scene, the subcommittees conclude that the FBI should have made better
provision for the presence of fire fighting equipment as part of its
overall plan to end the standoff.
6. The Davidians could have escaped the residence even after the
fire began. After the fire broke out on April 19, nine persons left the
Davidian residence. This indicates that at least some opportunity
existed for the Davidians to safely leave the structure had they wanted
to do so. As one person left the structure 21 minutes after the outbreak
of the first fire, some means of escape from the residence existed for a
significant period of time after the fire broke out. The autopsies of
the Davidians indicate that many of the Davidians were not so affected
by the smoke and fumes from the fire that they were physically unable to
leave the structure. Additionally, the location of the bodies of the
Davidians indicates that few of the Davidians actually attempted to
escape the building. In light of this evidence, the subcommittees
conclude that there was a period of time after the fires began within
which the Davidians could have escaped the residence.
Zinj
Thanks for that Til.
Maybe this thread can now return to it's original question; ie, Does the Church
of Scientology, as is consistent with paranoid, megalomanic millenial cults in
general collect weapons for their 'clearing' of the planet?
For those interested in further Waco stories, maybe you could start a different
thread.
Maybe on a different group.
Zinj
john d.
Zinj (zinj...@inreach.com) wrote:
: Thanks for that Til.
Yes, at least an effort was made to find out what happened at Waco.
However, there are differing opinions on the cause of the fire.
The reference given by Tilman is of course the US gov't version.
For an alternate viewpoint, read "The Ashes of Waco" by D. J. Reavis
(Simon and Schuster 1995). There are other, which I'll post
when I get time.
Bernie
in alt.religion.scientology, Lynette Warren <ar...@surfari.net> wrote
(Messsage-ID <34DCE7...@surfari.net>):
>****Nominated for BEST DOCUMENTARY of 1997****
>Visit the website for WACO: THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
>http://www.waco93.com
Congratulation, Lynette.
Bernie
Rob Clark
On 13 Feb 1998 19:42:37 -0600, rev...@earth.execpc.com (Reverend Reversible)
wrote:
>In message <34e33...@feed1.realtime.net>, jo...@bga.com said:
>And speaking of references, do you have one to back up your claim that
>MeCl2 *was* in the CS cannisters? Until you provide that, this whole
>argument about the properties of MeCl2 is actually moot.
he has no intention of backing up that claim, he is a troll.
his purpose is to say incredibly retarded things in a provocative
way to piss people off into responding.
rob
john d.
Reverend Reversible (rev...@earth.execpc.com) wrote:
: In message <34e33...@feed1.realtime.net>, jo...@bga.com said:
: But why did it not ignite in the presence of a hotter, blue
: flame when I tried it?
Because your experiment was bogus.
Read the references in the handbooks to determine the
appropriate experimental method.
(...)
: > : > Also see Table 4-1 in Handbook of Chemical Compound Data for
: > : > Process Safety (Gulf Publishing Co. Houston TX 1997),
: > : > in which a flashpoint of 25 F is listed for dichloromethane.
: > (...)
: The burden of proof is on the prosecution. I won't have time to get
: to the library for weeks as I'm in the middle of getting my house ready
: to sell. Could you post a scan to the binaries group?
But you've had time to fart around in the lab, performing
a variety of bogus experiments. You also have plenty of time
to read and post to news. Now you claim that you don't have time
to make a trip to the library. It would seem that you're lying
about something.
: How about you trying to refute my experimental observations? Mix
How about you reading published research, and trying to refute
their claims? Publish your results, and all of the chemists,
engineers, etc. would benefit by the improvement in the
safety procedures.
(...)
: And speaking of references, do you have one to back up your claim that
: MeCl2 *was* in the CS cannisters? Until you provide that, this whole
: argument about the properties of MeCl2 is actually moot.
Every account of the Waco incident includes the explicit
statement that there was dichloromethane in the CS cannisters.
john d.
