3,000 people died because of that tragedy, for which I, like them if
they were ressurrected, contend THERE IS NO EXCUSE!!
The following is a dialogue with one member of that great army oathed
to put America into confusion over the issue of whether or not the 911
attack should have gotten through based upon the variables. The
response I got is a challenge to my presentation that the 911 incident
SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED!...
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 15:30:58 -0500, "DropCloth" <delexnkt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>"Susan Williams" <SWilliams07171964II@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:t68nt0p5c8u5a3lkt25ptfneilp0jgbds7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> THE PURPOSE OF DIVERSITY! Part I
>>
>> You can see the whle series on the Adventism Defended website:
>> http://www.seventh-dayadventism.com/DiversityI.html
>>
>> Updated 10/18/2001: Made easier to print out. Updated 12/11/2004:
>> slight changes and additions to text.
>>
>> We are in a very critical situation today. Three planes plowed into
>> the WTC buildings penetrating straight through traditionally
>> heavily-controlled airspace and met their targets without even a
>> military jet to accompany them. Those planes traveled from far
>> distances in terror attacks that were planned by Islamic extremists.
>> From that distance how did they know they would penetrate? Such a
>> distance to travel at the risk of being laughing stocks to the Islamic
>> world!
>
><snipped>
>
>I don't even have to read any further since the very first paragraph is
full
>of errors.
>- "Three planes plowed into the WTC buildings"...Hmm, I remember two at
the
>WTC, one at the Pentagon and one in PA. If you can't even get something
as
>simple as that correct why would anyone even think you could get an
analysis
>of a complicated situation correct?
Don't be paranoid, Jesuit, and think that because the absolute
symantics is not correct, the whole thing must be scrapped? It got
you awake and made you neglect your kids, didn't it?
>- "Those planes traveled from far distances"? Hmm, Boston to NYC is a
far
>distance I guess if you never leave your own back yard.
Don' be paranoid, Jesuit, for planes under FAA rules, it doesn't have
to be off course that much for them to know that there is trouble.
Why did you err here?
Far distance? Walk it, dude!
>To the rest of us
>it's not very far at all.
Walk it! To FAA rules, IT IS! The transponders were turned off and
the towers knew the planes were hijacked long enough for military
planes to get there. If not...
LET US IMBIBE OF YOUR COMMON SENSE TO THINK THAT THE SAME THING CAN
THEN HAPPEN AGAIN TODAY!
>- "how did they know they could penetrate"...if you're talking about the
>terrorists, considering the number of illegal immigrants who enter the
>country every day I would say their chances of successfully entering the
>country were very good.
You mean how do the terrorists know they can do the same thing again
today???
>If you are talking about the airplanes, penetrating
>through the controlled airspace is also a simple thing, especially
>considering they didn't have to do it for very long. Anyone who flies an
>airplane understands that.
You mean they can do it again today? This one sounds like he knows
how to do it!! You mean those women crying while looking at the WTC
buildings falling and asking how the hell those planes penetrated
should have known that it was just as easy as it is today???
>- "without even a military jet to accompany them"...If you took the time
to
>learn what alert postures are, what kind of posture we were in before
9/11,
>how long it actually takes to arm, man and launch an aircraft and then
how
>long it takes to actually conduct an intercept and locate the correct
>target, you would have some understanding why there were no military
>aircraft flying in formation or shooting these aircraft down.
After the transponders were turned off, the radar showed that the
planes were still traveling and then were diverted, then communication
with flight crew showing that the planes were hijacked??
Remember, that on the third plane where the passengers were thinking
about attacking the terrorists, THEN a military jet showed up to take
care of the problem. BUT WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM???
Again this terrorist is telling us it can easily happen again and that
we are nuts for expecting military jets to show up in controlled air
space!
>- "risk of being laughing stocks to the Islamic world"...for what?
For not understanding why such a plot would be easily caught based on
the variables, and for other Islamists asking why they would even
attempt something like that!
>The
>Islamic world routinely praises those who "attempt" to carry out attacks
>even if the attack itself is unsuccessful.
But yet so stupidly? With such a natural failure if our government
did its job?
>So, the probability of being a
>laughing stock was laughably remote.
Why would they attempt such a ridiculous feat with all the variables
and risk being laughing stocks of the Islamic world?
>Spend a little time on getting the facts straight please.
Yes but why would terrorists plan such a feat at the risk of being
laughing stocks?
Show us why we should not have expected military jets in the sky as
was immediately asked Dick Cheney after the attack. His reply was not
like yours. He said military jets were not there because they didn't
want to shoot the planes down!
I bet you also can't realize that people posted that all non-Catholics
must die over the internet and can only attack those who alert the
people about it!
In His Grace,
Susan
x-- 100 Proof News - http://www.100ProofNews.com
x-- 3,500+ Binary NewsGroups, and over 90,000 other groups
x-- Access to over 1 Terabyte per Day - $8.95/Month
x-- UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD
|
