On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:28:07 -0500, "DropCloth" <delexnkt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>"Susan Williams" <SWilliams07171964II@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:q6gut0pje4b29q5llrtarnvnis6lfcd967@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 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.
>
>That was no "casual" post you made.
You mean your error to suppose that military jets were to approach
planes to shoot and ask questions later was?
>It implied that it was some sort of
>detailed and truthful article written by someone who supposedly knoew
what
>they were talking about.
Like you in saying that my request that military jets approach the
airplanes was because they knew the planes were headed toward the WTC
buildings? That was a casual mistake you made?
>As for my post, you have yet to point out a single
>error that I have made in mine.
Which damned Jesuit ever said different and didn't claim victory? If
what you are saying is true, you can ignore my posts, for surely
accusations of insanity will come from another damned super-criminal
like you. Remember your friends posting that all non-Catholics must
die? Has yet to trouble anything in you!
Like the error you keep making in saying that the planes were to be
already armed to shoot down the planes instead of merely even
approaching for ID?
>And if you still refer to "three planes"
>then that just telles me you continue to have no respect or desire to
hear
>or know the truth but only want to continue with baseless claims and
>rhetoric.
Why then Jesuit would you have military planes to shoot down other
planes that may go off course?
>And you call others Jesuits?
I post about your friends who said that all non-Catholics must die.
Every other despot super-criminal like yourself ignored it. You have
yet to even show concern!
>> >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?
>
>I explained quite clearly why there was no military escoprt nor why
anyone
>reasonable would expect that a military escort would have been assigned
to
>an off course airliner or even gotten there in time once they determined
it
>was hijacked.
But damned Jesuit, why was there no military escort and why do you
supposed that even the women crying and watching the towers come down
should not have expected to be protected by the military.
I didn't ask you why you self-appointed yourself victor in this
discussion as do every other damned super-criminal Jesuit who cannot
see that people posted that billions of people should be
exterminiated?
>As for Dick Cheney, where did he disagree with my reasoning?
As for Jesuits, where did they ever get sorry because others posted
that all non-Catholics must die?
>And what do you mean "except the one where the passangers were gonna take
>it..." There was no military aircraft in the vicinity of that aircraft
>either. See, another error..oh wait, another casual misstatment vice
>bothering to learn the truth.
But damned Jesuit, we're waiting for the proof, along with your sanity
and concern and response for others posting that all non-Catholics
must die!
>> >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?
>
>I didn't clai any credentials. I made a layman's observation.
I asked questions not answered. WHY WERE EVEN THE WOMEN CRYING WHEN
THE TOWERS CAME DOWN WERE NOT TO EXPECT MILITARY JETS ACCOMPANYING THE
ATTACKING PLANES AT 911.
>You seem to
>be the one hung up on labels.
What are you calling me then? Just because you join the many hung up
on ignoring posts that condemn all non-Catholic life? What label?
You are hung up on insane posts?
>I did not err concerning the ability or capability of military escort.
But why did you err concerning the ability or capability of military
escort? Why must the women crying and every other person adjust his
intelligence to a damned criminals?
>You
>just refuse to accept reality and instead of coming back with any kind of
a
>scenario that would have allowed what you dream should have happened to
>occur you continue to simply ignore what is true.
But damned super-criminal... Why were people not to expect military
jets to accompany the attacking planes at 911? Wrote a book about it?
Maybe those others are not to expect to be concerned about people
writing that all non-Catholics must die also, right, O rational one?
>> >> >- "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!
>
>Ah Ha! So, YOU are the Jesuit!! I knew it would come out sooner or
later.
But damned Jesuit, is that proof no one should expect military jets to
accompany the attacking planes nor be upset about people posting that
all non-Catholics must die as you do?
>> >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!
>
>Actually I consider you to be more blinded by you ideology than to being
>stupid though you could probably convince me to go the other wat with
your
>continued inability to even grasp that the truth just might not be what
you
>dream or what Hollywood put up on the screen for you.
You mean that people posted that all non-Catholics must die and I'm to
ignore it like you and so many other super-criminal jesuits?
>Remember, when it's
>on that big screen there in the dark theater, it's only a movie, the Day
>After Tomorrow is not really about to happen next week.
You wrote a book telling the victims that and the women crying? What
did you tell them about how they are to react when people post that
all non-Catholics must die, O rational one?
>> >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.
>
>Please provide that part of the transcript that shows that the cockpit
crew
>declared they were being hijacked.
Didn't say cockpit. I saw the do***entary on the history channel
where was record that crew members, who were attacked first, were
first to re****t the hijacking. ANOTHER ERROR!
As you can see, this damned Jesuit finds it very im****tant that
everyone must believe that they should not have expected to see
military jets accompanying the attacking terrorist planes...
>I have not seen it but am willing to
>admit I missed it if you can prove what you said.
As you can see, this damned Jesuit finds it very im****tant that
everyone must believe that they should not have expected to see
military jets accompanying the attacking terrorist planes...
>> >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.
>
>And exactly HOW would they know it was headed for the WTC?
Didn't have to be headed there. Why does this damned jesuit err so
much, but cannot see it, and then tells us because we err in any point
our whole bodies must be thrown out?
What do you think about your friends telling us all non-Catholics must
die, Jesuit? Will you claim now that EVERYBODY, once even hearing
this will take it casually as you do?
>They would
>probably have been able to tell it was generally headed back towards NYC,
>but NYC is a big place and the WTC in comparrison is a small dot.
