T1B

Posted: **Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:21 pm**

mvscal wrote: How, exactly, would these scrambled fighters have protected our most densely populated city from hijacked airliners?

There would have been a better chance of having the jetliners rain down parts and burning fuel on a part of town more heavily populated by Blacks than lower Manahttan.

Are you happy yet?

Posted: **Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:03 pm**

Moving Sale wrote:
Sudden Sam wrote:Pretty damn pitiful that we can't protect our nation's largest city or the nation's capital, isn't it?
Sitka, Alaska is the largest city in the U.S.

actually, it's Juenau, not Sitka

Just Sayin'

Posted: **Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:26 am**

"While New York City is the most populous city in the United States, Sitka, Alaska is the largest city in area. Sitka includes a whopping 2874 square miles of incorporated area. The city is larger than the state of Delaware! Officially known as the "City and Borough of Sitka," the city consolidated the City of Sitka Borough in 2000 to be the country's largest city.
Sitka displaced Juneau, Alaska as the largest city upon the 2000 incorporation. Juneau is 2717 square miles and was formed through incorporation of the borough and city in 1970."

Any questions?

Posted: **Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:00 am**

Moving Sale wrote:"While New York City is the most populous city in the United States, Sitka, Alaska is the largest city in area. Sitka includes a whopping 2874 square miles of incorporated area. The city is larger than the state of Delaware! Officially known as the "City and Borough of Sitka," the city consolidated the City of Sitka Borough in 2000 to be the country's largest city.
Sitka displaced Juneau, Alaska as the largest city upon the 2000 incorporation. Juneau is 2717 square miles and was formed through incorporation of the borough and city in 1970."

Any questions?

Why are you so fuckin' boring???

Sin,

Paint drying

Posted: **Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:11 am**

88 wrote:way, I'm wide awake, dog.

You need to share, bro.

Seriously, I've yet to sleep well, for the past 2 months. I've been boged down with 2 months of work, which I need to get done in little over a week.

At least I have work... it's the only thing that makes me get up in the morning.

The stress can be a tad much, even for a workaholic.

I heard about your dad passing, and hope you're doing ok.

Fuck, if my dad died, I'd be a mess, since I see him as my best friend.

Let me know how you do it, since I'd have no idea how to do it... yet it's coming sooner than later.

I sound like a pussy, and I dont give a shit.

L8,

m2

Posted: **Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:49 pm**

Moving Sale wrote:"Sitka displaced Juneau, Alaska as the largest city upon the 2000 incorporation.

Any questions?

No - last time I was there was 1999.

Posted: **Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:33 pm**

Looks like this is the second time this summer I have ran 88 from a 911 thread.

What a fucking cunt that guy is.

Posted: **Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:41 pm**

Cuda and Mvscal?

Posted: **Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:30 am**

TVO is impotent, phanto. Sucking him off will get you nowheresvillem

Posted: **Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:37 am**

Props to 88 in this thread. Since part 2 hasn't played yet in San Diego (pre-empted till Saturday for the chargers game which was already being run on ESPN) all I can say about part one is that the lefty bitches do protest overly much. It's the stupid economy, remember? You buy into a mindset where international politics are irelevent in choosing a leader, elect a POS who loaths the military and you get the Monty Python act we had after Mogidishu. OBL's moment of epiphany. Was that even in Part one, BTW?

Posted: **Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:04 am**

To tell you the truth, I watched it but I don't remember.

All I remember about part 1 is Harvey Keitel acting very macho and some guys rousting a bunch of Arabs somewhere in the Middle-East.

Figure Part 2 should be similar.

RACK Stevie Wonder, BTW.

Posted: **Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:18 am**

88 wrote: I ran at Mach 6.0 for 150 miles....

Or was it Mach 4.5 for 105 miles? Or was it Mach 3.7 for 6 miles?

You are such a tard you can't even stick to one story for couple of posts in a row.

Nice going... I can see where your Down's Syndrome kid got his genes.

Now go suck Bush's Cock you asshat, maybe he'll shoot more 'information' onto your face.

Posted: **Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:29 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Sudden Sam wrote:So you're comfortable with the fact that on September 11, 2001, the United States of America was incapable of scrambling fighters to protect the nation's most heavily populated city (thanks MS) and its capital?

How, exactly, would these scrambled fighters have protected our most densely populated city from hijacked airliners?

Why won't any of you assholes even try to answer that question?

THis is actually a perfectly valid and important question. But just because it presents a nest of perplexing and disturbing implications certainly doesn't make its answer any less clear.

First, are we to assume that if the NORAD system works properly--jets scrambled in minutes, just like during the DOZENS of "false alarms" the previous year--that there's nothing they can do to stop a lumbering airliner?

Sure, if it's right over Wall Street the idea of shooting it down appears just about as bad as letting it take out the towers. But that's not the real propspect at all.

