View Full Version : Re: Bush Made Sure 9/11 Would Happen--The Novel
copprtopkiller
May 1st 04, 09:44 PM
> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 01 May 2004 11:09:10 GMT, "copprtopkiller"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 03:23:07 GMT, "copprtopkiller"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >You did not collectively respond to this direct rebuttal of your
> >claims?
> >> >>
> >> >> Ah, but I did, at least the most important point. Your "rebuttal"
> >> >> wasn't worth the effort.
> >> >
> >> >Huh, you made your feeble post about many (12+) alleged FAA
> >Misconceptions
> >>
> >> Actually, Bryan, they were your misconceptions.
> >
> >Ok, if you say so because it makes you feel better. The fact remains you
> >clarified nothing. You have no concept of FAA Procedures as this post of
> >yours (FAA Misconceptions) demonstrates.
>
> I have a lot better understanding of the procedures than you do.
> You're on record as having said that FAA procedures don't require
> NORAD to launch fighters. Sort of hard to get past that fact.
Sort of hard for you to get past the fact that this is not what I said. I
don't think you can quote me liar. Produce the link to that quote!!
Here is what I stated: " True: FAA regulations do not specifically tell
NORAD to scramble AC. FAA Procedures explain what duties NORAD are during
the intercept". You ****. You are disingenuous at best.
You are the lowest form of life around besides a pedophile. You might
actually be a convicted pedophile who is miserable that he isn't getting
any.
--
It's obvious to me that the country has rapidly divided itself into two
camps. There are the wimps and apologists who want to continue supporting
those who failed to protect the America Citizens from an attack on such a
grand scale- then there are the real flag bearers who want to hold them
accountable for their failures and finger pointing constituting major
contradictions between themselves resulting in a huge cover up.
On Sat, 01 May 2004 20:44:27 GMT, "copprtopkiller"
> wrote:
>
> wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 01 May 2004 11:09:10 GMT, "copprtopkiller"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 03:23:07 GMT, "copprtopkiller"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> >You did not collectively respond to this direct rebuttal of your
>> >claims?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ah, but I did, at least the most important point. Your "rebuttal"
>> >> >> wasn't worth the effort.
>> >> >
>> >> >Huh, you made your feeble post about many (12+) alleged FAA
>> >Misconceptions
>> >>
>> >> Actually, Bryan, they were your misconceptions.
>> >
>> >Ok, if you say so because it makes you feel better. The fact remains you
>> >clarified nothing. You have no concept of FAA Procedures as this post of
>> >yours (FAA Misconceptions) demonstrates.
>>
>> I have a lot better understanding of the procedures than you do.
>> You're on record as having said that FAA procedures don't require
>> NORAD to launch fighters. Sort of hard to get past that fact.
>
>Sort of hard for you to get past the fact that this is not what I said. I
>don't think you can quote me liar. Produce the link to that quote!!
>
>Here is what I stated: " True: FAA regulations do not specifically tell
>NORAD to scramble AC. FAA Procedures explain what duties NORAD are during
>the intercept". You ****. You are disingenuous at best.
Er, Bryan, if the FAA procedures "do not specifically tell NORAD to
scramble AC", then they obviously do not require NORAD to launch
fighters. You can try to dance your way out of what you said all day,
but you can't do it.
>You are the lowest form of life around besides a pedophile. You might
>actually be a convicted pedophile who is miserable that he isn't getting
>any.
ROTFLMAO. And you are a house painter who is obviously miserable that
he isn't getting any. Maybe you should call Melanie, she seems to be
between husbands at the moment.
copprtopkiller
May 2nd 04, 10:54 PM
> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 01 May 2004 20:44:27 GMT, "copprtopkiller"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sat, 01 May 2004 11:09:10 GMT, "copprtopkiller"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 03:23:07 GMT, "copprtopkiller"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >You did not collectively respond to this direct rebuttal of your
> >> >claims?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Ah, but I did, at least the most important point. Your
"rebuttal"
> >> >> >> wasn't worth the effort.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Huh, you made your feeble post about many (12+) alleged FAA
> >> >Misconceptions
> >> >>
> >> >> Actually, Bryan, they were your misconceptions.
> >> >
> >> >Ok, if you say so because it makes you feel better. The fact remains
you
> >> >clarified nothing. You have no concept of FAA Procedures as this post
of
> >> >yours (FAA Misconceptions) demonstrates.