Not the issue nor the point. This Jesuit made the point that the made
the point that the military was not to assume that the planes were
headed to WTC. I never said they were. After they went off course
and then it was re****ted to be a hijacking over American airspace in
the most controlled form, there was no excuse for military
accompaniment not being there.
>Also, if
>you stick with your statement above about turning off the transponder
then
>the controllers are working strictly with skin paint. When you only have
a
>skin paint you have to develop the course and speed over time, you do not
>get those readouts anymore with the transponder off. So, that means you
>probability of error goes up quite a bit.
Read Jack Chick's message about the super-criminal despots of the
Antichrist: http://www.chick.com
As you can see, he is skirting off the issue of plainly telling us and
even the women crying that they were not to expect military
accompaniment against those attacking aircraft. Next, as you can see
and my experience with these hordes of psychiatrists that leech to my
posts, people posting that all non-Catholics must die, can scarcely
ever make their comment. They can attack those who expose this,
though.
>But I guess with your 20/20
>hindsight you can determine exactly where someone is going to crash an
>airplane, or in fact that they even were gonig to crash the hijacked
>airplane.
Never said that to the damned Jesuit.
>Amazing since no one else in the country, perhaps even in the
>world considered that hijackers would take an aircraft full of hostages,
>full of bargaining chips and crash it into something without making
demands.
But hijackings were possible. That's why I countered the assumption
of this Jesuit that the military aircraft were to approach the
attacking planes to shoot them down. He appears to be pretending that
he didn't tell us this.
>Odd, since that was not the typical way that hijackers had ever operated
in
>the past beyond one or two very unusual cases over 30 years or so.
Doesn't excuse military aircraft not being there.
>But
>that's right, because you can look back at it now through the filter of
9/11
>and it makes sense, therefore everyone should have been able to see it
back
>then.
Doesn't excuse military aircraft not being there. It was also
different since it was a hijacking over American airspace, and then
yet worse in an area of the country where the highest population
exists.
Synthesized... Should the crying women have expected military jets to
be present? It's an easy question! When questions came quickly to
Dick Cheney about the horrible failure that secured a dictator, damage
to the constitution, higher oil prices, and a war, did he bring these
same lies?
>> Since you err here, we need throw the Jesuit out with the lie!
>
>Still haven't pointed out an error on my part so keep trying so that
>whenever you find this Jesuit you keep talking about you can do whatever
you
>like with him or her.
Why did you err here, so keep performing the spiritual exercises of
St. Ignatius! It will make sure you are intelligent enough even not
to notice that people posted that all non-Catholics must die and then
gave unbending sup****t to George Bush!
Are you going to write a book telling the world that no one should
have expected military aircraft to accompany the attacking planes?
Then, if you knew we could not have known what the planes would have
done, why are our leaders constantly sounding in our ears dangers of
terror attacks that we did expect?
They just told us it is so easy to poison the food supply in this
country. Why then couldn't the terrorists think of doing that for
over 50 years, but it is now voiced by the people who failed us at
911?? Are they not planning to make more calamities go through?
>> >> Far distance? Walk it, dude!
>> >
>> >So, you think of all distance only in terms of walking?
>>
>> I thought Jesuits were at least smart!
>
>Not being one I wouldn't know,
What are you saying Jesuit? You mean if you even heard that people
posted that all non-Catholics must die, and it is seen on the google
newsgroups, you would be concerned and get aroused, instead of being
aroused at the person who revealed such?
>but your statement indicated quite clearly
>that because it was a long distance if you walked it therefore you looked
at
>distances in terms of walking.
What are you saying Jesuit? You mean if you even heard that people
posted that all non-Catholics must die, and it is seen on the google
newsgroups, you would be concerned and get aroused, instead of being
aroused at the person who revealed such?
>We were talking about aircraft and you don't
>compare what is long in an aircraft to what is long on shoe leather
unless
>you are intentionally trying to distort the truth.
You're a Jesuit! WHY DO YOU DAMNED PEOPLE KEEP ACCUSING OTHERS OF
YOUR TRAINED TALENTS!!
I know that the distance from Boston to New York is much shorter than
walking. Just like I said you were in error and MUST STERILIZE...
But you're a Jesuit!
Should all non-Catholics die? How should a person react when hearing
that people posted this?
>Is that what you are
>doing? Intentionally distorting the truth?
I never had your Jesuit training, so get off it!
>Would you consider it a great distance to travel from say JFK to La
Guardia?
Would you consider being concerned if you learned people posted that
all non-Catholics must die and then gave sup****t to Bush?
>In a straight line that's a little over 9 miles. Walking through NYC it
>would probably work out to be more like 12 or 13 miles since you can't
just
>walk in a straight line between the two. So, walking that would take you
at
>a good clip around 4 hours. Is that a great distance? In an airplane
you
>don't even climb up into controlled airspace to make that short of a hop.
>It's nothing, it's too small a distance to consider even flying (except
for
>some very rich people with their own helos).
You're a Jesuit! WHY DO YOU DAMNED PEOPLE KEEP ACCUSING OTHERS OF
YOUR TRAINED TALENTS!!
I know that the distance from Boston to New York is much shorter than
walking. Just like I said you were in error and MUST STERILIZE...
But you're a Jesuit!
Should all non-Catholics die? How should a person react when hearing
that people posted this?
>> >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?
>
>I repeat what I said above. How would they know they were headed for the
>WTC?
