Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Responses to 9/11 Postings

0 views
Skip to first unread message

gerry

unread,
Apr 7, 2006, 2:30:35 AM4/7/06
to
Does anyone else notice that certain names respond negatively to every
9/11 posting that claims there is a government cover-up or new
information discrediting the official version. The official version of
what happened on 9/11 is a story in itself, since none seems to exist
to detail the actions of various government agencies and the findings
of those agencies. Whether there is one person responding under
different user names or several (Vandar, Agent 86, to name two), the
negative responses come cookie cutter fashion with no substantion
except for links to other sites. Stranger still, there can be a
posting at 2:00 AM or 2:00 PM and there will always be a response by
Vandar.

Once, one of these posters responded to a posting of mine by saying
that my profile is readily available, a while after I noted how the
postings from at least two names started the same month trying to
discredit those who questioned the way the Bush administration handled
the 9/11 attacks.

The number of postings in general on usenet sites is down a lot over
the past four years, as companies monitor more closely employees' use
of business computers for personal use. So the hundreds of postings
each from these anonymous posters does keep the threads long.

The only people I can think of who would spend so much time on usenet
sites contributing unsubstantiated comments fall into three general
categories: arrogant college students and moronic, recently graduated
college students who are finding it hard to get full-time employment
and, thirdly, blowhards whose postings resemble grafitti in the sense
they make. Whatever the case, pretending to be an expert on the
Internet to stifle discussion won't work, since everyone on these
usenet sites considers themselves experts, high school dropouts and
English illiterates included.

Have a nice day.

ThePeriwinkle

unread,
Apr 7, 2006, 4:26:09 AM4/7/06
to
I agree with you Gerry.
I only recently started reading and educating myself about the 9/11
conspiracy and even with my limited knowledge I believe people are deluding
themselves if they think the Government is telling the whole truth. There
are just too many coincidences and glaring inaccuracies to be believable.
Being Australian myself, I'm currently amazed at the public's reaction to
what is known here as the AWB scandal (The Australian Wheat board supplied
Saddam with bribes to buy our wheat). Somehow I'm not surprised -it now
makes me wonder what the point of exposing that one company for doing it
when surely multitudes of companies are trading in the same manner.


lifes...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 7, 2006, 5:42:02 AM4/7/06
to
true just use my numbers to faind my name 1of 72of31of33of73of6 just
chek phone numbers that i would use to call some of my frens and you
will get it. also of a a blueis suit with a black bref case by tha park
they tend to be around tomuch tha sun is hot must go to tha beach look
for cros words and you will faind more fun to do.

Ragnar

unread,
Apr 7, 2006, 6:07:03 AM4/7/06
to
gerry wrote:
> Does anyone else notice that certain names respond negatively to every
> 9/11 posting that claims there is a government cover-up or new
> information discrediting the official version.

Have you also noticed that certain names always post the kook claims
that there is a coverup?

ZerkonX

unread,
Apr 7, 2006, 7:14:26 AM4/7/06
to
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 23:30:35 -0700, gerry wrote:

> high school dropouts and English illiterates included.

Being both a high school dropout and English illiterate, I think that
before any cover-up there is the glaring cover-over which is not theory.

In the last job I had, 12 years ago, I wrapped individual cheese slices in
cellophane and I can tell you that if I or any of my fellow workers
mis-wrapped even one slice we'd hear about it. One day I decided that
things would go really a lot faster if I wrapped three slices up
together... well I was fired because of a 'failure in performance' as the
letter read.

So why wasn't anyone fired over 9/11? In fact as far as I can put together
most of the people who were most responsible for the largest government
failure in history were promoted, given more power and a lot more money.
The only way this makes sense is that they were actually being rewarded!
Whatever follows from there I can only leave to the smart people. I know
one thing though, none of them would last long on the cheese line!

Vandar

unread,
Apr 7, 2006, 10:59:26 AM4/7/06
to
gerry wrote:
> Does anyone else notice that certain names respond negatively to every
> 9/11 posting that claims there is a government cover-up or new
> information discrediting the official version. The official version of
> what happened on 9/11 is a story in itself, since none seems to exist
> to detail the actions of various government agencies and the findings
> of those agencies. Whether there is one person responding under
> different user names or several (Vandar, Agent 86, to name two), the
> negative responses come cookie cutter fashion with no substantion
> except for links to other sites. Stranger still, there can be a
> posting at 2:00 AM or 2:00 PM and there will always be a response by
> Vandar.

As part of my job, I receive unlimited quantities of coffee, No-Doz, and
an ISP that sometimes gets usenet messages stuck in a queue until after
midnight.
I wonder what became of SkyKing. Seems to have disappeared recently.

