Steve Knight

And 2-3 decades later they were forced to admit they'd known about the dangers since the 1950s, and hid and ignored them, and the public's well-being, just to make LOTS of money :\ Truth, Justice and the American Way? Well, when the American Way is "Screw everyone you can, and charge them for it!" Truth and Justice aren't even considered >.<

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/05/08/cnn-plane-aliens/ I ... errr ... yeah.... what?

Wait for us Brits to analyse the first few crashes/disasters. We've a great track record in improving plane safety over the decades. Such that I can't remember the last time a British airliner went tits-up. As opposed to the Frenchies, whose antics in that field cost them how many concordes, and ended up mothballing all of them...?

Yeah. I don't think it's going to scale down to automobiles (unless SUV or up ), as it takes 39,000 gallons of seawater to make 1 gallon of this jetfuel...but for the likes of CVNs or large warships, it's probably going to be a saver in the near future. Might be interesting to see some figures on it's power potential compared to "ordinary" jetfuel, though. The model they used it on was only a 2-stroke engine, not a regular jet engine...

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/04/12/navy-ends-big-oil/ Curiously, this doesn’t seem to be making much of a splash (no pun intended) on the evening news. Let’s repeat this: The United States Navy has figured out how to turn seawater into fuel and it will cost about the same as gasoline. This technology is in its infancy and it’s already this cheap? What happens when it’s refined and perfected? Oil is only getting more expensive as the easy-to-reach deposits are tapped so this truly is, as it’s being called, a “game changer.” I expect the GOP to go ballistic over this and try to legislate it out of existence. It’s a threat to their fossil fuel masters because it will cost them trillions in profits. It’s also “green” technology and Republicans will despise it on those grounds alone. They already have a track record of trying to do this. Unfortunately, once this kind of genie is out of the bottle, it’s very hard to put back in. There are two other aspects to this story that have not been brought up yet: 1. The process pulls carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas driving Climate Change) out of the ocean. One of the less well-publicized aspects of Climate Change is that the ocean acts like a sponge for CO2 and it’s just about reached its safe limit. The ocean is steadily becoming more acidic from all of the increased carbon dioxide. This in turn poisons delicate ecosystems like coral reefs that keep the ocean healthy. If we pull out massive amounts of CO2, even if we burn it again, not all of it will make it back into the water. Hell, we could even pull some of it and not use it in order to return the ocean to a sustainable level. That, in turn will help pull more of the excess CO2 out of the air even as we put it back. It would be the ultimate in recycling. 2. This will devastate oil rich countries but it will get us the hell out of the Middle East (another reason Republicans will oppose this). Let’s be honest, we’re not in the Middle East for humanitarian reasons. We’re there for oil. Period. We spend trillions to secure our access to it and fight a “war” on terrorism. Take away our need to be there and, suddenly, justifying our overseas adventures gets a lot harder to sell. And if we “leak” the technology? Every dictator propped up by oil will tumble almost overnight. Yes, it will be a bloody mess but we won’t be pissing away the lives of our military to keep scumbags in power. Let those countries figure out who they want to be without billionaire thugs and their mercenary armies running the show. Why this is not a huge major story mystifies me. I’m curious to see how it all plays out so stay tuned. UPDATE: People have been asking for more details about the process. This is from the Naval Research Laboratory’s official press release: In plain English, fuel is made from hydrocarbons (hydrogen and carbon). This process pulls both hydrogen and carbon from seawater and recombines them to make fuel. The process can be used on air as well but seawater holds about 140 times more carbon dioxide in it so it’s better suited for carbon collection. Another detail people seem to be confused about: This is essentially a carbon neutral process. The ocean is like a sponge for carbon dioxide in the air and currently has an excess amount dissolved in it. The process pulls carbon dioxide out of the ocean. It’s converted and burned as fuel. This releases the carbon dioxide back into the air which is then reabsorbed by the ocean. Rinse. Repeat.

As a note of interest, there was another similar ship disaster from this general time period ( http://sdsd.essortment.com/texascityexplo_rkvi.htm ). In 1947, a French ship carrying 2,300 tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer exploded in Texas City harbour, killing some 600 people and "virtually annihilating" the city. The explosion was heard 150 miles away, while in Houston "a rumbling reminiscent of a small earthquake was felt." The shock-wave also created a small tidal wave that washed inland. In spite of the massive damage, no one has come forward to claim it was the result of a nuclear bomb. Yet.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq80-3a.htm "Port Chicago devastation nowhere near the scale of Hiroshima." The atom bomb theorists try to excuse this by postulating that the device which detonated was an early prototype which lacked the destructiveness of its later siblings. So on the one hand, they're claiming the size of the explosion indicates it was nuclear, while on the other they're forced to make excuses why it wasn't as big as a nuclear bomb should have been. lol.

The explosion resulted in a crater 66 feet deep, 300 feet wide and 700 feet long in the river bottom. A five-kiloton nuclear bomb on the surface of wet soil creates a crater 53 feet deep and 132 feet in diameter. Q: What yield were the Trinity Project, Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear explosions? Note: The National Parks Services does not believe the accident at Port Chicago to be nuclear and the U.S. Navy has denied it. The site today does not show signs of radiation and survivors had normal post health.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/10669294/How-my-old-friend-Kim-Philby-the-master-spy-betrayed-us-all.html Maybe this memoir could provide some more insight... ? Edit : for copy-pasta of article for those of a lazy bent

So, other than conjecture, and wishful-thinking, what are the actual FACTS here?