Rob Clark (xe...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: On 13 Feb 1998 19:42:37 -0600, rev...@earth.execpc.com (Reverend Reversible)
: wrote:
: >In message <34e33...@feed1.realtime.net>, jo...@bga.com said:
: >And speaking of references, do you have one to back up your claim that
: >MeCl2 *was* in the CS cannisters? Until you provide that, this whole
: >argument about the properties of MeCl2 is actually moot.
: he has no intention of backing up that claim, he is a troll.
You're a liar. I've already posted several references
which establish that there was dichloromethane in the CS
cannisters. Tilman posted one too.
Aren't you the guy who used to be henry@nyx ?
henry blundered into alt.flame several years ago,
asking for flamers to come join in with ars.
That was back when you posted something like
"blow up the orgs", right?
Ron Newman
In article <34e73...@feed1.realtime.net>, jo...@bga.com (john d.) wrote:
> Rob Clark (xe...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> : he has no intention of backing up that claim, he is a troll.
> Aren't you the guy who used to be henry@nyx ?
> henry blundered into alt.flame several years ago,
> asking for flamers to come join in with ars.
> That was back when you posted something like
> "blow up the orgs", right?
Yes, but unlike you, henry has grown up since then, and he has
long since apologized for his "blow up your local church of Scientology"
posting.
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
john d.
Reverend Reversible (rev...@earth.execpc.com) wrote:
: I asked for references to back up your claims and you just duck and weave.
: What does that tell us?
The references were previously posted in this thread.
john d.
Reverend Reversible (rev...@earth.execpc.com) wrote:
: Do you have a reference you can provide regarding the actual
: composition of the CS cannisters?
Every report on the Waco fire states that explicitly.
Once again: Learn something about what happened at Waco,
before jumping into the middle of this discussion.
john d.
Reverend Reversible (rev...@earth.execpc.com) wrote:
: Peronally, I got my B.Science in Chemistry from the University of
Oh, just an undergrad degree. That explains your lack
of familiarity with journal references, such as those in
the safety handbooks. Read the references listed in the
handbooks, and you'll learn how to set up a proper
experiment to test the flammability and explosion
hazards of dichloromethane.
Archangel
Where the hell did YOU go school that you could get a B.S. without a
familiarity of journals and references? Did you also graduate high
school without learning to read?
Archangel
Archangel
> : flame when I tried it?
>
> Because your experiment was bogus.
> Read the references in the handbooks to determine the
> appropriate experimental method.
Bollocks. NO experiment perfomed without deception is bogus. It may
not prove what you ant to prove, but the experimental data is valid.
BTW, crying out for the "appropriate expermiental method" tells me that
you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about. If I think you
are misanalyzing for vitamin A, I will reference you to AOAC method
974.29, not some nebulous "appropriate method." Find the method you're
harping on and reference it to us (hint: I gave you four possibilities
earlier).
>
> (...)
>
> : > : > Also see Table 4-1 in Handbook of Chemical Compound Data for
> : > : > Process Safety (Gulf Publishing Co. Houston TX 1997),
> : > : > in which a flashpoint of 25 F is listed for dichloromethane.
> : > (...)
>
> : The burden of proof is on the prosecution. I won't have time to get
> : to the library for weeks as I'm in the middle of getting my house ready
> : to sell. Could you post a scan to the binaries group?
>
> But you've had time to fart around in the lab, performing
> a variety of bogus experiments. You also have plenty of time
> to read and post to news. Now you claim that you don't have time
> to make a trip to the library. It would seem that you're lying
> about something.
Hmmm. Screaming "BOGUS! BOGUS!" doesn't strengthen your case any.
Also, if you had ANY familiarity with what the inside of a lab looks
like (don't believe what you see on teevee, he he.) You'd know that his
experiments probably took under five minutes total, seven (including the
write-up) max.
>
> : How about you trying to refute my experimental observations? Mix
>
> How about you reading published research, and trying to refute
> their claims? Publish your results, and all of the chemists,
> engineers, etc. would benefit by the improvement in the
> safety procedures.
>
Well, by your logic, that 1982 reference is invalid, since it argues
against earlier "published" reference materials. And just to tie this
back into your original point--why should the FBI director use his
personal experience when all the "published" (Aldrich, DOT, Merck, IMO,
etc), material says CH@Cl2 is not an explosion hazard>
Archangel
Archangel
> order to cover the expenses?