I repeat again to the Jesuit... I NEVER SAID THEY KNEW THE PLANES
WERE HEADED TO THE WTC. I was saying just as soon as they learned it
was a hijacking MILITARY PLANES SHOULD HAVE ACCOMPANIED NO MATTER
WHERE THEY WERE GOING!
Jesuit erred again! Can hear just as clearly as the voice speaking
for billions condemned to be exterminated!
>Do you think the WTC makes some sort of giant radar blip on their
>control screens?
I told the Jesuit the answer many times! He ignores death mandates
too much to have any sense!
>Do you think there is something on those screens that says
>"here's the WTC and there's an airplane headed for it?"
I told the Jesuit the answer many times! He ignores death mandates
too much to have any sense!
>Do a little bit of
>research on radar before you try to tell me and others what radar is and
is
>not capable of doing. The statements your are making now just make you
look
>foolish.
Which damned Jesuit even looking foolish ever saw anyone else looking
good????
I told the Jesuit the answer many times! He ignores death mandates
too much to have any sense! It was he who put into my mouth that upon
the hijacking and the altered course, I was saying they should have
known the planes would head for the WTC buildings. I never said that!
>> 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.
>
>Sorry, don't remember ever hearing Cheney say anything about the reason
they
>got through was they came from such a great distance or anything like
that.
You also don't remember me posting to you a day or two ago that people
posted that all non-Catholics must die before giving sup****t to Bush!
>Perhaps you could post the quote you are refering to and then I would be
>happy to exlain what it means to you.
I remembered the quote and then saw it again on the Emperor's clothes
webpage. I, however, never saw proof or any book detailing how no
American should have expected military accompaniment on the attacking
planes.
>> >> >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?
>
>No, I mean to people with a little bit of common sense not those who
refuse
>to even consider alternatives to their ideological slant on reality.
You mean that no American should have expected military accompaniment
with the attacking planes, AND THEREFORE THE SAME THING COULD HAPPEN
AGAIN IF TERRORISTS EVER AT LEAST GET PLANES OFF THE GROUND?
>> >> 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.
>
>Right, here we come down to your bottom line.
That all non-Catholics should live and normal people would at least
show concern and inquire if people post opposite?
>It doesn't matter what thnigs
>are like in reality, you simply "know" that it was possible.
But he's not a Jesuit, he says. He tells me and the world what we
must know! Gonna write a book detailing why Americans and even
British Intelligence should not have expected military accompaniment
on the attacking airplanes, and this mindset would also make us not be
concerned nor even inquire if we hear about people posting on PUBLIC
media that all non-Catholics must die?
>It wouldn't
>matter if I drew all of this out on a map, showed you standing orders,
alert
>statuses, transcripts or anything else. Reality doesn;t even enter into
>your equation unless it matches up with what you "know".
That all non-Catholics should live and we should at least inquire or
be concerned if people posted this, but Jesuits would not be?
>You must really
>enjoy going to the movies then since they don't deal with reality either.
You mean that all non-Catholics should live and we should at least
inquire or be concerned if people posted this, but Jesuits would not
be?
>You probably think something like National Treasure is a do***entary.
Unlike a Jesuit?
That all non-Catholics should live and we should at least inquire or
be concerned if people posted this, but Jesuits would not be?
>As for "vital to lie", you have obviously decide to embrace the lies
instead
>of seeking the truth. Perhaps that is your religion.
That all non-Catholics should live and we should at least inquire or
be concerned if people posted this, but Jesuits would not be?
>> >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!!
>
>You said the came from a "far distance" then when I pointed out that was
an
>incorrect statement you brought in the FAA, not me and now you claim you
>didn't say that?
It was a far distance. I ought to know. I have a sane mind. That's
why I'm concerned about the death mandates against all non-Catholics,
a despot Jesuits and super-criminals must leech and post about what
they claim are other more im****tant things.
>I simply pointed out that bringin the FAA into a
>discussion about distance (one of your quotes on this.."walk it") was
>irrelevant.
Just like ERROR. Must STERILIZE! I didn't mean it was great because
of walking.
Hard to have commonsense dealing with a Jesuit who was informed, like
the many others, that people posted that all non-Catholics must die on
a PUBLIC medium!
>Sheesh, finally a statement that makes at least some sense. Yes, if
>terrorists manage to take over an airplane today they could crash it into
>something again. That happenes to be the nature of aircraft.
Poor damned super-criminal Jesuit. If they take over a planes, it can
happen again. But something else made America impregnable even to
what a current official told us is the ease of poisoning our food
supply since Bush came along and is followed by his gestapos even on
the internet.
>Once they are
>up they are going to come down one way or another. And depending on how
>smart they were, there still wouldn't be enough time to scramble an armed
>fighter to do anything about it.
Are there books on the market now telling us what this Jesuit is
telling us to inform us we should not have expected military aircraft
to accompany attacking planes?
>If they get into the cockpit without the
>crew being able to give a hijacked call then they don't even have to
deviate
>course. Every airway goes over major cities. All the terrorist would
need
>to do is stay on course until he got close to a city, put the nose down
and
>dive for the deck. There would be only minutes of warning before impact
and
>while it might not be against a high profile target like the WTC or
>Pentagon, it would likely still kill hundreds if not thousands.
There you go...
THE TERRORISTS COULD HAVE HIJACKED PLANES HEADED FOR NEW YORK, and
then attacked that way. Instead they chose planes that were diverted
huge distances.
