|
|
 | | From: | JM | | Subject: | Re: #ABANDONED JESUITS DARE TO MAKE EXCUSES FOR THE 911 TRAGEDY!! | | Date: | Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:21:37 -0500 |
|
|
 |
"Susan Williams" wrote in message
news:o0c6u0h34vgt17i976rlhleo3lo2gpgrvb@4ax.com...
> After our documentation showing many ways where the 911 tragedy was
> either let through intentionally or the government actually conspired
> to bring it in, Jesuits follow through to excuse the inexcusable.
Suzi you are truly a nut case!!!!
Why do you hate Christians so much???
And do you hate God also????
>
> Take a look at this particular post from the Google Newsgroups
> Archives:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.military.retired/msg/8ec5090d85eb0ca6
>
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 15:47:23 -0500, "DropCloth"
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Susan Williams" wrote in message
>
> >news:na8rt0ht44dskbcff54jk63qgrcn2915up@4ax.com...
>
>
> >> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 15:30:58 -0500, "DropCloth"
>
> >> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> >"Susan Williams" wrote in message
>
>
> >> >news:t68nt0p5c8u5a3lkt25ptfneilp0jgbds7@4ax.com...
>
>
> >> >> 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!
>
>
>
> >> >
>
>
> >> >I don't even have to read any further since the very first paragraph is
> >full
> >> >of errors.
>
>
> >> >- "Three planes plowed into the WTC buildings"...Hmm, I remember two at
>
> >the
> >> >WTC, one at the Pentagon and one in PA. If you can't even get something
> >as
> >> >simple as that correct why would anyone even think you could get an
> >analysis
> >> >of a complicated situation correct?
>
>
> >> Don't be paranoid, Jesuit, and think that because the absolute
> >> symantics is not correct, the whole thing must be scrapped? It got
> >> you awake and made you neglect your kids, didn't it?
>
>
> >Jesuit eh? I must admit I have never been called that before. The errors
> >you made are not symantics, they are errors, plain and simple.
>
>
> They were mistatements made casually. Not like your errors. Now you
> are married to my posts. Even today I sometimes say three planes went
> and hit their targets and sometimes I just say buildings. It depends
> on whether Jesuits still are very paranoid about what they claim are
> paranoid people.
>
>
> >This is not
> >the school of even if it's wrong you're still a winner and we're going to
> >give you a passing grade.
>
>
> What grade does a Jesuit get then when he tries to convince us that
> military jets should not have accompanied any of those planes except
> the one where the passengers were not gonnna take it anymore and were
> gonna attack the terrorists?
>
>
> What about your error when Cheney was asked why no military protection
> was there and he couldn't see your reasoning?
>
>
> >Smile, smile and pat on the head.
>
>
> Jesuit and pat on the Jesuit.
>
>
> >BTW, I've been
> >awake I just didn't bother with you until now, I don't want you to feel
> >neglected since that's obviously part of your psyche that you bring it up
> >right away.
>
>
> Damned psychiatrist Jesuit would naturally follow his communist and
> nazi brothers claimng psychiatrist credentials. Why did you err to
> make the American people believe that they should not have expected to
> see military jets when the nation was under such an attack?
>
>
>
> >> >- "Those planes traveled from far distances"? Hmm, Boston to NYC is a
>
> >far
> >> >distance I guess if you never leave your own back yard.
>
>
> >> Don' be paranoid, Jesuit, for planes under FAA rules, it doesn't have
> >> to be off course that much for them to know that there is trouble.
> >> Why did you err here?
>
>
> >Hmm, I didn't err in that statement.
>
>
> No damned Jesuit ever admits he errs!
>
>
> >The distance from Boston to NYC is NOT
> >very far unless you have never left your own back yard.
>
>
> By FAA rules the distance is more than ample enough for military
> response. How can a damned Jesuit be convinced of this? I had a
> relative who flew me in his plane in that area in the 1980s. He gave
> me a briefing of the complexity and control of that airspace and made
> me to know that some kind of dire explanation would be required if he
> even attempted to go off course without some form of explanation.
>
>
> >It has nothing to
> >do with the FAA, it has to do with measuring on a map.