As far as I know, there are no such beasts. I've never met one.
>
> I'd be willing to go, and pay the higher, non-ACS member
> registration fee, if you're going to present a paper.
REALLY? I am planning to present a paper at AOAC south region. Will
you go there? If you can make it to Dallas, you can make it to Corpus
Christi.
Archangel
Archangel
> : > (...)
>
> : > : > Next I put a ml in a test tube, warmed it in the flame to
> : > : > produce an enclosed space and put a flaming wooden splint
> : > : > into the tube. The splint was immediately extinguished.
> : >
> : > The flammability range of dichloromethane is 12-19%
> : > in air. This "experiment" was outside of that range.
(unsubstantiated claim #1)
>
> : How do you know? Were you there to take a sampling of the vapor levels
> : in the tube? Do you know the vapor pressure of CH2Cl2 as a function of
> : temperature? At the right temperature, the airborne concentration will
> : be EXACTLY in that 12-19% range, you do realize this don't you? How do
> : you know the conditions in the Rev's lab?
>
> The reverend "chemical engineer for 25 years" reversible neglected
> to measure the temperature, according to his description. Also,
> the flaming wooden splint would have consumed some of the oxygen
> in the test tube. Hence this experiment cannot lead to any useful
> conclusions.
Balderdash. No conclusions that YOU consider useful. If the tube had
gone blooie, I'm sure you would have accepted those results, regardless
of his reporting. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
BTW, you're confusing your subgenii.
>
> : > Your "experiment" was outside of that range.
(unsubstantiated claim #2)
>
> : Really? How do you know? What was my sample/air mix? What is the
> : default setting for a Varian Nebulizer? What did I adjust it to?
>
> You neglected to report those parameters. From that, it could
> be concluded that you don't have much experience reporting the
> conditions of the experiments which you perform.
>
I would be an incorrect conclusion. I have years of experience
reporting experimental results. Enough experience, in fact, to know
that you tailor the information level to your audience. The majority of
readers on a.r.s. (including yourself) are not chemists.
> : > You claim to be a chemist?
>
> : You claim to be clairvoyant?
>
> abusive ad hominem (or is it tu quo que?)
Pots and kettles...which are black? You make unsubstantiated claims, I
point that out, you attack me. I win.
You have been taught, but you have not learned. Ad hominem is only a
logical fallacy if used in an argument and the behavior/character of the
target is not relevant. In this case, I am using ad hominem attacks as
a rhetorical device to point out your own faulty logic and my personal
scorn for your intelligence level.
Archangel
john d.
Reverend Reversible (rev...@earth.execpc.com) wrote:
: In message <34e4a...@feed1.realtime.net>, jo...@bga.com said:
: > Archangel (de1...@aol.com) wrote:
: Hey, bean-brain, get your story straight. For the second time, I never
abusive ad hominem
(...)
: It's quite amusing seeing you complain about ad hominem. Anybody who's
: read this thread knows you're the culprit here.
See above.
john d.
: Bollocks. NO experiment perfomed without deception is bogus. It may
Sure it was. The experiment had no measurement of the temperature
inside the test tube. That's a bogus experiment.
: Hmmm. Screaming "BOGUS! BOGUS!" doesn't strengthen your case any.
: Also, if you had ANY familiarity with what the inside of a lab looks
: like (don't believe what you see on teevee, he he.) You'd know that his
: experiments probably took under five minutes total, seven (including the
: write-up) max.
How do you know that? Were you there, timing it?
(...)
: Well, by your logic, that 1982 reference is invalid, since it argues
: against earlier "published" reference materials. And just to tie this
: back into your original point--why should the FBI director use his
: personal experience when all the "published" (Aldrich, DOT, Merck, IMO,
: etc), material says CH@Cl2 is not an explosion hazard>
You're lying again. That is not all of the published material.
There was published material in 1982, just as I've posted, repeatedly.
john d.