HUGE ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE TERRORISTS THE "GRACE" TO LET SOME OF THE
PASSENGERS CALL HOME!
>Having said that, what is you plan to stop that from happening? You seem
so
>bent out of shape that reality pre 9/11 doesn;t meat your desires, well,
>let's hear what your solution is?
Because I believe all non-Catholics must live? Because if I hear
about anyone even remotely posting such a thing, I would flock there
to investigate and show concern, while you are different along with so
many others who desperately trail my posts?
>No more *****ing and complaining, no more
>lies and decptions, just lay out what you would do to prevent any future
>hijackings and give me some specifics.
3,000 people DIED!! After that, their famlies were victimized over
and over again. 911 commission merely asked for candid statements.
Condi had problems with such a simple request. Bush and Cheney, known
worldwide for telling the truth had to be interviewed together and the
interviews could not be recorded! Such a simple thing in respect even
for the dead for normal people. We are victimized by the abnormal!
I'M GONNA COMPLAIN! I'M GONNA COMPLAIN ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO TOLD US
ALL NON-CATHOLICS MUST DIE!! You can't complain about that, for you
claim to be an everybody Jesuit!
>No simple generalities like "I would
>prevent hijackers from getting onto airplanes" or crap like that. Let's
get
>down into HOW you would prevent that. Let us hear your wisom on that
>matter.
No simple generalities like, "Who posted that all non-Catholics must
die!" SHOW ME!
>> >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.
>
>Please provide the timeline. I believe there was one phone call from a
>flight attendant on one aircraft but honestly I am not sure of the timing
>between that and when that specific aircraft's transponder was turned
off.
The crew were attacked first. They knew it was a hijacking. The
terrorists locked themselves in the cockpit. How much time would
elapse before the crew notifies authorities?
>Even so, at most you just gained a matter of minutes and you continue to
>ignore the realistic series of events that needed to happen in order to
get
>more than an unarmed fighter jet to the scene.
I CAN'T HELP IT! THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN I HEAR THAT PEOPLE POSTED
THAT ALL NON-CATHOLICS MUST DIE! I'm a human being. What's your
problem besides Jesuitism?
>> 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.
>
>Again, I don't know of any calls that were made to "authorities" by
>passangers or crew. If you have that timeline or transcript indicating
>differently then please provide it.
What about the mind of this super-criminal. Just a test to show
you...
HE DOES KNOW THAT PEOPLE POSTED THAT ALL NON-CATHOLICS MUST DIE! He
reacts like so many others put on the internet to confuse and guard
traitors and super-criminals.
>> >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.
>
>Please not what I laid out for you in my previous post, i.e. the details
you
>decided to snip out because they showed how wrong you are.
That all non-Catholics must live, despot?
>A transponder
>going off raises concern but it does not tell anyone the aircraft is
being
>hijacked.
Terrorists in the cockpit to turn off the transponder. They already
assaulted the crew. How much time from thence would the crew alert
authorities about what happened?
>Of course, according to your last several statements above,
>supposedly they (the authorities) were already told by passangers and
crew
>that the aircraft was hijacked before the transponder was turned off.
So,
>which is it?
See above. Any which could be, for terrorists in cockpit means attack
on crew already happened. The crew were the first to be attacked.
Should all non-Catholics live?
>Was the transponder first turned off and then they got
>information about the aircraft being hijacked or did they get told the
>aircraft was hijacked and then the transponder was turned off? Please
pick
>one and stick with it.
See above. Any which could be, for terrorists in cockpit means attack
on crew already happened. The crew were the first to be attacked.
Should all non-Catholics live?
>> >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...
>
>Yup, please hold up you pilot's license so I can see it through the wind
>screen.
You're a Jesuit. With your intelligence you would do that and then
complain that I said to walk it from Boston to New York. With me, I
would try to radio the aircraft and 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??...
>
>Posting person blather incoherently at this point because reality is not
>matching up with your fantasy??
But damned Jesuit who cannot be concerned with the knowledge that
people posted that all non-Catholics must die, already shows that he
will continue to respond to incoherent posts like the other
super-criminals who only attacked me when I exposed the death mandates
against all non-Catholics.
>> >- 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.
>
>Okay, just how many alert aircraft do you think were on alert pre 9/11?
>There were only 12 airbases nation wide, including Alsaka that had alert
>fighters in standby and they were mostly in Alaska and along the coasts.
>So, you don't get some flying behind and some in front or choices like
that.
Neither help for non-Catholics. Is this super-criminal telling us we
should not have expected military accompaniment? We should not have
expected trouble when our national leaders were asked to give candid
statements about what happened to the 911 Commission?
>As for what an intercept entails, you need to do a lot more research to
>understand that concept before you want to debate me about it.
I guess this Jesuit found out the same about the lives of all
non-Catholics! All the more he would ignore me since he claims I am
not making any sense.
>In any case,
>pre 9/11, an unarmed 15 minute alert still means from the go order to
wheels
>in the well (that means airborne) takes about 15 minutes.
Enough for the passengers to make phone calls home? Then the first
jet hits. Then time ticks on. Then the second jets hits, and then
Goebbels approach us to teach us we must not be concerned about people
posting that all non-Catholics must die?
>> 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.
>
>Sheesh! How many times do I need to point out that you continue to
*****s a
>pre 9/11 situation with post 9/11 attitudes.
