posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 04:19 PM
But just a re-cap because you're asking for it...
HOWARD HOW DARE YOU TRY TO TURN THIS THREAD AROUND. YOU HAVE (FROM THE BEGINNING) CAUSED DISRUPTION IN THE FACT THAT YOU GO BACK TO SOMETHING THAT WAS
ALREADY ADDRESSED ONCE JUST TO DISCREDIT THE WHOLE IDEA IN THE FIRST PLACE.
AS FOR "PROOF" AS STATED EARLIER, WHERE EXACTLY DO YOU EXPECT TO GET COLD HARD PROOF FROM. SHOULD I LOOK TO THE NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE THAT STATES
"NEW ORLEANS NUCLEAR CONTAMINATION EVERYWHERE" NO I DON'T THINK SO.
Now to turn the caps off, since I'm recapping I told Howard don't even go there when it comes to cover ups. I said I'm no environmentalist, I'm no
nuclear scientist, and I'm no conspiracy theorist. That I take ABSOLUTELY no interest in conspiracy theories but I've seen them sent around like no
tomorrow around places such as Myspace. 9/11 was a govt coverup, the weather is created by the govt, I call BS on all of that. I don't believe in
trying to come up for reasoning but such as an issue like this where I have experience in the military and know how things "WORK" I'll say
something has not been right from the beginning.
I know far well what the military is capable for coverup but I don't run around talking about such, I'm too busy working for Veterans issues and
benefits to be bothered with any extra issues quiet frankly.
I did say that I know how coverups work and "DON'T GO THERE" to Howard being that I'm sure I've experienced more about coverups as having been
one per say, then he ever has so maybe I know a thing
or two about how things go down when the govt/military feels like
shuffling something under the rug. I also stated that I almost lost my
unborn child and experienced a coverup first hand, so top that.
Howard seems to want us to believe he's some nuclear scientist and
wants to discredit and disprove everything that's been said from
the beginning of this thread. So far I can count approx. 3 times when
he is the one who "turned things around" so to the person above
me, I'm giving you what you wanted. I edited because I think I've
made it clear earlier there is not going to be cold hard proof but
so far from everything that's been gathered that seems to be
what is going on.
Don't blame me for asking questions, as for Howard, based on his
personal messages I can already tell he's playing games here
so that isn't the question.
I just don't appreciate his constant discrediting info. and having to
turn around and go back just to look up something he can
very easily go to yahoo or google to double check the info.
As for the airspace map, I've been through hundreds and hundreds
of articles and web based material over a few weeks now. I pulled
the picture from nukeworkers LISTED UNDER WATERFORD 3 as I
stated the first time. Howard knows this, he just keeps grabbing for
anything to discredit this.
As for where reactors are located, THERE IS ONE, AS STATED IN THE FIRST
FEW POSTS OF THIS THREAD. One reactor with 47 sites throughout
What I'm doing and have been doing isn't perfect science but clearly
from documentation I've read thus far, Waterford 3 doesn't keep all
of their excess spent fuel at that location. They've been running short of
storage space since 98 and then they were increased. To think it
is absurd for the spent fuel to be located somewhere else in storage,
that is just absurd in itself. What is an ISFSI then...it is an Independent
Spent Fuel Storage Installation, which are now authorized under private companies to handle such waste per the NRC. So him trying to change this
into me saying there is spent fuel all over NO OH MY GOD RUN is just absolutely unbelievable and quiet rude on his part.
I'm trying to locate where the excess spent fuel was stored as clearly Waterford 3 keeps spent fuel OUTSIDE, clearly they don't have enough room for
it anymore per the NRC years ago. So can I question it or
would you rather I just sit back and shutup. I think that is what Howard would prefer, clearly he is not just a skeptic as per his private message
to me not denying any personal ties to any of this. Whatever his problem is, I really don't care but I'm not going to keep back tracking just
because he doesn't believe it's possible.
I damn well know we had a lag in time for the active duty military to be called in, and I want a damn answer as to why. This is the best I've got
based on what I know. And each day as more comes to light, this seems to be the issue at hand.
Can I prove it, does NRC have some big notice "WATERFORD 3 exposed the entire population in NO to nuclear contamination because they are a bunch of
f--- up's and always have been"....No I don't think that's what we're going to hear. We will be able to prove this though when all of a sudden it
comes to light when too many people figure out what is going on, then it's going to be a "we didn't know" situation.
With enough proof there may be a way to prove they knew if and once this comes out and is what we're looking at here.
I know we didn't send in troops on purpose, the lag wasn't a damn issue of not being prepared. I worked in aerial delivery humanitarian relief
efforts for the Air Force. I damn well know what we are capable of thank you very much.
Done with the recap...as Howard said, can we move on. Not that he really has any interest in this topic continuing at all. I find him tactless and yes
I AM MAD AT THIS POINT.