Replies

"Lou, these aircraft burn KEROSENE. Take some kerosene in your back yard and toss a match to it. Don't worry, -go ahead and sit real close, because it WILL NOT EXPLODE. I do this in my backyard to burn bonfires all the time, so I know what I am talking about. Take a Kerosene can and shake it up real good (to form vapors in the can) then toss a match inside... The match will probably just go out. Try the same thing with GASoline and you will be getting a guick trip into low earth orbit because gasoline is explosive, and KERosine is not. The 'electrical arc in a fuel tank (???)" theory was put out because most sheeple are too stupid to understand." [caps yours]

Odd that the world's airlines are complying with the FAA's fuel tank precautionary measures. Are they all "too stupid" too? Or are they all "engaged in the felonious criminal coverup of heinous crimes" that most of the "shootdown" tinfoil hats have been alleging for almost 6 years now.

"Oh, and I SAW THE 'cocktail party' VIDEOTAPE of the streak of light shooting upward followed by the explosion. (saw it with my own two eyes lou) It was shown once (that I know of) on TV and then promptly dissappeared. Other freepers here saw it too." [caps yours]

You realize, of course, that your allegation now makes you subject to subpoena as a witness by the lawyers for the legally interested Parties. Unless you choose to recant. If not, why don't you tell us all exactly what you claim you saw on the "cocktail party videotape" that you contend you personally saw "on TV". Things like what channel, when - including about what time, who else watched it with you and will verify your allegations about it, approximately how long was the "videotape" on the TV screen while you watched it, approximately how long did "the streak of light" last as you watched it, approximately how long after "the streak of light" did "the explosion" follow it, describe "the explosion" in as much detail as possible, those things and anything else you might consider important enough to add.

Q1: The answer is B coverup. I notice you didn't address ANY of my statements concerning the non-explosive nature of kerosine (used as jet fuel)

Q2: Why would I be concerned that "...your allegation now makes you subject to subpoena as a witness by the lawyers for the legally interested Parties. Unless you choose to recant...." I saw what I saw, Bring on the subpoena. What do I have to gain? Why on earth would I 'recant'? Oh and you ALSO did not address the content here either...

Why do you make such a statment (as a threat..???)

See what happens when you don't address my points, just go on about irrelevant issues? I gotta post a SECOND respose now...sheesh...

Your comment [...Odd that the world's airlines are complying with the FAA's fuel tank precautionary measures. Are they all "too stupid" too? Or are they all "engaged in the felonious criminal coverup of heinous crimes" ...] is funny as well as stupid. The worlds airlines are naturally complying with a new (albeit useless) tank safety regulation. That does NOT make them "engaged in felonious coverup", simply complying with a new and ridiculous regulation.
What choice do they have? Do you expect all the airlines to stand up and protest that they are NOT going to comply with a new fuel-tank safety regulation out of protest because they don't believe flight 800 stories?

I appreciate your debate skills (unless it is just stupiditiy) because you have managed to twist the argument AWAY from my valid and PROVABLE statements regarding the non-explosive nature of kersone into one about "All the airlines are complying- so it must be true" - unfortunately you lose points (in my book) for not addressing my two original issues.