On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 15:47:23 -0500, "DropCloth" <delexnkt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>"Susan Williams" <SWilliams07171964II@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:na8rt0ht44dskbcff54jk63qgrcn2915up@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 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?
>
>Jesuit eh? I must admit I have never been called that before. The
errors
>you made are not symantics, they are errors, plain and simple.
They were mistatements made casually. Not like your errors. Now you
are married to my posts. Even today I sometimes say three planes went
and hit their targets and sometimes I just say buildings. It depends
on whether Jesuits still are very paranoid about what they claim are
paranoid people.
>This is not
>the school of even if it's wrong you're still a winner and we're going to
>give you a passing grade.
What grade does a Jesuit get then when he tries to convince us that
military jets should not have accompanied any of those planes except
the one where the passengers were not gonnna take it anymore and were
gonna attack the terrorists?
What about your error when Cheney was asked why no military protection
was there and he couldn't see your reasoning?
>Smile, smile and pat on the head.
Jesuit and pat on the Jesuit.
>BTW, I've been
>awake I just didn't bother with you until now, I don't want you to feel
>neglected since that's obviously part of your psyche that you bring it up
>right away.
Damned psychiatrist Jesuit would naturally follow his communist and
nazi brothers claimng psychiatrist credentials. Why did you err to
make the American people believe that they should not have expected to
see military jets when the nation was under such an attack?
>> >- "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?
>
>Hmm, I didn't err in that statement.
No damned Jesuit ever admits he errs!
>The distance from Boston to NYC is NOT
>very far unless you have never left your own back yard.
By FAA rules the distance is more than ample enough for military
response. How can a damned Jesuit be convinced of this? I had a
relative who flew me in his plane in that area in the 1980s. He gave
me a briefing of the complexity and control of that airspace and made
me to know that some kind of dire explanation would be required if he
even attempted to go off course without some form of explanation.
>It has nothing to
>do with the FAA, it has to do with measuring on a map.
It has alot to do with the damned lying Jesuit. Surely you would not
even put attention to the point of how you are trying to convince us
that we should not have expected military jets to be anywhere around
those planes. We are not your stupid damned heretics as you think we
are!
>The FAA and the air traffic controllers may know that a plane is off
course
>but they do not know why. There are many reasons it could happen and it
>does happen with regularity (which you would know if you knew anything
about
>ATC).
Off course has to have explanation. The chronology was the plane
traveling, the transponder turned off. Crew making contact and
informing that the plane was hijacked. The planes changes course. In
all of this radar tracked them every step of the way.
>Similarly, if they do not raise them on the radios, they assume first
>there is a communications failure in the plane, not that it is a
hijacking
>or something else (this is of course pre-9/11).
The terrorists first attacked the crew and people, then went into the
cockpit. There they turned off the transponders. By that time there
was already communication from crew members of the hijacking.
>It is then treated as a
>NORDO (no radio) aircraft and they vector the other planes out of the
way,
>they don't shoot it down. So, while you are technically correct, your
>implication that because they know the aircraft is off course or off
>altitude or even off speed that they should have know they were going to
>crash into the WTC is in error.
Damned Jesuit naturally put words into my mouth with a SIZEABLE ERROR,
claiming that if the plane was off course, I was saying they should
have known it was headed toward the WTC buildings.
Since you err here, we need throw the Jesuit out with the lie!
>> Far distance? Walk it, dude!
>
>So, you think of all distance only in terms of walking?
I thought Jesuits were at least smart!
>I guess you must
>never leave your home unless you live right next to all the sotres,
business
>and your place of employment (unless of course you don't have one),
>otherwise they would all be extremely far away. But, since we were
tlaking
>about aircraft, the distance from Boston to NYC as the crow flies is
153nm
>(nautical miles, that's how we measure in airplanes) or somewhere around
20
>minutes flying time minus delays for climb out and flying a particular
>approach. So, 20 minutes is not a far distance when talking about
flying.
What about your error in claiming that by the planes going off course,
I was saying they should have known the planes were headed for the WTC
buildings?
Still, that's why Cheney was asked why no military protection was
around and the answer was not the lie given by this Jesuit excusing
such an attack that got through from such a great distance.
>> >To the rest of us
>> >it's not very far at all.
You mean other Jesuits who try to convince us all that we should not
have expected military jets to be around the attacking planes at 911?
>> 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...