> >>
> >> I have a lot better understanding of the procedures than you do.
> >> You're on record as having said that FAA procedures don't require
> >> NORAD to launch fighters. Sort of hard to get past that fact.
> >
> >Sort of hard for you to get past the fact that this is not what I said. I
> >don't think you can quote me liar. Produce the link to that quote!!
> >
> >Here is what I stated: " True: FAA regulations do not specifically tell
> >NORAD to scramble AC. FAA Procedures explain what duties NORAD are during
> >the intercept". You ****. You are disingenuous at best.
>
> Er, Bryan, if the FAA procedures "do not specifically tell NORAD to
> scramble AC", then they obviously do not require NORAD to launch
> fighters.
Wrong!
You can try to dance your way out of what you said all day,
> but you can't do it.
I don't need to dance. The facts are the facts and they certainly aren't
what you are ultimately claiming.
>
> >You are the lowest form of life around besides a pedophile. You might
> >actually be a convicted pedophile who is miserable that he isn't getting
> >any.
>
> ROTFLMAO. And you are a house painter who is obviously miserable that
> he isn't getting any. Maybe you should call Melanie, she seems to be
> between husbands at the moment.
You think you know who I am and what I do, you do not. You desperarately
tried to determine who I was becuase you were tired of being ridiculed. You
deserve it,
agent86. <snicker>
I now will shortly return to my honey for an afternoon slumber in between
the LA SA Game on ABC. <snicker>
On Sun, 02 May 2004 21:54:23 GMT, "copprtopkiller"
> wrote:
>> >> I have a lot better understanding of the procedures than you do.
>> >> You're on record as having said that FAA procedures don't require
>> >> NORAD to launch fighters. Sort of hard to get past that fact.
>> >
>> >Sort of hard for you to get past the fact that this is not what I said. I
>> >don't think you can quote me liar. Produce the link to that quote!!
>> >
>> >Here is what I stated: " True: FAA regulations do not specifically tell
>> >NORAD to scramble AC. FAA Procedures explain what duties NORAD are during
>> >the intercept". You ****. You are disingenuous at best.
>>
>> Er, Bryan, if the FAA procedures "do not specifically tell NORAD to
>> scramble AC", then they obviously do not require NORAD to launch
>> fighters.
>
>Wrong!
Maybe you need to elaborate on how nonexistent procedures can cause
something to happen.
>You can try to dance your way out of what you said all day,
>> but you can't do it.
>
>I don't need to dance. The facts are the facts and they certainly aren't
>what you are ultimately claiming.
Yes, Bryan, they are.
>> >You are the lowest form of life around besides a pedophile. You might
>> >actually be a convicted pedophile who is miserable that he isn't getting
>> >any.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO. And you are a house painter who is obviously miserable that
>> he isn't getting any. Maybe you should call Melanie, she seems to be
>> between husbands at the moment.
>
>You think you know who I am and what I do, you do not. You desperarately
>tried to determine who I was becuase you were tired of being ridiculed. You
>deserve it,
Actually, Bryan, you sent me an email that allowed your
identification.
>I now will shortly return to my honey for an afternoon slumber in between
>the LA SA Game on ABC. <snicker>
Yeah, Bryan, that's commonly called a wet dream. BTW, are you still
frequenting the porn newsgroups?
copprtopkiller
May 4th 04, 04:16 PM
> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 02 May 2004 21:54:23 GMT, "copprtopkiller"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >> >> I have a lot better understanding of the procedures than you do.
> >> >> You're on record as having said that FAA procedures don't require
> >> >> NORAD to launch fighters. Sort of hard to get past that fact.
> >> >
> >> >Sort of hard for you to get past the fact that this is not what I
said. I
> >> >don't think you can quote me liar. Produce the link to that quote!!
> >> >
> >> >Here is what I stated: " True: FAA regulations do not specifically
tell
> >> >NORAD to scramble AC. FAA Procedures explain what duties NORAD are
during
> >> >the intercept". You ****. You are disingenuous at best.
> >>
> >> Er, Bryan, if the FAA procedures "do not specifically tell NORAD to
> >> scramble AC", then they obviously do not require NORAD to launch
> >> fighters.
> >
> >Wrong!
>
> Maybe you need to elaborate on how nonexistent procedures can cause
> something to happen.
<snicker>
>
> >You can try to dance your way out of what you said all day,
> >> but you can't do it.
> >
> >I don't need to dance. The facts are the facts and they certainly aren't
> >what you are ultimately claiming.