>
>
> It has alot to do with the damned lying Jesuit. Surely you would not
> even put attention to the point of how you are trying to convince us
> that we should not have expected military jets to be anywhere around
> those planes. We are not your stupid damned heretics as you think we
> are!
>
>
> >The FAA and the air traffic controllers may know that a plane is off course
> >but they do not know why. There are many reasons it could happen and it
> >does happen with regularity (which you would know if you knew anything about
> >ATC).
>
>
> Off course has to have explanation. The chronology was the plane
> traveling, the transponder turned off. Crew making contact and
> informing that the plane was hijacked. The planes changes course. In
> all of this radar tracked them every step of the way.
>
>
> >Similarly, if they do not raise them on the radios, they assume first
> >there is a communications failure in the plane, not that it is a hijacking
> >or something else (this is of course pre-9/11).
>
>
> The terrorists first attacked the crew and people, then went into the
> cockpit. There they turned off the transponders. By that time there
> was already communication from crew members of the hijacking.
>
>
> >It is then treated as a
> >NORDO (no radio) aircraft and they vector the other planes out of the way,
> >they don't shoot it down. So, while you are technically correct, your
> >implication that because they know the aircraft is off course or off
> >altitude or even off speed that they should have know they were going to
> >crash into the WTC is in error.
>
>
> Damned Jesuit naturally put words into my mouth with a SIZEABLE ERROR,
> claiming that if the plane was off course, I was saying they should
> have known it was headed toward the WTC buildings.
>
>
> Since you err here, we need throw the Jesuit out with the lie!
>
>
> >> Far distance? Walk it, dude!
>
>
> >So, you think of all distance only in terms of walking?
>
>
> I thought Jesuits were at least smart!
>
>
> >I guess you must
> >never leave your home unless you live right next to all the sotres, business
> >and your place of employment (unless of course you don't have one),
> >otherwise they would all be extremely far away. But, since we were tlaking
> >about aircraft, the distance from Boston to NYC as the crow flies is 153nm
> >(nautical miles, that's how we measure in airplanes) or somewhere around 20
> >minutes flying time minus delays for climb out and flying a particular
> >approach. So, 20 minutes is not a far distance when talking about flying.
>
>
> What about your error in claiming that by the planes going off course,
> I was saying they should have known the planes were headed for the WTC
> buildings?
>
>
> Still, that's why Cheney was asked why no military protection was
> around and the answer was not the lie given by this Jesuit excusing
> such an attack that got through from such a great distance.
>
>
> >> >To the rest of us
> >> >it's not very far at all.
>
>
> You mean other Jesuits who try to convince us all that we should not
> have expected military jets to be around the attacking planes at 911?
>
>
>
> >> Walk it! To FAA rules, IT IS! The transponders were turned off and
>
> >> the towers knew the planes were hijacked long enough for military
> >> planes to get there. If not...
>
>
> >FAA rules say nothing about distance being long or short or even time being
> >long or short or even people being tall or short.
>
>
> Why did a Jesuit lie. I know there are no rules there, but I still
> know that it was more than ample distance for a response after
> informed that the planes were hijacked. I still know that it must be
> a Jesuit to lie to us and tell us we should not have expected to see
> military accompaniment nor protection from the attacks at 911 that
> took 3,000 lives. Why did the Jesuit err? It is vital to lie with
> his religion.
>
>
> >They are concerned with
> >wether an aircraft is heavy or not or single or dual piloted or what
> >insturements they have, but not how long or short a distance is.
>
>
> Didn't say that. Why are Jesuits still the same? He is trying to
> convince us that we should not have expected military accompanyment
> when we were attacked at 911 in controlled airspace. With his Jesuit
> errors being intentional, IT CAN HAPPEN TODAY AGAIN IF TERRORISTS
> MERELY MAKE IT TO THE PLANES AND THEY TAKE OFF!!
>
>
> >The transponders were tunred off while in flight and guess what, that
> >happens plenty of times a day all by itself without being a hijacking.
>
>
> 3,000 are turning in their graves because of this damned
> super-criminal! At that time crew members already phoned and gave
> status report showing that the planes were being hijacked. The planes
> then changed course.
>
>
> The terrorists first attacked the crew and people, then went into the
> cockpit and attacked the pilots, closing the doors behind them. By
> that time a few who had communication made authorities to know what
> was happening just after they were attacked.