>
>FAA rules say nothing about distance being long or short or even time
being
>long or short or even people being tall or short.
Why did a Jesuit lie. I know there are no rules there, but I still
know that it was more than ample distance for a response after
informed that the planes were hijacked. I still know that it must be
a Jesuit to lie to us and tell us we should not have expected to see
military accompaniment nor protection from the attacks at 911 that
took 3,000 lives. Why did the Jesuit err? It is vital to lie with
his religion.
>They are concerned with
>wether an aircraft is heavy or not or single or dual piloted or what
>insturements they have, but not how long or short a distance is.
Didn't say that. Why are Jesuits still the same? He is trying to
convince us that we should not have expected military accompanyment
when we were attacked at 911 in controlled airspace. With his Jesuit
errors being intentional, IT CAN HAPPEN TODAY AGAIN IF TERRORISTS
MERELY MAKE IT TO THE PLANES AND THEY TAKE OFF!!
>The transponders were tunred off while in flight and guess what, that
>happens plenty of times a day all by itself without being a hijacking.
3,000 are turning in their graves because of this damned
super-criminal! At that time crew members already phoned and gave
status re****t showing that the planes were being hijacked. The planes
then changed course.
The terrorists first attacked the crew and people, then went into the
cockpit and attacked the pilots, closing the doors behind them. By
that time a few who had communication made authorities to know what
was happening just after they were attacked.
>That's why they have this little button on the IFF controller box that
says
>"IDENT". Do you know what that button does? When you press it, it
>highlights your transponder code on the ATC radar operator's screen. Do
you
>know how many times in a cross country flight a controller will ask you
to
>IDENT so he can find your aircraft? Now, how long is long enough for a
>military plane to get there.
Just saw a do***entar of the 911 incident on the History Channel.
They didn't bother to inform us of the excuses this super-criminal is
showing us. As a matter of fact, they showed that there was already
concern at the towers because of the transponders being off. Air
traffic tried to make communication, but in vain.
>Oh, and let's make sure it's worth it. After
>all, what exactly can a military jet do to an airliner if it is not
carrying
>armaments?
Ask for ID...
>He might, just might be able to ram it and force it to to come
>down early, but it is highly unlikely that he could make it crash
>immediately. So, now we have to have several things happen before you
get
>an intercept, let's run them down for you:
Listening victims of 911 ressurrected??...
>- One, you have to have aircraft on an alert status. Pre 9/11 that was
at
>best a 15 minute alert. That means the aircraft can be airborne within
15
>minutes of getting an order to launch.
Especially in the direction the aircraft were travelling, that would
be no big deal if even true. Military jets don't have to chase planes
off course if some can follow behind and others can take off in front
of them.
No wonder Dick Cheney was too dumb to be smart like this Jesuit! He
instead replied that they didn't want to shoot the aircraft down.
>Now, pre 9/11 we did not have armed
>air defense fighters sitting on runways around the country waiting to
launch
>and shoot things down. That whole mission was scaled back to almost
nothing
>over the years as the cold war ended. But, in this case let's say you
had
>some alert 15 jets sitting around.
>- Two, you have to get the alert order to launch. That means someone had
to
>recognize not just that there was a problem, but it was a hijacking.
That
>word then has to get passed to NORAD who then has to pass it back down to
>the closest airfield with alert aircraft. That all takes time that is
not
>part of the 15 minute alert.
So the first plane hit, and then, after yet more time, the second one
just tip-toed right in, mystifying even British intelligence.
Military jets were nowhere to be found. Dick Cheney is still dumb for
not copying the lies of this super-criminal. These are just some of
the excuses I heard from super-criminals who also move in to divert
the facts of how certain people even worked to destroy air traffic
control records of the motions of those planes, and a few people
solidly profited from the tragedy!
>- Three, let's give you the benefit here and say the word from NORAD
comes
>down to launch and shoot one of these airliners down so the alert
aircraft
>must be armed.
Jesuit erred, putting words in my mouth. The object was not to shoot
it down. The object was to intercept and first inquire for ID.
>Mind you such a command pre 9/11 would have resulted in even
>more delays as people questioned the authority of the person giving the
>order to kill a couple hundred civilians.
Jesuit erred putting words in my mouth. The object was not to shoot
anything down if even it was a hijacking. Issues of ransom, etc., may
materialize.
>Anyway, so now you have to get
>the aircraft armed. That means getting to the weapons, loading them onto
a
>vehicle to trans****t them to the aircraft and then loading them. This
also
>takes time, more than 15 minutes.