>
> Yes, Bryan, they are.
Absolutely and they once again show you to be a putz.
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=hcXfc.19871%24rV4.2680227%40news4.srv.hcvl ny.cv.net&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dinsubject:Agent86%27s%2Binsubject:Lis t%2Binsubject:of%2Binsubject:Misconceptions%26hl%3 Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3DhcXfc.19871%2524rV4.2680227%2540news4.s rv.hcvlny.cv.net%26rnum%3D2
>
> >> >You are the lowest form of life around besides a pedophile. You might
> >> >actually be a convicted pedophile who is miserable that he isn't
getting
> >> >any.
> >>
> >> ROTFLMAO. And you are a house painter who is obviously miserable that
> >> he isn't getting any. Maybe you should call Melanie, she seems to be
> >> between husbands at the moment.
> >
> >You think you know who I am and what I do, you do not. You desperarately
> >tried to determine who I was becuase you were tired of being ridiculed.
You
> >deserve it,
>
> Actually, Bryan, you sent me an email that allowed your
> identification.
Even if this is true, it still doesn't reveal my identification no matter.
Again, You think you know who I am and what I do, you do not. You
desperarately tried to determine who I was becuase you were tired of being
ridiculed. I still ridicule you and your foolishness.
>
> >I now will shortly return to my honey for an afternoon slumber in between
> >the LA SA Game on ABC. <snicker>
>
> Yeah, Bryan, that's commonly called a wet dream. BTW, are you still
> frequenting the porn newsgroups?
<snicker>
It is my reality, your wet dream, ****. You need to view some porn and join
in on the billion dollar industy here in America. <snicker>
Half O Fag loser ridiculed again
--
It's obvious to me that the country has rapidly divided itself into two
camps. There are the wimps and apologists who want to continue supporting
those who failed to protect the America Citizens from an attack on such a
grand scale- then there are the real flag bearers who want to hold them
accountable for their failures and finger pointing constituting major
contradictions between themselves resulting in a huge cover up.
On Tue, 04 May 2004 15:16:11 GMT, "copprtopkiller"
> wrote:
>> Maybe you need to elaborate on how nonexistent procedures can cause
>> something to happen.
>
><snicker>
I see as usual, you can't.
>> >You can try to dance your way out of what you said all day,
>> >> but you can't do it.
>> >
>> >I don't need to dance. The facts are the facts and they certainly aren't
>> >what you are ultimately claiming.
>>
>> Yes, Bryan, they are.
>
>Absolutely and they once again show you to be a putz.
>http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=hcXfc.19871%24rV4.2680227%40news4.srv.hcvl ny.cv.net&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dinsubject:Agent86%27s%2Binsubject:Lis t%2Binsubject:of%2Binsubject:Misconceptions%26hl%3 Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3DhcXfc.19871%2524rV4.2680227%2540news4.s rv.hcvlny.cv.net%26rnum%3D2
Which only demonstrates your stupidity, Bryan.
<snip>
>> Actually, Bryan, you sent me an email that allowed your
>> identification.
>
>Even if this is true,
And it is.
> it still doesn't reveal my identification no matter.
But it provided enough information to do a little detective work.
>Again, You think you know who I am and what I do, you do not. You
>desperarately tried to determine who I was becuase you were tired of being
>ridiculed. I still ridicule you and your foolishness.
Denial is a river in Egypt, Bryan.
>> >I now will shortly return to my honey for an afternoon slumber in between
>> >the LA SA Game on ABC. <snicker>
>>
>> Yeah, Bryan, that's commonly called a wet dream. BTW, are you still
>> frequenting the porn newsgroups?
>
><snicker>
>It is my reality, your wet dream, ****. You need to view some porn and join
>in on the billion dollar industy here in America. <snicker>
So you admit that you frequent to porn groups. How nice.
copprtopkiller
May 5th 04, 04:51 PM
> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 04 May 2004 15:16:11 GMT, "copprtopkiller"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >> Maybe you need to elaborate on how nonexistent procedures can cause
> >> something to happen.
> >
> ><snicker>
>
> I see as usual, you can't.
I will not answer a preposterous disingenuous question. Because you shriek
non existent procedures doesn't make it so. You haven't shown any validity
with this shriek though you have repeatedly parsed. The question is, will
you repeatedly demonstrate your feeble attempt in this matter.
<snicker>
You do understand now that you have been exposed as a net kook.