>
>
> >That's why they have this little button on the IFF controller box that says
> >"IDENT". Do you know what that button does? When you press it, it
> >highlights your transponder code on the ATC radar operator's screen. Do you
> >know how many times in a cross country flight a controller will ask you to
> >IDENT so he can find your aircraft? Now, how long is long enough for a
> >military plane to get there.
>
>
> Just saw a documentar of the 911 incident on the History Channel.
> They didn't bother to inform us of the excuses this super-criminal is
> showing us. As a matter of fact, they showed that there was already
> concern at the towers because of the transponders being off. Air
> traffic tried to make communication, but in vain.
>
>
> >Oh, and let's make sure it's worth it. After
> >all, what exactly can a military jet do to an airliner if it is not carrying
> >armaments?
>
>
> Ask for ID...
>
>
> >He might, just might be able to ram it and force it to to come
> >down early, but it is highly unlikely that he could make it crash
> >immediately. So, now we have to have several things happen before you get
> >an intercept, let's run them down for you:
>
>
> Listening victims of 911 ressurrected??...
>
>
> >- One, you have to have aircraft on an alert status. Pre 9/11 that was at
> >best a 15 minute alert. That means the aircraft can be airborne within 15
> >minutes of getting an order to launch.
>
>
> Especially in the direction the aircraft were travelling, that would
> be no big deal if even true. Military jets don't have to chase planes
> off course if some can follow behind and others can take off in front
> of them.
>
>
> No wonder Dick Cheney was too dumb to be smart like this Jesuit! He
> instead replied that they didn't want to shoot the aircraft down.
>
>
> >Now, pre 9/11 we did not have armed
> >air defense fighters sitting on runways around the country waiting to launch
> >and shoot things down. That whole mission was scaled back to almost nothing
> >over the years as the cold war ended. But, in this case let's say you had
> >some alert 15 jets sitting around.
> >- Two, you have to get the alert order to launch. That means someone had to
> >recognize not just that there was a problem, but it was a hijacking. That
> >word then has to get passed to NORAD who then has to pass it back down to
> >the closest airfield with alert aircraft. That all takes time that is not
> >part of the 15 minute alert.
>
>
> So the first plane hit, and then, after yet more time, the second one
> just tip-toed right in, mystifying even British intelligence.
> Military jets were nowhere to be found. Dick Cheney is still dumb for
> not copying the lies of this super-criminal. These are just some of
> the excuses I heard from super-criminals who also move in to divert
> the facts of how certain people even worked to destroy air traffic
> control records of the motions of those planes, and a few people
> solidly profited from the tragedy!
>
>
> >- Three, let's give you the benefit here and say the word from NORAD comes
> >down to launch and shoot one of these airliners down so the alert aircraft
> >must be armed.
>
>
> Jesuit erred, putting words in my mouth. The object was not to shoot
> it down. The object was to intercept and first inquire for ID.
>
>
> >Mind you such a command pre 9/11 would have resulted in even
> >more delays as people questioned the authority of the person giving the
> >order to kill a couple hundred civilians.
>
>
> Jesuit erred putting words in my mouth. The object was not to shoot
> anything down if even it was a hijacking. Issues of ransom, etc., may
> materialize.
>
>
> >Anyway, so now you have to get
> >the aircraft armed. That means getting to the weapons, loading them onto a
> >vehicle to transport them to the aircraft and then loading them. This also
> >takes time, more than 15 minutes.
>
>
> No aircraft in ready status the man is claiming. Dick Cheney could
> have come up with these excuses? Or should he and everyone else who
> profited from the tragedy, give this Jesuit a medal!
>
>
> >- Four, now you have to get airborne, get in contact with the proper agency
> >(either that or wait on deck for the frequencies for the proper nets to get
> >passed) and get a vector in the general direction of the target.
>
>
> Military jets don't have to chase the plane. They can approach from
> all directions: even in front of it.
>
>
> >- Five, now you have to find the target. FYI, ATC controllers do not know
> >how to run an airborne intercept, no matter what you may have seen in the
> >movies.