So, other than conjecture, and wishful-thinking, what are the actual FACTS here?

A....friend... on FB posts a lot of this crap, and I saw that "deleted" FB thread. It wasn't good. Not even close to being believable.

I'm really, really sorry, but I have to ask... Do you have *ANY* source for this other than WingNutsDaily? Please. I absolutely refuse to give those retards ANY pageviews. See: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/WND : for a far cleaner and politer description than I could ever give about them.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-us-blocks-publication-of-chilcots-report-on-how-britain-went-to-war-with-iraq-8937772.html

Anyone want to do the honours? >.<

So, on 30th September, the day before the deadline, the Republican House had a (secret?) vote to change the Clause 4 of Rule XXII House rules, that any elected member in the chamber can call for any proposed bill to be voted upon by the chamber. Under Article/Section 2 of H Res 368, this "privilege" would henceforth be restricted to the House Majority Leader (Eric Cantor), or any person designated by that person. 7 Democrats voted for this. Apparently, 9 Republicans voted against it, but I've not had the leisure to look for their names yet. Now, it emerges that Cantor is heavily shorting the Dollar, in a gamble that it will take a hit in a default, and thus he will make a LOT of money on it. So, you got the power to call an end to this farce limited to one man.....who stands to make a LOT of money off the farce continuing, or if he allows it to go to a vote, and 18 of his party "defect" and vote to end it, he loses money. Not only did this HR 368 change the ability to use Clause 4 of Rule XXII, but it specifically applied it to House Joint Resolution 59, the appropriations bill that the House of Representatives and Senate are currently in a fight over. ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hjres59eah2/pdf/BILLS-113hjres59eah2.pdf ) House Joint Resolution 59 was introduced on September 10, 2013 by Rep. Harold Rogers (R, KY-5). It was referred to both the United States House Committee on Appropriations and the United States House Committee on the Budget. On September 20, 2013, the House voted in Roll Call Vote 478 to pass the bill 230-189. Before passing the bill, the House adopted the "Scalise Amendment." The amendment would prohibit "the funding of any provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or title I and subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010." Boehner has blocked himself into a corner that he can't get out of by catering to the T Party over the ACA which will not be defunded. The Republican Government Shutdown of 2013 continues.

UK "lost" 2 in the North Sea somewhere, IIRC. Or was it the Med? Both? O_o! The cavalier attitude that these things were handled with is simply....jaw-droppingly shocking.

I tried following the sources in that Infowars link, above, some days ago, and all it led to was a mutual-masturbation circle-jerk of other tinfoil blogs. Nothing of substance. I'll not hold my breath it's changed in the meantime. Just after this all hit the fan, and The Reich-Whingers, along with their propaganda machine - FauxNoise - started clamouring that Obama consult congress before any action in Syria is taken. So he acquiesced. As should be the case under the constitution, anyway. Subverted by decades of (mostly) Republican presidents unilateral decisions. And given that most of them are bought by the arms manufacturers, and WANT to invade another sovereign, foreign nation, it's REALLY going to be fun watching themselves tie themselves in knots because Obama ("appears" * ) to also want to take action, but they can't be seen to be doing ANYTHING that Obama wants....even if they want it, too. A la their one submitted jobs creation bill that as soon as Obama agreed he could get it passed through Congress, and enacted, they almost to a man voted against it! And then cue last week, and suddenly they're spitting tar and feathers that he didn't just make a unilateral decision to invade anyway. Hypocrisy, much? >.< It must be hard being a Conservative. The flip-flops would give you whip lash. They much prefer grandstanding to actually doing something. So, as I see it, and I may be wrong, but : I think *Obama is giving Republicans what they want, and knows they will vote against it, because he has asked for it. What's more he is destroying the free pass for a military strike by Presidents for all presidents to come, by seeking Congressional approval for a military strike now. It will be much more difficult for Presidents to do anything militarily now without seeking Congressional Approval in the future. By asking for Congressional Approval he is making fools out of Congressional Republicans who have demanded this strike ability forever, and now find themselves voting against it because of their hatred for Obama. He's playing Grandmaster-level Chess, while they, and FauxNoise, are playing schoolyard tiddlywinks. they don't even see it coming. But will it shut them up? Given their level of hypocrisy over the last 12 years, I really doubt it, but time will tell, I suppose.

This is gonna degenerate rather quickly :\ Did you see that woman on FauxNoise "interviewing" the religious expert who wrote a book on Jesus? Hard-hitting journalism! FauxNoise stylé!

LCP to be axed after independent panel reviews it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23283820

I was watching that as it aired. Andrew Neil is one of the most polite, quiet, calm interviewers/hosts I've ever seen. And he's been doing that politics show for as long as I can remember - with all the scum and villainy of Westminster thrown at him. That he lost it with Jones is totally gobsmacking.

Hat Tip is a colloquialism - means to give acknowledgement to.

DUDE! James Bond is NOT real! He doesn't work for ANYONE! Stop drinking the frikking Kool Aid!

Well, it doesn't appear to be the Fatter, which uses an AIM9L body....this is much smaller.

Marina? LHO?