Here is what I stated: " True: FAA regulations do not specifically tell
NORAD to scramble AC. FAA Procedures explain what duties NORAD are during
the intercept".
>
> >> >You can try to dance your way out of what you said all day,
> >> >> but you can't do it.
> >> >
> >> >I don't need to dance. The facts are the facts and they certainly
aren't
> >> >what you are ultimately claiming.
> >>
> >> Yes, Bryan, they are.
> >
> >Absolutely and they once again show you to be a putz.
>
> Which only demonstrates your stupidity, Bryan.
<snicker>
There is only one list you have provided (which I rebutted and you
ignored collectively) and as anyone can see there is more confusion on your
end explaining FAA Procedural Misconceptions. In most instances you didn't
even mention the FAA misconceptions or explained what part of a procedure is
causing the misconception as it specifically reads. <snicker>
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=LMlfc.49163%24467.11470898%40news4.srv.hcv lny.cv.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3DLMlfc.49163%2524467.11470898%2540news4. srv.hcvlny.cv.net%26rnum%3D1
On Wed, 05 May 2004 15:51:47 GMT, "copprtopkiller"
> wrote:
>
> wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 04 May 2004 15:16:11 GMT, "copprtopkiller"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> Maybe you need to elaborate on how nonexistent procedures can cause
>> >> something to happen.
>> I see as usual, you can't.
>
>I will not answer a preposterous disingenuous question.
Mostly because you can't.
>Because you shriek
>non existent procedures doesn't make it so.
I "shriek" nothing, Bryan. You are the one who says the procedures
that require NORAD to scramble planes don't exist.
ROTFLMAO.
>Here is what I stated: " True: FAA regulations do not specifically tell
>NORAD to scramble AC. FAA Procedures explain what duties NORAD are during
>the intercept".
And with no FAA procedures requiring NORAD to scramble, it's kind of
hard to follow those nonexistent procedures and have a successful
intercept.
copprtopkiller
May 6th 04, 03:42 AM
> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 05 May 2004 15:51:47 GMT, "copprtopkiller"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 04 May 2004 15:16:11 GMT, "copprtopkiller"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Maybe you need to elaborate on how nonexistent procedures can cause
> >> >> something to happen.
>
> >> I see as usual, you can't.
> >
> >I will not answer a preposterous disingenuous question.
>
> Mostly because you can't.
Totally becuase it is a preposterous disingenuous question.
>
> >Because you shriek
> >non existent procedures doesn't make it so.
>
> I "shriek" nothing, Bryan. You are the one who says the procedures
> that require NORAD to scramble planes don't exist.
<snicker>
>
> ROTFLMAO.
>
> >Here is what I stated: " True: FAA regulations do not specifically tell
> >NORAD to scramble AC. FAA Procedures explain what duties NORAD are during
> >the intercept".
>
> And with no FAA procedures requiring NORAD to scramble, it's kind of
> hard to follow those nonexistent procedures and have a successful
> intercept.
Simply fascinating! "Do not specifically tell" equates to nonexistent in
your world.
copprtopkiller
May 6th 04, 12:39 PM
"copprtopkiller" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 04 May 2004 15:16:11 GMT, "copprtopkiller"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> Maybe you need to elaborate on how nonexistent procedures can cause
> > >> something to happen.
> > >
> > ><snicker>
> >
> > I see as usual, you can't.
>
> I will not answer a preposterous disingenuous question. Because you shriek
> non existent procedures doesn't make it so. You haven't shown any validity
> with this shriek though you have repeatedly parsed. The question is, will
> you repeatedly demonstrate your feeble attempt in this matter.
> <snicker>
>
> You do understand now that you have been exposed as a net kook.
>
> Here is what I stated: " True: FAA regulations do not specifically tell
> NORAD to scramble AC. FAA Procedures explain what duties NORAD are during
> the intercept".
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > >> >You can try to dance your way out of what you said all day,
> > >> >> but you can't do it.
> > >> >
> > >> >I don't need to dance. The facts are the facts and they certainly
> aren't
> > >> >what you are ultimately claiming.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, Bryan, they are.
> > >
> > >Absolutely and they once again show you to be a putz.
> >
> > Which only demonstrates your stupidity, Bryan.