>
>
> When the passengers decided it was time to attack the terrorists in
> one of the last planes, then a military jet approached and wasn't
> hampered by all the errors this Jesuit just gave us!
>
>
> >So, the question becomes, what military controllers do you have, do
> >they have radar coverage of the area (the entire US is not covered by
> >military radars nor are there hundreds of trained controllers just sitting
> >around waiting to run an intercept) and can they talk with the aircraft
> >(someone needs to know what their frequency is and get both them and the
> >aircraft on the same one).
>
>
> You mean Bush, Dick Cheney and everyone else asked about the
> stupendous embarrassment couldn't think of these excuses even though
> they are world famous for tellin' the truth!
>
>
> >As for finding a target, in the movies it's
> >always so nice and easy. There's this nice, identified blib that shows up
> >on the radar screen and the fighter pilot just launches a missile from miles
> >away and blam, down goes the bad guy.
>
>
> Jesuit erred again. We need to toss him out. The object was not to
> shoot anything! In a hijacking what is expected is a ransom and
> negotiations.
>
>
> >In reality, in that part of the
> >country you would have dozens of blibs on your radar screen and you would
> >have to figure out which is the one you want. Depending on the ability of
> >the controller, the pilot and the quality of the ground radar picture, you
> >might have to fly up to individual targets before you know which one is the
> >one you want.
>
>
> While everyone else has transponders and are identified and a few are
> not!
>
>
> >In any case, before you launched a missile at a passanger
> >jet,
>
>
> Jesuit errs again! Let's throw him out! Let's throw out his lies!
>
>
> >I guarantee they required VID (visual ID) of the target, which mean the
> >fighter would have to fly right up to it and make sure it was from the right
> >airline and was the correct tail number before they could shoot.
>
>
> Jesuit errs again! Let's throw him out! Let's throw out his lies!
>
>
> >So, in reality, by the time a military jet could have gotten to the first
> >aircraft that hit the WTC and been capable of shooting it down, it would
> >have already crashed. At that point there might have been a chance to get
> >to the second aircraft before it hit the WTC, but again, even with every
> >possible benefit for time given to you, it would have been close at best.
> >And THAT is reality.
>
>
> Someone is arguing for the terrorists!
>
>
> >> LET US IMBIBE OF YOUR COMMON SENSE TO THINK THAT THE SAME THING CAN
> >> THEN HAPPEN AGAIN TODAY!
>
>
>
> >> >- "how did they know they could penetrate"...if you're talking about the
>
> >> >terrorists, considering the number of illegal immigrants who enter the
> >> >country every day I would say their chances of successfully entering the
> >> >country were very good.
>
>
> >> You mean how do the terrorists know they can do the same thing again
> >> today???
>
>
> >Your questin was about the 9/11 hijackers. If you want to go off on another
> >subject fine, let me know.
>
>
> But you mean the terrorists can do the same thing again. Planes can
> fly over 150 miles and plow into buildngs without military
> accompanyment? Jesuit erred by not stating accompanyment, but telling
> us the jets had to shoot them down and ask questions later.
>
>
> >But staying with your question, why do you think
> >they had a big chance of getting caught considering they came into the
> >country, in some cases months in advance?
>
>
> How could they when Bush was occupied in a kindergarten class, and
> then after the tragedy, became a dictator, started a war, hiked up
> fuel prices, etc???
>
>
> >> >If you are talking about the airplanes, penetrating
> >> >through the controlled airspace is also a simple thing, especially
> >> >considering they didn't have to do it for very long. Anyone who flies an
> >> >airplane understands that.
>
>
> >> You mean they can do it again today? This one sounds like he knows
>
>
> >> how to do it!! You mean those women crying while looking at the WTC
>
> >> buildings falling and asking how the hell those planes penetrated
> >> should have known that it was just as easy as it is today???
>
>
> >Once again, if you want to dicsuss what the situation is today, that's
> >another subject.
>
>
> EVEN YESTERDAY! I ASKED ABOUT THE WOMEN DUDE! Why would they hold
> their heads and cry looking at the towers instead of inquiring from a
> Jesuit? Why couldn't Cheney be smart enough to lie like you have?
>
>
> >You were making statements about what happened on 9/11 and
> >you were getting them wrong.