No aircraft in ready status the man is claiming. Dick Cheney could
have come up with these excuses? Or should he and everyone else who
profited from the tragedy, give this Jesuit a medal!
>- Four, now you have to get airborne, get in contact with the proper
agency
>(either that or wait on deck for the frequencies for the proper nets to
get
>passed) and get a vector in the general direction of the target.
Military jets don't have to chase the plane. They can approach from
all directions: even in front of it.
>- Five, now you have to find the target. FYI, ATC controllers do not
know
>how to run an airborne intercept, no matter what you may have seen in the
>movies.
When the passengers decided it was time to attack the terrorists in
one of the last planes, then a military jet approached and wasn't
hampered by all the errors this Jesuit just gave us!
>So, the question becomes, what military controllers do you have, do
>they have radar coverage of the area (the entire US is not covered by
>military radars nor are there hundreds of trained controllers just
sitting
>around waiting to run an intercept) and can they talk with the aircraft
>(someone needs to know what their frequency is and get both them and the
>aircraft on the same one).
You mean Bush, Dick Cheney and everyone else asked about the
stupendous embarrassment couldn't think of these excuses even though
they are world famous for tellin' the truth!
>As for finding a target, in the movies it's
>always so nice and easy. There's this nice, identified blib that shows
up
>on the radar screen and the fighter pilot just launches a missile from
miles
>away and blam, down goes the bad guy.
Jesuit erred again. We need to toss him out. The object was not to
shoot anything! In a hijacking what is expected is a ransom and
negotiations.
>In reality, in that part of the
>country you would have dozens of blibs on your radar screen and you would
>have to figure out which is the one you want. Depending on the ability
of
>the controller, the pilot and the quality of the ground radar picture,
you
>might have to fly up to individual targets before you know which one is
the
>one you want.
While everyone else has transponders and are identified and a few are
not!
>In any case, before you launched a missile at a passanger
>jet,
Jesuit errs again! Let's throw him out! Let's throw out his lies!
>I guarantee they required VID (visual ID) of the target, which mean the
>fighter would have to fly right up to it and make sure it was from the
right
>airline and was the correct tail number before they could shoot.
Jesuit errs again! Let's throw him out! Let's throw out his lies!
>So, in reality, by the time a military jet could have gotten to the first
>aircraft that hit the WTC and been capable of shooting it down, it would
>have already crashed. At that point there might have been a chance to
get
>to the second aircraft before it hit the WTC, but again, even with every
>possible benefit for time given to you, it would have been close at best.
>And THAT is reality.
Someone is arguing for the terrorists!
>> 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???
>
>Your questin was about the 9/11 hijackers. If you want to go off on
another
>subject fine, let me know.
But you mean the terrorists can do the same thing again. Planes can
fly over 150 miles and plow into buildngs without military
accompanyment? Jesuit erred by not stating accompanyment, but telling
us the jets had to shoot them down and ask questions later.
>But staying with your question, why do you think
>they had a big chance of getting caught considering they came into the
>country, in some cases months in advance?
How could they when Bush was occupied in a kindergarten class, and
then after the tragedy, became a dictator, started a war, hiked up
fuel prices, etc???
>> >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???
>
>Once again, if you want to dicsuss what the situation is today, that's
>another subject.
EVEN YESTERDAY! I ASKED ABOUT THE WOMEN DUDE! Why would they hold
their heads and cry looking at the towers instead of inquiring from a
Jesuit? Why couldn't Cheney be smart enough to lie like you have?
>You were making statements about what happened on 9/11 and
>you were getting them wrong.
But you're a Jesuit! Can you realize that you were wrong even
claiming that military jets were to spring into action to shoot down
jets off course OR EVEN HIJACKED?? We need to throw the Jesuit out
with the lies to the honor of those who have fallen!
>So far you haven't been able to defend a
>single mistake I pointed out except by trying to call it symantics.
IS THIS JESUIT DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHERS??? I solidly defended what I
said! The entire history of these super-criminals on the internet
proves it because they cannot leave my posts after giving me their
psychiatric opinions.
Does this Jesuit even know that some of his friends posted that all
non-Catholics must die, and a whole slew of other correct Jesuits
leeched upon me with constant condemnations for exposing it, making
sure they said nothing about the people who made such statements of
death?
>> >- "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!