> Once, one of these posters responded to a posting of mine by saying
> that my profile is readily available, a while after I noted how the
> postings from at least two names started the same month trying to
> discredit those who questioned the way the Bush administration handled
> the 9/11 attacks.
>
> The number of postings in general on usenet sites is down a lot over
> the past four years, as companies monitor more closely employees' use
> of business computers for personal use. So the hundreds of postings
> each from these anonymous posters does keep the threads long.

<cue the Twilight Zone music>

> The only people I can think of who would spend so much time on usenet
> sites contributing unsubstantiated comments fall into three general
> categories: arrogant college students and moronic, recently graduated
> college students who are finding it hard to get full-time employment
> and, thirdly, blowhards whose postings resemble grafitti in the sense
> they make.

You forgot "self-employed software developers who can browse, post, go
to the store, play a round of golf, or fire up a game any time they wish"

> Whatever the case, pretending to be an expert on the
> Internet to stifle discussion won't work, since everyone on these
> usenet sites considers themselves experts, high school dropouts and
> English illiterates included.
>
> Have a nice day.

Always do.

age...@justicespammail.com

unread,
Apr 7, 2006, 2:50:11 PM4/7/06
to
On 6 Apr 2006 23:30:35 -0700, "gerry" <gerr...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Does anyone else notice that certain names respond negatively to every
>9/11 posting that claims there is a government cover-up or new
>information discrediting the official version. The official version of
>what happened on 9/11 is a story in itself, since none seems to exist
>to detail the actions of various government agencies and the findings
>of those agencies. Whether there is one person responding under
>different user names or several (Vandar, Agent 86, to name two), the
>negative responses come cookie cutter fashion with no substantion
>except for links to other sites.

And where exactly is your "evidence" located? To what are we referred
to by conspiracy wackos for "evidence" except to "links to other
sites"?

>The only people I can think of who would spend so much time on usenet
>sites contributing unsubstantiated comments fall into three general
>categories: arrogant college students and moronic, recently graduated
>college students who are finding it hard to get full-time employment

Do you know that you just described Jason Christie, one of the biggest
conspiracy wackos around?

>and, thirdly, blowhards whose postings resemble grafitti in the sense
>they make.

You forgot "government shill", in your list. Not that any of them
apply.

>Whatever the case, pretending to be an expert on the
>Internet to stifle discussion won't work, since everyone on these
>usenet sites considers themselves experts, high school dropouts and
>English illiterates included.

So why don't you complain about monoidiot, Teddy (aka Obwan), and
snakey who haven't a clue about reality, but just know that it has to
be the way they imagine it? Can you say hypocrite?

Freedom Fighter

unread,
Apr 7, 2006, 6:31:22 PM4/7/06
to
"gerry" <gerr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144391435.8...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

You omitted another possibility - that these are neo-Con SHILLS, being PAID
to discredit those that have the intelligence and courage to question and
expose the official coverup of 9/11. As the shills haven't a leg to stand on
factually, all they do is sling mud in a feeble attempt to discredit the
claims of dissenters.


Tank Fixer

unread,
Apr 7, 2006, 6:57:42 PM4/7/06
to
In article <_KBZf.702703$qk4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
on Fri, 07 Apr 2006 22:31:22 GMT,
Freedom Fighter lib...@once.net attempted to say .....

Or we are just ordinary folks having a good time making fun of any lunatic who
see's a cover up under every bed

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Vandar

unread,
Apr 7, 2006, 8:11:23 PM4/7/06
to
Freedom Fighter wrote:

I told you before, we aren't paid to discredit anything, we're paid to
keep you occupied.

Phil Miller

unread,
Apr 7, 2006, 9:49:10 PM4/7/06
to
In article <_KBZf.702703$qk4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
on Fri, 07 Apr 2006 22:31:22 GMT,
Freedom Fighter lib...@once.net attempted to say .....

> You omitted another possibility - that these are neo-Con SHILLS, being PAID

> to discredit those that have the intelligence and courage to question and
> expose the official coverup of 9/11. As the shills haven't a leg to stand on
> factually, all they do is sling mud in a feeble attempt to discredit the
> claims of dissenters.

The Stages of Loonity (Copyright 2000 tsuDesigns)

1) Find old, unsubstantiated web page. Repost
contents. Be pleasant, if possible.
2) When people complain that you are posting nonsense,
reply that they have been deceived by (fill in the
blank)
[ ] ZOG
[ ] The NWO
[ ] Politicians
[ ] The secret government
[ ] The aviation cabal
[ ] The guvmintcuntrolled press
[ ] Librul gun grabbers
[ ] Russian Sputniks (thanks Nancy!)
[ ] Other: ______________________
3) When the others scoff, scream "coverup" and accuse
them of being paid shills.
4) When the others attempt to disprove your arguments,
disappear.
5) Reappear, and post condescending messages about
what fools these mortals be.
6) Use the word "sheeple" (or at least imply it) to
show how all-knowing you are, even though you have
never been outside the county of your birth.
7) Find bell tower.