Sheesh! How many times do I need to point out to the Jesuit that even
discussion with a self-appointed sensible person not concerned about
death mandates against all non-Catholics would automatically show this
is not an ordinary person?
>Try and find me three
>hijackings in the previous 30 years where the hijackers intentionally
>crashed the aircraft insetad of landing it somewhere and using the
hostages
>as bargaining chips.
To prove that military aircraft should not be expected to be there?
>I know of one incident (do some reasearch if you want
>to know about it). Of course no one wanted to shoot down a commercial
>aircraft with several hundred people onboard. That does not change the
>information I posted.
Neither did anyone want to accompany it to inquire on what's going on!
>> >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!
>
>You just don't get it do you?
I'm not a Jesuit! I get even that billions of people have been
condemned to extermination. How can you understand that and act
accordingly? You have to be like so many others who have to
desperately trail my posts.
>Read the transcripts about what was going on
>and what they did and did not know as the hijackings were going on.
Without knowing that military planes should have accompanied the
attacking planes.
>Even
>ignoring that (which any sane person could not), first impact at WTC was
at
>8:46. Second aircraft to hit WTC was noted as a "possible" hijack only
at
>8:53 after its first course deviation at 8:49. Second ipact was at 9:02.
>That's only nine minutes after controllers "thought" they might have a
>second hijacking.
And that would help me to understand that if someone posts that all
non-Catholics must die, it's no big thing, and then when others are
concerned about it and post about it, it must be ignored?
>Now here's another question for you. Assume you had 2 armed fighters now
>sitting over NYC, would you order them to shoot that second aircraft down
if
>it was overhead a densly populated NYC?
Each plane was over the densely populated area for a short time, for
they didn't linger. If one plane rams, then yes the other would be
shot down. Debris would hit the ground and endanger people there,
PLUS the high population in the towers would be worse.
I wouldn't expect someone to easily come to a decision like this on
such short notice, BUT ALL CAN KNOW WHAT TO DO IF THEY HEARD THAT
PEOPLE POSTED THAT ALL NON-CATHOLICS MUST DIE IN THIS CLIMATE OF
TERRORISM WE ARE IN!
All would understand the plain point and question as to whether or not
the American people should understand that they should not have
expected military aircraft to accompany the attacking aircraft.
>> >- 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.
>
>Nope, just giving you more of a benefit than reality would.
That all non-Catholics must live, despot?
>If you
>intercept and ID, whcih a visual ID would have been required, that takes
>even more time. Then add the time to get a fire order passed and the
>timeline gets even worse for you. Please read what I write not what you
>want me to be saying.
If military jets were around and the planes got through, I would not
be complaining at all. That was a given. For the tactics that were
used, it was unpredictable. But I stated over and over that there was
no excuse for miltary aircraft not being there at least against the
second aircraft.
>> >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.
>
>You just keep digging your hole deeper.
NO DAMNED JESUIT EVER SAID ANYTHING DIFFERENT! If you could prove
your lies just by the despot statement, you would do it!
You know how many proved that I was in error and insane by posting
that I need to get a truckload of medicine??
>You have been screaming about how
>we should have had military jets up there and escorting these hijacked
>flights. WHY if you only want them there to try and negotiate?
Damned Jesuit errs again! Military aircraft are assumed to have arms
also. Not to send fast reconnaisance jets!
>Why would a
>hijacker talk to a fighter pilot but not to the ground controllers?
Military jet still approaches and inquires. If no answer, then other
measures must be taken.
This is as simple as the fact that all non-Catholics should live.
>What
>difference would it have made with these people who had no demands, had
no
>intention of negotiating who didn't want a ransom.
Didn't know that at first, but that's not what I'm saying. If
military aircraft were there accompanying and inquiring and still the
planes struck, I could have no quarrel.
>The only purpose for
>having a military aircraft intercept a hijacked one is to shoot it down
>otherwise they serve no useful purpose.
This Jesuit needs to show do***entation. But what he said is
hair-raising. Why?
BECAUSE ONE OF THOSE PLANES WERE ACCOMPANIED BY A MILITARY JET!
People have been saying that the military jet shot it down, but they
were called "conspiracy theorists" as the word coined by conspirators
to tell people, even in a free country, that they must not know a
conspiracy exists!
This Jesuit just told us the only reason for a military jet
accompaniment would be to shoot the plane down!
>So, you complain they weren;t there
>and then when I give you every possible benefit of a doubt to increase
the
>possibility that they could have gotten there, then you want them to sit
>back and what, watch them crash into the WTC? What are you complaining
>about then???
Jesuit putting words in my mouth. All fringe benefits of believing
that all non-Catholics must die.
>> >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!
>
>EXACTLY!! Only aircraft in 15 minute alert status were unarmed and had
been
>since shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
No excuse for that! And then after the disaster, the ones teaching us
against paranoia tell us that the sky is falling and the constitution
needs to be curtailed!
>You remember them
>right? You remember them collapsing right?
If I can remember the lives of all non-Catholics being declared to be
fit for destruction, then I can remember more than you!
>You remember that "peace
>dividend" that all the politicians wanted? Well, that was part of it.
Only
>a dozen intercept sites in the country and those unarmed.
That's a pip! Then the attacks go through, and already Carnivore was
created and running so that the Patriot Act could allow the government
to use it to snoop all our personal information!
Planes were not ready, but illegal things were.
>Once again I try
>to give you what your fantasy demands and you shoot it down.
That all non-Catholics should live, Jesuit?