>
> <snicker>
>
> There is only one list you have provided (which I rebutted and you
> ignored collectively) and as anyone can see there is more confusion on
your
> end explaining FAA Procedural Misconceptions. In most instances you didn't
> even mention the FAA misconceptions or explained what part of a procedure
is
> causing the misconception as it specifically reads. <snicker>
>
>
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=LMlfc.49163%24467.11470898%40news4.srv.hcv lny.cv.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr
%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3DLMlfc.49163%2524467.11470898%2540news
4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net%26rnum%3D1
<snicker>
On Thu, 06 May 2004 02:42:00 GMT, "copprtopkiller"
> wrote:
>> >> >> Maybe you need to elaborate on how nonexistent procedures can cause
>> >> >> something to happen.
>>
>> >> I see as usual, you can't.
>> >
>> >I will not answer a preposterous disingenuous question.
>>
>> Mostly because you can't.
>
>Totally becuase it is a preposterous disingenuous question.
Do the FAA procedures exist that require NORAD to scramble fighters,
yes or no?
>> >Because you shriek
>> >non existent procedures doesn't make it so.
>>
>> I "shriek" nothing, Bryan. You are the one who says the procedures
>> that require NORAD to scramble planes don't exist.
>> >Here is what I stated: " True: FAA regulations do not specifically tell
>> >NORAD to scramble AC. FAA Procedures explain what duties NORAD are during
>> >the intercept".
>>
>> And with no FAA procedures requiring NORAD to scramble, it's kind of
>> hard to follow those nonexistent procedures and have a successful
>> intercept.
>
>Simply fascinating! "Do not specifically tell" equates to nonexistent in
>your world.
In the real world, Bryan, that is correct. If there are no procedures
telling NORAD to scramble fighters, then those procedures obviously
don't exist. If they do, why don't you cite them? Oh, yeah, you've
said that they don't exist.
On Thu, 06 May 2004 11:39:32 GMT, "copprtopkiller"
> wrote:
A non-responsive answer as usual.
copprtopkiller
May 7th 04, 01:00 AM
> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 06 May 2004 02:42:00 GMT, "copprtopkiller"
> > wrote:
> >Simply fascinating! "Do not specifically tell" equates to nonexistent in
> >your world.
>
> In the real world, Bryan, that is correct.
NO, in your usenet world. <snicker>
If there are no procedures
> telling NORAD to scramble fighters, then those procedures obviously
> don't exist. If they do, why don't you cite them? Oh, yeah, you've
> said that they don't exist.
FAA Procedures don't give the FAA authority over the US Military. Maybe in
your world of Usenet marshmellow pies. Here is what I stated, again:
"FAA regulations do not specifically tell NORAD to scramble AC. FAA
Procedures explain what duties NORAD are during the intercept". What part of
the sentence containing the word "specifically" don't you understand and how
does one equate this as evidence nonexistent procedures for intercept is
beyond preposterous.
copprtopkiller
May 7th 04, 01:04 AM
> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 06 May 2004 11:39:32 GMT, "copprtopkiller"
> > wrote:
>
>
> A non-responsive answer as usual.
A snip and tuck as usual! <snicker>
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=LMlfc.49163%24467.11470898%40news4.srv.hcvlny .cv.net
Agent86's List of Misconceptions of FAA Procedures Zero for 15 Putz!!!
On Fri, 07 May 2004 00:00:37 GMT, "copprtopkiller"
> wrote:
>
> wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 06 May 2004 02:42:00 GMT, "copprtopkiller"
>> > wrote:
>
>> >Simply fascinating! "Do not specifically tell" equates to nonexistent in
>> >your world.
>>
>> In the real world, Bryan, that is correct.
>
>NO, in your usenet world. <snicker>
Then go ahead and explain how procedures that don't tell NORAD to
scramble aircraft can result in the launch of aircraft.
> If there are no procedures
>> telling NORAD to scramble fighters, then those procedures obviously
>> don't exist. If they do, why don't you cite them? Oh, yeah, you've
>> said that they don't exist.
>
>FAA Procedures don't give the FAA authority over the US Military. Maybe in
>your world of Usenet marshmellow pies. Here is what I stated, again:
>"FAA regulations do not specifically tell NORAD to scramble AC. FAA
>Procedures explain what duties NORAD are during the intercept". What part of
>the sentence containing the word "specifically" don't you understand and how
>does one equate this as evidence nonexistent procedures for intercept is
>beyond preposterous.
Only to you, Bryan.
On Fri, 07 May 2004 00:04:37 GMT, "copprtopkiller"
> wrote:
A non-responsive answer as usual.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.