Phil
--
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman

gerry

unread,
Apr 8, 2006, 2:23:16 AM4/8/06
to
Quien sabe? It is a free country (so far, unless Dick Cheney is in the
neighborhood with his shotgun loaded for quail).

BDK

unread,
Apr 8, 2006, 9:03:32 PM4/8/06
to
In article <_KBZf.702703$qk4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
lib...@once.net says...

LOL, just keep telling yourself that nonsense, and we'll keep laughing
at you and your kook buddies.

BDK Unpaid...but hoping.

Freedom Fighter

unread,
Apr 8, 2006, 9:39:24 PM4/8/06
to
"Tank Fixer" <paul.deek...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ea08e107...@news.west.earthlink.net...

-------------------
Oh, so you're a malicious troll - with an adolescent mind that gets its
perverse kicks from slandering and ridiculing others. I thought so.

HOW TO DEFEAT THE TROLLS

An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord
on the Internet. He or she slanders others and seeks to cause
conflicts and upset people. Trolls are malicious, antisocial,
and often mentally ill. They crave attention, and care not
whether it is positive or negative. The Internet is a
convenient venue for their bizarre, misanthropic games - a
means to abuse others without fear of retaliation. Trolls are
cowards - lacking the courage to be overtly hostile towards
people, they hide behind their computers and the anonymity of
the Internet. The troll is a less intelligent version of the
malicious hacker or virus writer.

Trolls are impervious to meaningful dialogue. You CANNOT reason
with them and you CANNOT cause them to feel shame or
compassion. Trolls do not feel bound by rules of courtesy or
social responsibility. They are simply not playing with a full
deck. It is futile to try to "cure" a troll of his obsession.
Trolls are irrational and not accessible through any sane approach.

Established posters may leave a newsgroup/message board because
of troll-created conflicts, and lurkers (readers that do not
post) may not want to expose themselves to abuse and therefore
never speak up. Thus they unwisely allow the troll to violate
their rights of free speech and expression. The Internet is a
vital resource - and probably the last stand for free speech.
Being antisocial, trolls hate this and try to subvert it.

When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you curse at
a troll, he wins. If he succeeds in angering you, he's succeeded.
THE ONLY THING THE TROLL CAN'T HANDLE IS BEING IGNORED -
having NO EFFECT on his intended targets!

So the best way to deal with trolls is to IGNORE THEM and
occasionally (and ONLY occasionally) remind others not to
respond to them either.

Hard to ignore? You can set up your computer to AUTOMATICALLY
ignore the troll by using your KILLFILE. Just go to the
offensive message, and bring your pointer to the "MESSAGE" tab
near the top of your screen. Click, and a menu opens. Go to and
click on "BLOCK SENDER." You will no longer see any of the
sender's posts from that account. This is called "plonking" the troll.

Ignored, these children will have to find another game to play.


Freedom Fighter

unread,
Apr 8, 2006, 9:43:27 PM4/8/06
to
"Vandar" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:LcDZf.6450$tT....@news01.roc.ny...

Possibly true, but I cannot quite accept anything a troll says as absolute
truth.
I think the time has come to killfile you and all your synchophants,
apologists for fascism, et. al.
I have better things to do with my time than debate trolls.


Vandar

unread,
Apr 9, 2006, 11:06:19 AM4/9/06
to
Freedom Fighter wrote:

If you feel the need to label those who disagree with you as trolls,
then your are free to do so. We all know that the real reason for it is
that you only want to "debate" with those who agree with you.

geef

unread,
Apr 12, 2006, 3:55:42 AM4/12/06
to
So is it your opinion that there are no conspiracies in the world and that
everything that our leaders tell us is true is true?

You do realize that the president of our country just admitted he lies to us
often. Remember his tantrum about leaks and he wanted to know who leaked?
Well we now know it was acting.

To me it is more suspicious that someone like yourself hangs out in
conspiracy forums to poke fun, than someone seeking the truth asking
questions that mainstream media wont ask.
That means you're here with an agenda, to discredit and debunk, which means
your comments are worthless.

Seeking answers is positive, seeking to humiliate and label someone a kook
is negative. It's really that simple.

Maybe you enjoy kicking a cane out from under a handicapped person too.

"Tank Fixer" <paul.deek...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ea08e107...@news.west.earthlink.net...
>

0 new messages