>
>
> But you're a Jesuit! Can you realize that you were wrong even
> claiming that military jets were to spring into action to shoot down
> jets off course OR EVEN HIJACKED?? We need to throw the Jesuit out
> with the lies to the honor of those who have fallen!
>
>
> >So far you haven't been able to defend a
> >single mistake I pointed out except by trying to call it symantics.
>
>
> IS THIS JESUIT DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHERS??? I solidly defended what I
> said! The entire history of these super-criminals on the internet
> proves it because they cannot leave my posts after giving me their
> psychiatric opinions.
>
>
> Does this Jesuit even know that some of his friends posted that all
> non-Catholics must die, and a whole slew of other correct Jesuits
> leeched upon me with constant condemnations for exposing it, making
> sure they said nothing about the people who made such statements of
> death?
>
>
>
> >> >- "without even a military jet to accompany them"...If you took the time
>
> >to
> >> >learn what alert postures are, what kind of posture we were in before
> >9/11,
> >> >how long it actually takes to arm, man and launch an aircraft and then
> >how
> >> >long it takes to actually conduct an intercept and locate the correct
> >> >target, you would have some understanding why there were no military
> >> >aircraft flying in formation or shooting these aircraft down.
>
>
> >> After the transponders were turned off, the radar showed that the
> >> planes were still traveling and then were diverted, then communication
> >> with flight crew showing that the planes were hijacked??
>
>
> >> Remember, that on the third plane where the passengers were thinking
> >> about attacking the terrorists, THEN a military jet showed up to take
> >> care of the problem. BUT WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM???
>
>
> >> Again this terrorist is telling us it can easily happen again and that
> >> we are nuts for expecting military jets to show up in controlled air
> >> space!
>
>
> >What terrorist is telling you anything? And I refer you back to my post
> >above concerning how long it took PRE 9/11 for an armed aircraft to make an
> >intercept. Once again, you want to talk about today as some kind of defense
> >for the mistakes you posted concerning 9/11.
>
>
> But you mean the terrorists can do the same thing again. Planes can
> fly over 150 miles and plow into buildngs without military
> accompanyment? Jesuit erred by not stating accompanyment, but telling
> us the jets had to shoot them down and ask questions later.
>
>
>
> >> >- "risk of being laughing stocks to the Islamic world"...for what?
>
>
> >> For not understanding why such a plot would be easily caught based on
> >> the variables, and for other Islamists asking why they would even
> >> attempt something like that!
>
>
> >You think the Arab street would laugh at the 9/11 hijakers if they had
> >gotten caught?
>
>
> For attempting from such a distance and expecting it to go through,
> they may well have! 50 years of being impregnable till guys came
> telling us about a New World Order. We had all our rights all
> throughout and didn't have to be paranoid to detain anyone without
> charge or legal recourse and then torture them!
>
>
> What was the explanation for such an enviable record before Bush and
> the other New World Order guys?
>
>
> >They would have hailed them for trying just as they have
> >others who have not succeeded in getting to their targets.
>
>
> Instead of chiding them for making better plans with planes that would
> probably take off from New York! After making such a foiled mission,
> America would more put up her guards and prevent future of such!
>
>
> >To them the
> >effort of attacking the Great Satan is worth it even if you don't get there.
>
>
> Instead of chiding them for making better plans with planes that would
> probably take off from New York! After making such a foiled mission,
> America would more put up her guards and prevent future of such!
>
>
>
> >> >The
>
> >> >Islamic world routinely praises those who "attempt" to carry out attacks
> >> >even if the attack itself is unsuccessful.
>
>
> Instead of chiding them for making better plans with planes that would
> probably take off from New York! After making such a foiled mission,
> America would more put up her guards and prevent future of such!
>
>
> >> But yet so stupidly? With such a natural failure if our government
> >> did its job?
>
>
> >What?
>
>
>
> You already erred! You are faulty... FAULTY!! MUST STERILIZE!!
>
> STEERRRIIILLLIIIZZZEEE!!
>
>
> >> >So, the probability of being a
> >> >laughing stock was laughably remote.
>
>
> >> Why would they attempt such a ridiculous feat with all the variables
> >> and risk being laughing stocks of the Islamic world?