If the NORAD jets were properly dispatched, they could have intercepted the hijacked airliners way out in the countryside--over the Catskills, let's say. Further, if the Atta and his fellow amateur pilots suddenly had airforce jets buzzing all over them, would they really have stayed so cool? Are we really to assume that EVEN IN LIEU of shooting them down, that no significant and telling interference could have been rendered?

Okay, so the hijacked airliners surge on towards N.Y., undeterred, well, the option is front and center to drop them. Sure, it would be excruciatingly painful--the utter shame--of having to kill innocent Americans without any positive proof that the WTC attack was forthcoming. But the option should have at least been there.

What's the excuse for the biggest failure in security in America's history?

88 insists that there were ONLY FOUR fighter jets available to protect the entire eastern seaboard (due to Clinton's cuts, etc).

Do you actually believe this for one second? Apparently, the Rovian/Limpdick style is simply to offer the most preposterous reversal of reality--and then watch as a LOT of people passively swallow it. Those who object just get the standard smear treatment.

In point of fact, seven airstations were on FULL ALERT to protect the continental U.S. on 9/11.
The Air National Guard maintains seven alert sites with 14 fully armed fighters and pilots on call around the clock. Besides Tyndall AFB, alert birds also sit armed and ready at; Homestead Air Reserve Base (ARB), Homestead, Florida; Langley AFB, Hampton, Virginia; Otis Air National Guard (ANG), Falmouth, Massachusetts; Oregon ANG, Portland, Oregon; March ARB, Riverside, California; and Ellington ANG, Houston, Texas. Obviously the western U.S. bases here were not a factor.

But here's twenty-eight more airstations that were well within range to scramble fighter jets, but, astonishingly, didn't:

Andrews AFB 11 miles SE of Washington D.C.

Bolling AFB 3 miles south of US Capitol

Dover AFB Dover, DE

Hanscom AFB 17 miles northwest of Boston, MA

McGuire AFB 18 miles southeast of Trenton, NJ

Wright-Patterson AFB Dayton, OH

Cape Cod, MA AFS

New Boston, NH AFS

Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Bases

Atlantic City Airport, NJ 10 miles west of Atlantic City

Barnes Municipal Airport, MA 3 miles northwest of Westfield

Bradley International Airport, CN Windsor Locks

Byrd Field, VA 4 miles southeast of Richmond

Eastern West Virginia Regional Airport 4 miles south of Martinsburg

Frances S. Gabreski Airport, NY Westhampton Beach

Greater Pittsburgh International Airport, PA 15 miles nw of Pittsburgh

Harrisburg International Airport, PA 10 miles east of Harrisburg

Martin State Airport, MD 8 miles east of Baltimore

New Castle County Airport, DE 5 miles south of Wilmington

Pease ANGS, NH Portsmouth

Quonset State Airport, RI Providence

Rickenbacker ANGB, OH Columbus, Oh

Stewart International Airport, NY Newburgh, NY

Toledo Express Airport, Swanton, Ohio

Westover ARB, MA 5 miles northeast of Chicopee

Willow Grove Naval Air Station, PA 14 miles north of Philadelphia

Yeager Airport, WVA 4 miles northeast of Charleston

Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport ARS, OH 16 miles north of Youngstown

Also, there is an Air Defense Intercept Zone just off shore for the entire Atlantic Coast. This zone is constantly being patrolled. In general fast movers would not need to be scrambled. They can be diverted from routine patrol and training flights for the intercept. The odds are that on a beautiful blue morning in September many flights would be on patrol just off shore. It would be most improbable that even one commercial flight could go more than fifteen minutes without being intercepted.

But as it was, NO JETS were scrambled. And moreover, the 9/11 Commission Report shamelessly avoids this glaring series of facts. The mealy excuse trotted out well after the fact--something about a large War Games excercise somehow cunfusing ALL of the military personel, is patantly pathetic.

Posted: **Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:53 pm**

But as it was, NO JETS were scrambled. And moreover, the 9/11 Commission Report shamelessly avoids this glaring series of facts.

Google More Post Less

Posted: **Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:14 am**

OR, do as I do when you see LTS TRN2 in the left hand column: Scroll more, read less.

Posted: **Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:37 pm**

Y2K wrote:
But as it was, NO JETS were scrambled. And moreover, the 9/11 Commission Report shamelessly avoids this glaring series of facts.
Google More Post Less

Why do you post information that you know to be false?

Sin,
88differentanswers2onequestion

Posted: **Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:18 pm**

OH come on now 88, everyone knows that the government has already torn a hole in the fabric of the space/time continuum and that they could have had those jets arrive at the pentagon 10 minutes before 77 showed up.

sin,

movingshortoneverythingexceptinsanitysale

Posted: **Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:28 pm**

A little more fuel for the discussion ...