>If you want
>your fantasy to work you need to ignore reality.
That all non-Catholics should live, Jesuit? and that if I heard that
people posted this, it would take priority and I would inquire and go
to find out?
>If you want to know what
>reality is then you have to abandon your fantasy. Simple really.
TYPICAL JESUIT!
That all non-Catholics should live, Jesuit? and that if I heard that
people posted this, it would take priority and I would inquire and go
to find out?
>> >- 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.
>
>See above.
That all non-Catholics should live, Jesuit? and that if I heard that
people posted this, it would take priority and I would inquire and go
to find out?
>> >- 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!
>
>Please provide any evidence that there was a military jet anywhere in the
>area of the final aircraft.
The final aircraft?
>In fact the biggest complaint of those making
>your kinds of fantasy argurements is that NO fighters were scrambled in
>response to this flight. So provide some evidence that everyone else is
>wrong and you are right and a military aircraft was there, approaching
the
>aircraft as it crashed into the PA field.
Is everyone wrong about what they would do if they heard that people
posted that all non-Catholics must die on the public Google archives?
Along with the one that struck the Pentagon and didn't leave aircraft
debris?
>> >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!
>
>They didn't need to. The first and foremost mind set pre-9/11 that you
note
>above was that you didn't shoot down hijacked civilian airliners because
the
>terrorists would negotiate for something they wanted.
This damned Jesuit always speaks for me! That is not true!
Military aircraft are to approach any plane unexplainably off course
or hijacked to first inquire.
>You seem to be
>jumping back and forth from fantasy to reality.
The Jesuit keeps saying things about me that are not true. No wonder
he is in fantasy that if he hears people posting that all
non-Catholics must die, he either is to ignore it, or at best, attack
the person who exposes this like so many others sent to guard the
internet and prevent people from knowing the truth.
>Are you complaining that
>there were no military aircraft near the hijacked planes or not?
Hard of hearing also!
>Are you
>complaining that the hijacked planes were not shot down before they
struck
>the WTC or not?
That part no! I said it before. I also believe all non-Catholics
should live. If I am even discussing something else, and I hear that
people post such, I would go there to find out and be concerned.
>Just what did you want those military aircraft that you are
>so upset about to do, where did you want them to be, did you even want
them
>to be there at all??? Shoot down or not shoot down which is it???
I told the Jesuit already. Even if the planes still struck, I would
have no complaint if military jets were there to accompany.
>> >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.
>
>Man you are redundant and blind. See above again and again.
You mean because I believe that all non-Catholics should live, Jesuit?
and that if I heard that people posted this, it would take priority
and I would inquire and go to find out?
>> >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!
>
>Look into what radar really does, how transponders work, what the
re****ion
>is on the various screens and the types of radars being used.
Should I look into whether or not all non-Catholics should live? What
about what a person should at least do if he learsn taht people are
posting that all such should die?
>Keep in mind
>that ATC reada that they always show in the movies is not the same as one
>being used to conduct an intercept. Also keep in mind that there are a
lot
>of blips on radar screens, including some types od clouds, weather, small
>aircraft not required to use transponders, etc. But again, do some
research
>if you want to talk radar, right now you don't know what you are talking
>about.
But first, I already passed a simple test and know that if someone
shows that people are posting that all non-Catholics must die, I would
inquire and even go there no matter on what newsgroup I am posting. I
would not be able to ignore it. I'm not a Jesuit!
>> >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!
>
>Hmm, I understand a little more now. Since reality is so obviously at
odds
>with your fantasy,
Typical damned Jesuit!
Because that all non-Catholics should live, Jesuit? and that if I
heard that people posted this, it would take priority and I would
inquire and go to find out?
>which by the way is very confused, therefore you 1) call
>reality lies and 2) demand that the person pointing out that the fire is
hot
>should be silenced. Very wise of you.
Okay then Jesuit, why? That all non-Catholics should live, Jesuit?
and that if I heard that people posted this, it would take priority
and I would inquire and go to find out?
>> >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!
>
>Yes and if you look in the mirror you will see who it is.
Because I would be concerned about people posting that all
non-Catholics must die, and all other terrorists naturally would be,
unlike you?
>> >> 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.
>
>You were the one demanding to know why no military aircraft were
escorting
>these hijacked aircraft. Again, assuming you could even have gotten the
>intercept, just what did you want them to do?
See above.
>What would YOU have had them
>do when the hijackers refused to negotiate?
Negotiate first naturally. If not cooperating, more difficult
decsions would be necessary. My concern is that the planes went in
WITHOUT MILITARY ACCOMPANIMENT! Gave the impression that the great US
known to be impregnable was humiliated. IT WAS!
>What would YOU have ordered
>when the first aircraft began a shapr descent into the heart of NYC?
What
>would YOU have done if you had military jets on the second WTC aircraft
and
>it was headed back for NYC? You are whining and complaining and arguing
>this elaborate and convoluted fantasy
typical damned Jesuit...
>but you don't have any input on what
>YOU would do.
Already stated it. I'm convoluted also because I value all
non-Catholic life!
>Well, let's hear it, let's hear your magnificnent plan.. So
>far all I've gotten is that you want someone crucified because there was
no
>military escort on these aircraft as they crashed into the WTC. And you
>wonder who is arguing FOR the terrorists. Sheesh!
Who is? You gave reason for terrorists to attack without any sign of
military accompaniment! Next, you are not concerned that the lives
of all non-Catholics are condemned! THIS IS A WORST MANDATE THAN
OSAMA! Didn't bother a worse terrorist!
