-----Original Message-----
From: John Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: John Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, 25 August 1999 6:10 PM
Subject: U.S. Cities to Experience Infrastructure Failures


>Economic Reform Australia
>ERA EMAIL NETWORK
>
>Subject: Y2K Alert - Special bulletin
>From: Y2K Newswire
>Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999
>
>U.S. Cities to Experience Major Infrastructure Failures
>
>This is the most important Y2K story of the year. Read this carefully.
>
>Y2K Newswire has been holding off on going public with any analysis or
>commentary on this story until we could verify the authenticity of the
>documents. Just today, the Washington Post did it for us. Today, John
>Koskinen verified the documents as real while downplaying their
>significance. But, in  fact, what's contained in these documents is a Y2K
>bombshell.
>
>THANKS TO JIM LORD
>First, a special "thank you" goes out to Jim Lord who had the contacts and
>the courage to publicly post this document (even though he faced the
>possibility of being shut down or otherwise silenced for doing so).
>
>THE "PENTAGON PAPERS" OF Y2K
>Jim Lord calls these documents the "Pentagon Papers" of Y2K. This choice
>phrase alludes to the potential for these documents to blow the lid off the
>government Y2K spin job that is currently putting millions of Americans
>directly in harm's way.
>
>The documents were apparently produced as a result of the U.S. Navy's
>research into the vulnerability of populated areas that might contain Navy
>operations. In other words, the Navy wanted to know what might happen
>during the Y2K rollover, and they probably knew they couldn't trust the "no
>problem" spin from the White House.
>
>Here's what's contained in these documents:
>
>A list of 43 cities (large and small) where the Navy thinks "partial
>failure is probable." Failures include loss of electricity, water, gas and
>sewer systems. A list of 38 cities where the Navy thinks "partial failure
>is likely." A list of 44 cities where the Navy thinks "total failure is
>likely."
>
>A summary of the Navy's data reveals the following hilights:
>
>More than 26 million Americans in 125 cities will be without electricity,
>water, gas or sewer services in January Dallas will suffer water failures
>Washington D.C. and Philadelphia will suffer failures in natural gas
>systems. Baltimore, Houston, New York and Miami will all experience
>failures in water and sewer systems. Atlanta will suffer failures in water
>and natural gas San Antonio will experience failures in water and
>electricity. Fort Worth and New Orleans will suffer disruptions in water,
>gas and
>sewer systems
>
>THE REPORT WAS NEVER MADE PUBLIC
>The most alarming part of this story, of course, is that John Koskinen (and
>others in Washington) never bothered to tell the public about this report.
>The reason why, of course, is obvious: it's bad news. And there is a
>blackout on bad news that mentions Y2K. After all, the people in Washington
>have to protect Big Bankers, and if people think Y2K is real, they just
>might withdraw some cash.
>
>As a result, the American people have been denied access to
>potentially-critical information while the time remaining for preparedness
>continues to slip by. Meanwhile, as demonstrated in the recent Ann Landers
>column written by Senators Bennett and Dodd, government officials continue
>to equate     preparedness with scams, discouraging people from taking any
>action whatsoever.
>
>In all, it's an outrage. But that's not the end of this story...
>
>THE REPORT WAS HIDDEN FROM PUBLIC VIEW
>The U.S. Navy, it turns out, yanked these documents from a
>publicly-accessible web site weeks ago (before this new update was
>available). If not for the leaking of these documents to Jim Lord, the
>public would have never seen them. According to the Washington Post story
>on this, neither Koskinen
>nor the Department of Defense offered any reason why. Meanwhile, Koskinen
>tells the paper, "...the Navy wasn't withholding information from
anyone..."
>
>Of course they weren't. And Y2K has been solved, too.
>
>Folks, the deception has just been blown away. Branches of the United
>States government have known, apparently for quite some time, that Y2K was
>likely to result in major infrastructure failures in highly-populated U.S.
>cities. They deliberately withheld this information from the American
>people. They knowingly put the American public in harm's way. This is
>exactly the news you've been waiting for. It is time to take action.
>
>Start contacting your Senators and Congessional Representatives right now.
>Together, we have the power to blow this cover-up wide open -- but only if
>you join us in taking action. Write to your representatives today and tell
>them you do not appreciate being lied to by the federal government about
Y2K.
>
>----ooOoo----
>
>Latest bulletin from Y2K Newswire (23 August, 1999):
>The Y2K Newswire Fact Sheet on the Leaked Navy Documents
>
>Folks, the Washington spin machine is about to go into "full spin cycle" on
>these Navy documents. You're going to see the whole thing relentlessly
>attacked. To get ready for this spin job, prepare yourself with the
>following facts:
>
>FACT #1: Our government sat on this information and made no effort to make
>it available to the American people. That's what we mean when we say the
>information was "kept hidden from the public." It doesn't mean the document
>had to be stamped "top secret." It just means they HAD the information and
>they SAT on it. This inaction in inexcusable. In fact, it is negligent.
>
>FACT #2: Just because the documents were buried somewhere on a Navy web
>site doesn't mean they were easily reachable by the public. For example,
>Y2K Newswire has many, many documents filed under the main web site but not
>linked from the main page. Unless you know the FILE NAME of the document,
>you can't get to it (even though we could still claim they are "publicly
>available"). That's why these Navy documents stayed secret for so long:
>nobody knew they were there and the U.S. government sure didn't go out of
>its way to tell anybody about them!
>
>FACT #3: The Y2K deniers first called this a hoax. But when John Koskinen
>verified the authenticity of the documents, suddenly the Y2K deniers
>switched arguments. "Okay, they're real now, but they don't mean anything."
>
>FACT #4: Y2K Deniers are now attacking the report by suggesting -- with no
>evidence to back this up, by the way -- a worst-case rating was the
>"default" and that ratings were only eased as information became available.
>Apparently, they think all utilities should be marked as "compliant" unless
>they tell you they're not. In this way, Y2K Deniers are assuming, once
>again, that you should wholeheartedly trust every utility company that
>issues some kind of rosy-sounding press release (but refuses to document
>their Y2K compliance status). To Y2K "pollys," no news is good news. NO
>INFORMATION = FULL
>COMPLIANCE, apparently.
>
>FACT #5: The U.S. Navy is now engaged in wholesale damage control. Watch
>for more news announcements denying everything. They'll say things like,
>"We expect everything to be fine." This is the REACTION to the news, not
>the news. Of course they have to control the spin on this. All of a sudden,
>with this story breaking, people are learning the truth about Y2K.
>
>FACT #6: Y2K Newswire does not know the identity of the Navy person who
>leaked these documents (thank God), but we do know that "heads will roll!"
>in the search to find the courageous person who leaked it.
>
>FACT #7: The AP did their homework on this story. Two thumbs up to the
>Associated Press' Ted Bridis who actually did the research and ran with a
>story that every other news organization would have called
>"kooky."
>
>----ooOoo----
>
>
>
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------
This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion.

To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe
To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe

For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
For archives
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]

Reply via email to