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... le_id=5865

Posted: **Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:18 pm**

Dunn did a good job refuting all the points made by Fetzer, but left off the one pesky point the conspiracy dudes gloss over every time:

if 77 did not hit the pentagon, where the fuck is it?

Posted: **Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:26 pm**

Mister Bushice wrote:Dunn did a good job refuting all the points made by Fetzer, but left off the one pesky point the conspiracy dudes gloss over every time:

if 77 did not hit the pentagon, where the fuck is it?

That is because it's a Classic non sequitur

1. If A then B.
2. Not A.
3. Therefore, not B.

"If I can produce the plane then it must not have hit the pentagon.
I can't produce the plane
Therefore it must have* hit the pentagon."

* I left out the double negative.

Dumbass.

Posted: **Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:29 pm**

TVO, it's more like

a: "Plane did NOT hit the Pentagon"

b: "Here are the witnesses, here is the video, here is the wreckage"

c: " That proves nothing!"

Posted: **Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:29 pm**

88 wrote:... admitted "guess-timony provided during the 9-11 Commission hearings.

So you are posting stuff you know not to be true. Why would you do that?

Don't worry, you don't have to answer that. We all know it is because you are a Fucking Tard.

Posted: **Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:46 pm**

Moving Sale wrote:So you are posting stuff you know not to be true. Why would you do that?

Don't worry, you don't have to answer that. I do it all the time myself.

Posted: **Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:33 pm**

Moving Sale wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:Dunn did a good job refuting all the points made by Fetzer, but left off the one pesky point the conspiracy dudes gloss over every time:

if 77 did not hit the pentagon, where the fuck is it?
That is because it's a Classic non sequitur

1. If A then B.
2. Not A.
3. Therefore, not B.

"If I can produce the plane then it must not have hit the pentagon.
I can't produce the plane
Therefore it must have* hit the pentagon."

* I left out the double negative.

You left out more than that.

Dumbass.

Posted: **Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:28 pm**

So you admit that your argument is a n/s and therefore stupid.

Nice going fucktard.

Posted: **Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:31 pm**

Moving Sale wrote:That is because it's a Classic non sequitur

1. If A then B.
2. Not A.
3. Therefore, not B.

"If I can produce the plane then it must not have hit the pentagon.
I can't produce the plane
Therefore it must have* hit the pentagon."

* I left out the double negative.

Dumbass.

I'm gonna go all Donald Rumsfeld here and not just answer questions, but ask them as well:

Q: Is it possible that American Airlines Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon on 9/11?

A: Sure, I guess damn near anything is possible.

Q: Is it likely that Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon on 9/11?

A: Not very.

Let's set physical evidence and logical fallacies aside for a moment, and focus on a few circumstantial issues. It would help to first know what you actually do believe regarding the crash.

1. Do you believe that there was an American Airlines Flight 77 that departed Dulles en route to LAX on 9/11?

2. Do you believe that the US Gov't was not only complicit in the Pentagon crash, but also in the WTC and Pennsylvania crashes?

If your answer to question (1) is "No," then that means the FAA and American Airlines are co-conspirators in the deception by virtue of their silence afterward. If that's the case, I find it VERY difficult to believe that no one has broken the silence after five years, and come forward to 'fess up to the fact that there was no such flight that day. If your answer to the question is "Yes," then what happened to it if it didn't crash into the Pentagon? Did it make it to LAX? Was it hijacked by some of the conspirators and crashed into the ocean or some distant, unpopulated, and uncharted island? If it landed at LAX (or elsewhere in the civilized world), I have an equally difficult time believing that none of the crew or passengers has since let the rest of us know that they aren't buried under rubble ('sup Ric Jensen?) and are, indeed, alive and well.

If your answer to question (2) is "Yes," then there are a helluva lotta co-conspirators. The likelihood that all the gov't personnel, Muslim terrorists, and/or others who would have to be involved in such a large-scale plot (near-simultaneous hijackings and commandeering of four commercial flights!) would be able to keep quiet for so long is infinitesimal. If your answer to the question is "No," then what do you figure the chances are that on the day the gov't carries out a sinister plot to crash a military plane into the Pentagon while at the same time making a commercial flight disappear from the face of the earth, a separate group of conspirators would hijack three other flights and crash them elsewhere?

Believe me, I'm no fan of Dubya and his administration, and believe that they're capable of stooping to alarmingly low depths. But I can find no way in hell that they are smart enough, for one thing, to pull something like this off, and the odds of anyone getting away with the level of deception needed, for the length of time that it has gone on, are so long that to even consider them would make winning the state lottery seem like a safe bet.

Posted: **Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:04 am**

Rack Smackie.

Posted: **Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:09 am**

Moving Sale wrote:So you admit that your argument is a n/s and therefore stupid.