>
>
> >You still haven't shown me one reason why they would have been laughing
> >stocks for trying and getting caught.
>
>
> No one can show a Jesuit how the Arabs would have chided them for
> taking off from such distances when there were closer options.
> Centuries displays no reason, logic nor commonsense with the Jesuits.
>
>
> I'm sorry that I showed how they may well have been considered
> laughing stocks while you already erred and therefore your entire
> argument and existence should be discarded according to your own
> psychiatric rules.
>
>
> >The suicide bobers who are caught by
> >the Israelies for example, even if they don't wind up setting off their
> >bombs are still hailed as patriots and martyrs.
>
>
> Nothing really much stupid was done there. How else better can
> suicide bombers operate? Start walking the distance from Boston to
> New York to meet their targets? They went as close as they could.
>
>
> >Those that blow themselves
> >up but not at their intended targets are martyrs even so. Why would these
> >hijakers think they would have been ridiculed for making the attempt and
> >failing?
>
>
> From that great distance as the distance in time to ever reason with a
> Jesuit!
>
>
> >Heck, we laugh at Richard Reed and his shoe bomb, but to the
> >terrorists he is still a hero for what he TRIED to do.
>
>
> His toe bomb was 150 miles away!
>
>
> >> >Spend a little time on getting the facts straight please.
>
>
> >> Yes but why would terrorists plan such a feat at the risk of being
> >> laughing stocks?
>
>
> >> Show us why we should not have expected military jets in the sky as
> >> was immediately asked Dick Cheney after the attack. His reply was not
> >> like yours. He said military jets were not there because they didn't
> >> want to shoot the planes down!
>
>
> >I've given you the reasoning above.
>
>
> Like you erred telling me military jets have to fly up and start
> shootin'!
>
>
> ERROR!... MUST STERILIZE! Must throw out the Jesuit with the lie!
> Hey, that was his psychiatric logic!
>
>
> >If you still have questions go ahead
> >and ask and I will answer them as best I can concerning how such things work
> >and especially how they worked pre 9/11.
>
>
> FIRST MAKE SURE YOU ADDRESS THE POINTS I GAVE. So far you missed a
> number of them intentionally!
>
>
> No wonder Bush and Cheney even prohibited investigation of the tragedy
> till years afterward where they had time to come up with an
> "independent" commission that told us the tragedy took place because
> Clinton didn't do his job!
>
>
> >> I bet you also can't realize that people posted that all non-Catholics
> >> must die over the internet and can only attack those who alert the
> >> people about it!
>
>
> >I can realize a lot of things but I don't understand what that has to do
> >with anything.
>
>
> Neither can you understand that in a time of anti-terror, if anyone
> ever says something like that, it is high priority. Other like you
> with your psychiatry and logic took the time to condemn me for
> exposing this!
>
>
> >Nor do I understand what your last staement has to do with
> >anything being discussed here.
>
>
> Jesuits come with logic and so-called facts, psychiatry and reason
> first. If you show posters recently posting that all non-Catholics
> must die, that persecution is biblical, that the US Constitution is
> stupid and must be destroyed, and then you get attacked by Jesuits who
> tell you you are hateful for posting it and making sure they say
> nothing against those who posted the death mandates, you can be sure
> their logic will match this guy!
>
>
> It fits, because the Jesuit first came out to dominate the discussion
> with his logic, but we can show that his mind is corrupt and
> abandoned.
>
>
> In His Grace,
>
>
> Susan
>
>
> x-- 100 Proof News - http://www.100ProofNews.com
> x-- 3,500+ Binary NewsGroups, and over 90,000 other groups
> x-- Access to over 1 Terabyte per Day - $8.95/Month
> x-- UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD
>
|
|
| | From: | S.S.I.N. | | Subject: | Re: #ABANDONED JESUITS DARE TO MAKE EXCUSES FOR THE 911 TRAGEDY!! | | Date: | Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:01:11 GMT |
|
|
|
"JM"
> Suzi you are truly a nut case!!!!
> Why do you hate Christians so much???
> And do you hate God also????
>
sounds like a typical muslim
--
http://www.crazyedmonton.com
3,15,18,25,8,5,12,5,14,1@hotmail.com
#'s=alphabetic letters
|
|
|
