By the way, such a decision to make public or not something dangerous or unjust is a good example of a personal decision that is political irregardless of which choice one makes. From the vantage point of God's Kingdom everything anyone thinks, says, or does is political. It is either in harmony with Theocracy (rule by God) or against it. So your contention that many things JW's do are political is right, just not in the ways or for the reasons that you think. Sometimes men's laws coincide with those of God's Kingdom in what they say is right, and sometimes they do not. Someone not seeing the whole picture could conclude that Witnesses obeying or disobeying those laws have made a political decision. That is only true if you mean politics from a heavenly, not earthly, vantage point. George ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++ My darkness inside is full of stars - and each one has a name. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ekhart GEORGI (last name last)" <Ekhart.GEORGI@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: <pchelpers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 3:24 AM Subject: [pchelpers] off topic: WTC Hi Scott > Nuclear plants: "When the plants were designed, large aircrafts that > are presently used were not in use" > > http://www.attackonamerica.net/jetcouldwrecknuclearnrcadmits.htm But they wouldn't have survived a frontal hit even by a contemporary airplane, and it also says the following which was true right from the start: "The agency also acknowledged that critical systems that provide cooling, electricity and storage of spent fuel are mostly in nonhardened buildings that could not withstand an aircraft or missile attack." (or accident! -- my addition) (By the way, there's a good chance this reporter or the quoted NRC spokeswoman also got some technical stuff wrong since one or both of them don't even know basic tools of their trade like the plural of "aircraft") WTC: > proves the correctness of the original dynamic design. What was not > considered in design was the temperature that can develop in the > ensuing fire." That's what i meant with it being incredible that the "experts" didn't "remember" that planes have fuel tanks and behave differently than water tanks. The first situation shows a clear and the second a probable flagrant disregard of safety for very obvious reason: to be able to save money while lying to the population about it. Nuclear power plants would simply be too expensive to build if they were made safe. And architects are one of the few professions left which still require Renaissance people, even though most of the power to decide has been given to the engineers. So even if the responsible engineers honestly forgot about what an airplane's fuel tank would do, i'm pretty sure that at least the architect knew his building wouldn't even survive a contemporary plane, and he probably had/has a very bad conscience about keeping his mouth shut. By the way, such a decision to make public or not something dangerous or unjust is a good example of a personal decision that is political irregardless of which choice one makes. Ek -------list-services-below----------- Regards, John Durham (list moderator) <http://modecideas.com/contact.html?sig> Freelists login at //www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/lsg2.cgi List archives at //www.freelists.org/archives/pchelpers PC-HELPERS list subscribe/unsub at http://modecideas.com/discuss.htm?sig Latest news live feeds at http://modecideas.com/indexhomenews.htm?sig Good advice is like good paint- it only works if applied. -------list-services-below----------- Regards, John Durham (list moderator) <http://modecideas.com/contact.html?sig> Freelists login at //www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/lsg2.cgi List archives at //www.freelists.org/archives/pchelpers PC-HELPERS list subscribe/unsub at http://modecideas.com/discuss.htm?sig Latest news live feeds at http://modecideas.com/indexhomenews.htm?sig Good advice is like good paint- it only works if applied.