Nice going fucktard.

I did no such thing. You are using an argument that doesn't apply to a simple question, that question being:

If 77 did not hit the pentagon, where did it go?

THAT question has nothing to do with what did hit the pentagon, and yet defining it makes your entire case not only possible, but more likely.
Not presenting the slightest reasonable possibility leaves a gaping hole in your story.

PS

"I don't know" is a unacceptable shit answer to the above question. If you want to make an argument for 77 not hitting the pentagon, you have to at least include a possible scenario to account for its whereabouts, a scenario that isn't in the realm of "space aliens took it home for probing"

Posted: **Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:14 am**

Smackie Chan wrote: Let's set physical evidence and logical fallacies aside for a moment, and focus on a few circumstantial issues.

Paint me into a box much?

If it landed at LAX (or elsewhere in the civilized world), I have an equally difficult time believing that none of the crew or passengers has since let the rest of us know that they aren't buried under rubble ('sup Ric Jensen?) and are, indeed, alive and well.

A) There were reports it landed in Ohio. See Loose Change vid.
B) There were a lot of gov types on that plane making much more likely that they would remain silent.

But I can find no way in hell that they are smart enough, for one thing, to pull something like this off, and the odds of anyone getting away with the level of deception needed, for the length of time that it has gone on, are so long that to even consider them would make winning the state lottery seem like a safe bet.

A) Who would believe them at this point? Or any point for that matter?
B) Back to the physical evidence… is it more likely that the Laws of Physics were suspended on that day? Or can you show how WTC7 could have possibly fallen into it’s own footprint, after being damaged on only one side, and doing it with intact floors, at very close to freefall speeds?

Posted: **Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:20 am**

Mister Bushice wrote: "I don't know" is a unacceptable shit answer to the above question.

It's still a fallacy. If that is not good enough for you then you are stupider than I thought you were.

Posted: **Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:36 am**

It's still a fallacy. If that is not good enough for you then you are stupider than I thought you were.

and once again, the inevitable dodge.^

"reports it landed in ohio"?

and everyone on board was either a government agent sworn to secrecy or was placed in a witness protection program and proclaimed dead, and all the life insurance companies were none the wiser for it?

How fucking far out are you going to take these wacko possibilities?

Posted: **Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:25 am**

Moving Sale wrote: A) There were reports it landed in Ohio. See Loose Change vid.
B) There were a lot of gov types on that plane making much more likely that they would remain silent.

So the crew was either bought off by the gov't, or substituted w/ gov't personnel? Either way, American Airlines would be aiding and abetting if they were aware of and went along with it, especially if they know that the plane landed in Ohio and kept quiet. Call me skeptical, but I ain't buyin' it. Like I said, just about anything is possible, but too many opportunities exist to blow this out of the water, and the fact that it ain't happened casts serious doubt, to say the least, on its veracity. The "no one would believe it" angle doesn't fly with me, either. Someone would've come out by now and at least tried to tell (and sell) the story.

Posted: **Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:28 am**

Why is it all these conspiricies require not only the participation, but also the absolute silence of hundreds, if not thousands of people?

Posted: **Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:25 am**

Mister Bushice wrote: How fucking far out are you going to take these wacko possibilities?

How far out do you have to be to think that science took the day off?

Smackie,
Same question to you. My 'theory' might be hard to believe but your's is impossible to believe.

88,
That was 93 not 77 that LC said 'may' have landed in Ohio?
My bad. I would never use info that I KNEW was wrong.

P.S. You should have typed 'maybe it landed in Ohio' not "maybe it landed in Ohio" as the latter is a 'direct quote' of something I never said but then you knew that.

Posted: **Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:59 am**

If MovingTard really is an attorney, how many billable hours have you wasted posting this unintelligent, drawing for straws, logicless arguement about something he will have no control over as time goes on?? Don't tell me you bill your clients for "general internet research"?

Posted: **Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:13 pm**

Mister Bushice wrote: How fucking far out are you going to take these wacko possibilities?

Far enough to keep people responding to him in these threads.

Posted: **Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:50 pm**

TenTallBen wrote:If MovingTard really is an attorney, how many billable hours have you wasted posting this... ??

10

You owe me $2,500.

Posted: **Tue Sep 19, 2006 9:28 pm**

Cuda wrote:Why is it all these conspiricies require not only the participation, but also the absolute silence of hundreds, if not thousands of people?

That's Right!

Sin

The Warren Commission

Posted: **Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:49 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:
TenTallBen wrote:If MovingTard really is an attorney, how many billable hours have you wasted posting this... ??
10

You owe me $2,500.
Your rate doesn't really matter since the lowlifes you represent can't pay you in anything other than rocks of crack and handjobs.

You mean he works "pro boner"?

T1B

Who's Watching?....