: > I'd be willing to go, and pay the higher, non-ACS member
: > registration fee, if you're going to present a paper.
: REALLY? I am planning to present a paper at AOAC south region. Will
: you go there? If you can make it to Dallas, you can make it to Corpus
: Christi.
What's the topic? I won't bother going, if it's some bogus
research that you did over the weekend.
And what about the ACS conference? Aren't you presenting
a paper then?
john d.
Archangel (de1...@aol.com) wrote:
johnd wrote:
: BTW, you're confusing your subgenii.
Who, revrev? He was born confused.
: I would be an incorrect conclusion.
You would, would you?
: > abusive ad hominem (or is it tu quo que?)
: You have been taught, but you have not learned. Ad hominem is only a
: logical fallacy if used in an argument and the behavior/character of the
: target is not relevant.
Not in the case of a tu quo que ad hominem.
Archangel
john d. wrote:
>
> Archangel (de1...@aol.com) wrote:
> : john d. wrote:
>
> : > I'd be willing to go, and pay the higher, non-ACS member
> : > registration fee, if you're going to present a paper.
>
> : REALLY? I am planning to present a paper at AOAC south region. Will
> : you go there? If you can make it to Dallas, you can make it to Corpus
> : Christi.
>
> What's the topic? I won't bother going, if it's some bogus
> research that you did over the weekend.
>
So what you're saying is that you won't go, that you never had any
intention to meet me, that you are a liar and a coward.
I'm glad that you think AOAC has such low standards that it accepts
shoddy work at its meetings--it shows once again how little you know
about the science and profession of chemistry. The proposed topic is a
comparison of the Carr-Price reaction/colorimetric and HPLC analyses for
retinol in animal feeds.
Now you can say you're not interested in this topic and won't come. If
you do so, that would be an addition to your earlier criteria for
attending, creating a lie of ommission.
Archangel
Archangel
Lovely, now you're using editing tricks to move agruments out of their
proper context. Give up.
john d. wrote:
>
> Archangel (de1...@aol.com) wrote:
> : john d. wrote:
>
> : Bollocks. NO experiment perfomed without deception is bogus. It may
>
> Sure it was. The experiment had no measurement of the temperature
> inside the test tube. That's a bogus experiment.
>
Try again, oh ignorant one. Any experiment honestly performed is valid
within its particular limitations. There can be a knowledge of the
temperature in the test tube. I (and any other chemist) am absolutely
certain that the temperature in that test tube was between 293K - 313K,
and most probably between 303K - 313K. If you can't figure out why this
is, go home, find an institution of higher education which will accept
you, and take general chemistry I.
> : Hmmm. Screaming "BOGUS! BOGUS!" doesn't strengthen your case any.
> : Also, if you had ANY familiarity with what the inside of a lab looks
> : like (don't believe what you see on teevee, he he.) You'd know that his
> : experiments probably took under five minutes total, seven (including the
> : write-up) max.
>
> How do you know that? Were you there, timing it?
>
No but like I said, anyone familiar with lab techniques would make the
same assesment. This is making the reasonable assumption that the rev.
has a full compleent of limbs.
> (...)
>
> : Well, by your logic, that 1982 reference is invalid, since it argues
> : against earlier "published" reference materials. And just to tie this
> : back into your original point--why should the FBI director use his
> : personal experience when all the "published" (Aldrich, DOT, Merck, IMO,
> : etc), material says CH@Cl2 is not an explosion hazard>
>
> You're lying again. That is not all of the published material.
> There was published material in 1982, just as I've posted, repeatedly.
And again, you are misapplying arguments through creative editing,
either through ignorance or an attempt to deceive--which is it?
Your argument was that any experiment the rev could perform HAD to be
invalid, since it would contradict your holy 1982 reference. I pointed
out that if previously published material couldn't be contradicted by
later work, your 1982 reference would itself be invalid for disagreeing
with earlier published work. One of your arguments concerning waco
stated that the FBI director should have disregarded the DOT/OSHA regs
because his previous experience showed that CH2Cl2 went boom. Your two
arguments are in direct contradiction.
Archangel