>
>What terrorist is telling you anything? And I refer you back to my post
>above concerning how long it took PRE 9/11 for an armed aircraft to make
an
>intercept. Once again, you want to talk about today as some kind of
defense
>for the mistakes you posted concerning 9/11.
But you mean the terrorists can do the same thing again. Planes can
fly over 150 miles and plow into buildngs without military
accompanyment? Jesuit erred by not stating accompanyment, but telling
us the jets had to shoot them down and ask questions later.
>> >- "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!
>
>You think the Arab street would laugh at the 9/11 hijakers if they had
>gotten caught?
For attempting from such a distance and expecting it to go through,
they may well have! 50 years of being impregnable till guys came
telling us about a New World Order. We had all our rights all
throughout and didn't have to be paranoid to detain anyone without
charge or legal recourse and then torture them!
What was the explanation for such an enviable record before Bush and
the other New World Order guys?
>They would have hailed them for trying just as they have
>others who have not succeeded in getting to their targets.
Instead of chiding them for making better plans with planes that would
probably take off from New York! After making such a foiled mission,
America would more put up her guards and prevent future of such!
>To them the
>effort of attacking the Great Satan is worth it even if you don't get
there.
Instead of chiding them for making better plans with planes that would
probably take off from New York! After making such a foiled mission,
America would more put up her guards and prevent future of such!
>> >The
>> >Islamic world routinely praises those who "attempt" to carry out
attacks
>> >even if the attack itself is unsuccessful.
Instead of chiding them for making better plans with planes that would
probably take off from New York! After making such a foiled mission,
America would more put up her guards and prevent future of such!
>> But yet so stupidly? With such a natural failure if our government
>> did its job?
>
>What?
You already erred! You are faulty... FAULTY!! MUST STERILIZE!!
STEERRRIIILLLIIIZZZEEE!!
>> >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?
>
>You still haven't shown me one reason why they would have been laughing
>stocks for trying and getting caught.
No one can show a Jesuit how the Arabs would have chided them for
taking off from such distances when there were closer options.
Centuries displays no reason, logic nor commonsense with the Jesuits.
I'm sorry that I showed how they may well have been considered
laughing stocks while you already erred and therefore your entire
argument and existence should be discarded according to your own
psychiatric rules.
>The suicide bobers who are caught by
>the Israelies for example, even if they don't wind up setting off their
>bombs are still hailed as patriots and martyrs.
Nothing really much stupid was done there. How else better can
suicide bombers operate? Start walking the distance from Boston to
New York to meet their targets? They went as close as they could.
>Those that blow themselves
>up but not at their intended targets are martyrs even so. Why would
these
>hijakers think they would have been ridiculed for making the attempt and
>failing?
From that great distance as the distance in time to ever reason with a
Jesuit!
>Heck, we laugh at Richard Reed and his shoe bomb, but to the
>terrorists he is still a hero for what he TRIED to do.
His toe bomb was 150 miles away!
>> >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've given you the reasoning above.
Like you erred telling me military jets have to fly up and start
shootin'!
ERROR!... MUST STERILIZE! Must throw out the Jesuit with the lie!
Hey, that was his psychiatric logic!
>If you still have questions go ahead
>and ask and I will answer them as best I can concerning how such things
work
>and especially how they worked pre 9/11.
FIRST MAKE SURE YOU ADDRESS THE POINTS I GAVE. So far you missed a
number of them intentionally!
No wonder Bush and Cheney even prohibited investigation of the tragedy
till years afterward where they had time to come up with an
"independent" commission that told us the tragedy took place because
Clinton didn't do his job!
>> 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!
>
>I can realize a lot of things but I don't understand what that has to do
>with anything.
Neither can you understand that in a time of anti-terror, if anyone
ever says something like that, it is high priority. Other like you
with your psychiatry and logic took the time to condemn me for
exposing this!
>Nor do I understand what your last staement has to do with
>anything being discussed here.
Jesuits come with logic and so-called facts, psychiatry and reason
first. If you show posters recently posting that all non-Catholics
must die, that persecution is biblical, that the US Constitution is
stupid and must be destroyed, and then you get attacked by Jesuits who
tell you you are hateful for posting it and making sure they say
nothing against those who posted the death mandates, you can be sure
their logic will match this guy!
It fits, because the Jesuit first came out to dominate the discussion
with his logic, but we can show that his mind is corrupt and
abandoned.
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
|