>> >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???
>
>So, they didn;t have to worry about being caught and then becoming this
>laughing stock you seem to think they were worried about. So, you
>invalidate your own point. Thanks, saves me typing.
I SAVE EVERY DAMNED JESUIT TYPING. That's why they neglect their kids
trailing my posts and giving me their psychiatric analyses!
That was my point. They planned a feat with foreknowledge that it
would go through from a great distance. It wound up doing so without
military accompaniment.
The result is the government being fundamentally changed to the
pretexts of the communists and nazis--the kind of government New World
Order guys always wanted!
The best way to destroy the constitution is to place New World Order
guys, who naturally hate it, into positions intended to protect it.
>> >> >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?
>
>Maybe they were crying because someone they loved was killed by a
terrorist?
Would they cry if they learned that all non-Catholics have been
condemned to extermination, Jesuit?
>Maybe just because someone they loved died. As for Cheney, see above,
I'm
>getting tired of trying to remove your rose colored gl*****.
Like all the other Jesuits before they neglect their kids! What would
you teach me about death mandates against all non-Catholics?
>> >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!
>
>Sigh. What did you want the military jets that you insist should have
been
>there to do when the hijackers didn't negotiate and started to dive into
>NYC? Perhaps we should get rid of the real liar here...you.
Common sense. How should you react learning that people posted that
all non-Catholics must die?
>> >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?
>
>Solidly defended? Thank God, Allah, Buddah or whoever that you are not a
>defense attorney (you're not are you) because you would never win a case
>with the kind of defense you put up here so far.
I have kept alot like you up at nights! I kept asking them even about
the death mandates and they stood out making sure they dare not even
comment or condemn those who posted it, but condemned me easily and
constantly for exposing it!
>As for leaving your posts, the only reason I have continued this long is
>because I know that as soon as I decide you're just not worth the key
>strokes you will then scream and crow that you have righteously defended
>your fantasy and it will only feed your delusion.
Didn't know that everyone who performs the spiritual exercises of
Ignatius does the same thing especially after accusing me of mental
insanity since going down with the issues with me never can work.
>Nope, I'm not ready to
>hang it up yet because I don't want you to fall any deeper into delerium
>than you already are.
Like the delerium that all non-Catholics should live, Jesuit? and that
if I heard that people posted this, it would take priority and I would
inquire and go to find out?
>So, is that psyciatrically opinionated enough for
>you?
Just so you don't complain when the obvious shows you are a Jesuit!
>> >> >- "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.
>
>See above.
See this?
Should all non-Catholics should live, Jesuit? and that if I heard that
people posted this, it would take priority and I would inquire and go
to find out?
>> >> >- "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!
>
>Above you already discounted this entire statement with your own words.
Not
>worth me repeating it for you, read what you write.
You mean like you discounted everything you wrote with your own words?
So far already you know that people posted that all non-Catholics must
die. Already you are showing why you accuse others of mental insanity
like your brothers the communists and nazis.
>> What was the explanation for such an enviable record before Bush and
>> the other New World Order guys?
>
>Yup, everything was changed, the whole defense of the nation, all the
>air****ts, all the airplanes, all the security everywhere in the country
was
>suddenly changed in the 9 months that Bush was in office. Yup, that's
what
>happened, right after those little grey man came and sucked all the
wateer
>out of your swimming pool right?
And taught you that all non-Catholics should live? How about any
human being concerned that people would post such?
Too busy drinking the water in your pool to notice like so many other
super-criminals that trail me?
>> >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!
>
>Yeah, and that's why terrorists never fail in their attempts...oops, I
>forgot, they do fail in their attempts but they don't stop trying and
they
>don't ridicule those that do.
I already showed the Jesuit that the problem was not the attempt, but
the stupid way it was done, and yet it still went through.
>Provide one SINGLE piece of evidence from ANY
>source where the Arab street has made fun of one of their terrorists who
>failed in their mission.
They wouldn't! Suicide bombers went close as possible to their
targets. If they failed, they failed. 911 attackers DID NOT!
>> >> >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!!
>
>Ah Ha! A Trekkie!!! I knew it!!
At least us Trekkie's don't believe all non-Catholics must die!
>And yep, since I recognize the quite I
>guess that makes me one too. Can Jesuits be Trekkies?
Yes, but they will show no concern at death mandates against billions
of people WHICH WORKS OUT TO BE WORSE THAN THE MANDATES OF OSAMA!
>> >> >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.
>
>Evidence is non existant to back up this idea of ridicule but that
doesn;t
>matter to you, only the fantasy is real.
Should all non-Catholics die, O damned one? I would be concerned
about anyone posting such, no matter what dialogue or newsgroup I hear
it from. What about thou and so many others as thou?
>> 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.
>
>You showed nothing.
TYPICAL DAMNED JESUIT!
Should non-Catholics live, Jesuit?
>You made several statements, provided no reasonable
>explaination to back them up
for damned Jesuits...
>and have no evidence to sup****t anything you
>said.
for damned Jesuits! Didn't even convince this one to make inquiry
about people posting that all non-Catholics must die!
>Very good, President of you debate team were you?
What does that do for billions of non-Catholics condemned to die by
posters on the internet that doesn't bother you till it is exposed?
>> >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.
>
>That's the point. If they can't even do something so simple as blow
>themselves up in the right place, such a simple thing why wouldn't they
be
>more likely to be ridiculed vice those who showed the daring to attempt a
>direct strike against the great Satan.
