"Dear Sarah:.." (Excerpts, From A Column For Bubblheads)

[rationalist]

Now why don't you phone up all those news agencies who have missed your scoop and help them out

Then after that you can play doctors and nurses

 

[OldTrapper]

All the fighetr planes that should have defended NYC were conveninetly placed out of reach.

Prove it

The towers were desigend to withstand airliner crash so they were brought down by other means

Impact yes, heat no.

http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/ncsea.htm

There was no plane wreckage at the pentagon but the Governm4ent lied about that

Prove it

Tower 7 fell down with no plane hitting it. Streel framed buidings don't collapse in fires. It was demolished

Prove it

The US Government did not discipline anyone involved.

Prove it

They did not spot lots of arabs allegedly getting crash training and then boarding lots of domestic flights on the same day

Prove it

The US Government have done lots to avoid a genuine independent inquiry and have consistently lied about many factors.

What? 6 ain't enough?

And it all happened just when they wanted a mandate to attack the middle east.

Prove it

If someone who benefits from the crime is consistently lying about it and covering stuff up we all think they are guilty.

Only one lying is you.

Will you ever prove this comment of yours since your BS site that you posted didn't do the job?

Now, I will again ask you to prove that millions of Iraqis lives have been wrecked by Bush and hundreds of millions of Americans can now be arrested and imprisoned without trial, tortured etc.

 

[rationalist]

So you are saying that the US DID spot a load of Arabs getting crash training but they did nothing???

OK, that works for me.

And the towers were designed to withstand airliner impact so long as the crashing fuel laden airliner didn't burst into flames??

That one made me laugh

And you are saying that the fighter planes protecting NYC were actually in place where they should be, so there is not even that reason they were not deployed??

This is getting better.

It seems oldcrapper that you are coming round to the truth.

Gen and Gipper will be next.

 

[OldTrapper]

So you are saying that the US DID spot a load of Arabs getting crash training but they did nothing???

OK, that works for me.

I asked you to prove it, not spout off more of your BS. Of course, you have no proof so why bother.

In the 1990's it was told to Clinton that terrorists planned on using "jumbo jets" to attack targets in the US especially that of Langley AFB. It was also reported that some Arabic men were taking flight training just to learn how to get a plane off the ground, not to land one.

However, that was under Clinton so you will deny it.

And the towers were designed to withstand airliner impact so long as the crashing fuel laden airliner didn't burst into flames??

That one made me laugh

You didn't bother reading the links I provided about how fuel would burn hot enough to soften steel, and how it caused the upper deck of the Oakland Bridge to collapse when a fuel truck overturned, burst into flames, and the burning fuel spilled down the steel girders.

And you are saying that the fighter planes protecting NYC were actually in place where they should be, so there is not even that reason they were not deployed??

This is getting better.

Again, you did not read the link I posted about how nead (NORAD) was sharply reduced in size under Clinton, and one squadron has to patrol 500,000square miles.

It seems oldcrapper that you are coming round to the truth.

Gen and Gipper will be next.

Not around to your truth which is supported by nothing except your usual BS, and you refuse to even take a chance at looking at the truth.

Have you been a psychopath all of your life, or is it the result of some form of child abuse, or maybe drug abuse?

 

[rationalist]

Come on oldcrapper

You insist that I prove that the fighters were not in NYC protecting it.

This must be because you disagree with me.

So by clear implication you are saying the fighters were in place.

Which makes the fact that they weren't deployed against the attackers even more weird than what I am suggesting.

So you see, you are becoming a 'troofer'

Well done oldcrapper.

You got there in the end

 

[rationalist]

Oh and BTW you failed rather spectacularly to address the point I made about how ridiculous it is to claim to build buildings that will withstand airliner impact that do not take account of the inevitable conflagration.

 

[rationalist]

Oh and as for your point about one fighter plane patrolling the NYC skies - is that what you think happens?

A fighter plane is constantly deployed in the NYC skies but they are so big that is this Mach 5 plane is needed to intercept a < mach 1 airliner it can't chnage course and get there?

I love this one oldcrapper, I am laughing so much my sides hurt.

Out of interest, if there is this lone fighter patrolling the skies and it can't divert to a crisis where it is needed nearby...what exactly is the point of it being up there?

I know I shouldn't mock a fellow troofer but you need knocking into shape or you will give us a bad name.

I wouldn't want you thrown out before your membership card arrives.

 

[OldTrapper]

Come on oldcrapper

You insist that I prove that the fighters were not in NYC protecting it.

This must be because you disagree with me.

So by clear implication you are saying the fighters were in place.

Which makes the fact that they weren't deployed against the attackers even more weird than what I am suggesting.

So you see, you are becoming a 'troofer'

Well done oldcrapper.

You got there in the end

Any proof, or just more of your usual BS?

 

[OldTrapper]

A fighter plane is constantly deployed in the NYC skies but they are so big that is this Mach 5 plane is needed to intercept a < mach 1 airliner it can't chnage course and get there?

I love this one oldcrapper, I am laughing so much my sides hurt.

Out of interest, if there is this lone fighter patrolling the skies and it can't divert to a crisis where it is needed nearby...what exactly is the point of it being up there?

Wasn't my point, however, this was your claim:

"Originally Posted by rationalist
All the fighetr planes that should have defended NYC were conveninetly placed out of reach."


I asked for proof, and just got more of your BS.

 

[rationalist]

''Again, you did not read the link I posted about how nead (NORAD) was sharply reduced in size under Clinton, and one squadron has to patrol 500,000square miles.''

This is what you wrote oldcrapper.

Wanna try again?

I can't wait, I love a good laugh

 

[rationalist]

Oh and BTW to save you lots more huffing and puffing and squealing 'prove it' ad nauseum there are two options re the fighter planes

Either they were available in which case why weren't they deployed in time?

OR they weren't available in which case why weren't they available?

Simple logic see old crapper.

A foreign language to you.

 

[OldTrapper]

''Again, you did not read the link I posted about how nead (NORAD) was sharply reduced in size under Clinton, and one squadron has to patrol 500,000square miles.''

This is what you wrote oldcrapper.

Wanna try again?

I can't wait, I love a good laugh

Notice how the article said ONE SQUADRON to cover 500,000 square miles, not one plane as you ignorantly state not once, but twice:

"Out of interest, if there is this lone fighter patrolling the skies and it can't divert to a crisis where it is needed nearby...what exactly is the point of it being up there?"

Now, where is your proof that:

"All the fighetr planes that should have defended NYC were conveninetly placed out of reach."

I'm still waiting for you to ever prove anything you say. I think this is about the 5th. thread where you have relied on BS rather then facts.