Suicide bombers always went as close as they can! Teaching this
super-terrorist this point is like teaching him that the lives of all
non-Catholics are valuable!!
>Of course, you already said there
>was no chance of them getting caught so therefore there was no risk of
this
>nonexistant riducule ever taking place anyway.
Military jets should have accompanied the 911 attackers.
>> >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!
>
>Here we go back to distance again.
How many centuries have honest people argued with Jesuits that people
not of your religion should live, and you damned super-criminals still
have not learned a thing!
>> >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!
>
>He was headed for the US and failed in what we consider a laughable way
but
>the Arab street celebrated his attempt.
From 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!
>
>At least I have some logic.
What good does that do non-Catholics in a worse mandate of death than
Osama?
>Every statement you have made here is either
>contradicted by other statements you make,
according to the damned Jesuit who will not notice that all
non-Catholics have been condemned to extermination in a mandate worse
than Osama's...
>has no basis in fact or reality
according to the damned Jesuit who will not notice that all
non-Catholics have been condemned to extermination in a mandate worse
than Osama's...
>or is a simple, straight out lie.
according to the damned Jesuit who will not notice that all
non-Catholics have been condemned to extermination in a mandate worse
than Osama's...
>And you want to call me names?!
For the sake of billions of non-Catholics whose cries this damned
super-criminal cannot hear?
>> >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!
>
>So far you have missed ALL of them, I suspect intentionally.
according to the damned Jesuit who will not notice that all
non-Catholics have been condemned to extermination in a mandate worse
than Osama's...
>> 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!
>
>Years afterward??
Independent investigation of 911 was obstructed by Bush and Cheney on
the grounds that such investigation would divert needed resources for
the war on terror. That was before Bush diverted into Iraq.
>> >> 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.
I DON'T CARE! HUMAN BEINGS WOULD BE CONCERNED AND WOULD INQUIRE ABOUT
SUCH A HORRENDOUS STATEMENT!
Not surprised he would claim it doesn't have to do with the topic as
the other super-criminals and would even after this, continue to
ignore it except to attack those who expose it!
He says, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING, and it's finished!
No wonder I know he's a Jesuit1
>> 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!
>
>I haven't condemned you, just tried to point out your errors which of
course
>you call casual misstatments and you can;t even remember day to day how
many
>aircraft hit the WTC.
Still, the death mandate are high priority. This damned Jesuit can
only ignore it attesting to his logic, common sense, and the grave
they would naturally claim others are digging for themselves in their
arguments.
>> >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.
>
>Hmm, let's see. You made a post with all capital letters as the title,
>typically indicating you are yelling in posting parlance.
So the lives of all non-Catholics can be bypassed, by the damned
paranoid Jesuit looking at letters!
>You claimed all
>of these facts and reasons that didn't hang together and didn't reflect
>reality.
TYPICAL DAMNED JESUIT!
according to the damned Jesuit who will not notice that all
non-Catholics have been condemned to extermination in a mandate worse
than Osama's...
>You are the one who attacked me by calling me names and placing
>labels on me.
Poor damned Jesuit! He's crying! What about the lives of billions of
people who are not the most damned of super-criminals?
according to the damned Jesuit who will not notice that all
non-Catholics have been condemned to extermination in a mandate worse
than Osama's...
ANYONE WHO EVEN REMOTELY IGNORES THIS REVELATION IS A JESUIT PURE AND
SIMPLE!
GET OVER THE REALITY!!
>I have not attacked YOU, I have challanged your statements.
>I have not said anything hateful to you, if you can prove I did I will
>gladly appologise for it.
He overlooks death mandates against all non-Catholics, showing who he
is and that he is here to deceive, and hasn't stepped on my toes, he
says! He hasn't insulted me!
>I have nothing to do with Jesuits, Catholics,
>Budists, Mulims, ****ntoists, Protestants, or any other organized religion
>you care to name.
DAMNED JESUIT ignores death mandates against all non-Catholics as he
would claim EVERYBODY does!
>I have not claimed you were hateful anywhere in my posts,
>only incorrect.
And "proved" it by joining so many others who didn't do the same, but
also had to ignore death mandates against all non-Catholics except to
attack anyone who exposed it.
>I don't know who posted any death mandates so why would I
>say anything against whoever they are?
HUMAN BEINGS WOULD INQUIRE SINCE THE MANDATE IS WORSE THAN THAT STATED
BY OSAMA! It is broader in scope, and is done against people with no
provocation!
>So, bottom line. Who dominated the discussion? The person who SHOUTED
>their post title to the world to get attention or the one who refuted the
>points being made?
Poor paranoid damned Jesuit! He has different concerns than me! I
have all non-Catholics in mind, AND 3,000 PEOPLE UNDER WHICH DEATHS
ARE NO EXCUSE!
>For someone who ends their posts with "In His Grace" you
>hardly seem charitable, considerate or any of the other virtues that that
>staement tends to invoke.
Better I had ignored death mandates against all non-Catholics by the
most charitable and abandoned of killers! Then I would be like this
guy!
>Perhaps the "His" you are refering to isn't who I
>think.
Perhaps Jesuits can say perhaps when they want and then claim the
absolutes when they want as is do***ented against them by their
historical victims!
In His Grace,
If I have anything to do with it, at least 3,000 plus all
non-Catholics would get some...
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
|
