First Rule of Crime Including 9-11.
knews4...@yahoo.com
After you lie to them of course.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/11/cancer-new-york-rescuers
Nomen Publicus
> Kill all the witnesses.
Why wait 8 years? They have all already told their stories.
> After you lie to them of course.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/11/cancer-new-york-rescuers
--
Atheists accept that what we find in nature is what
we get. There is no magical basis to the universe.
knews4...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> In sci.energy knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Kill all the witnesses.
>
> Why wait 8 years? They have all already told their stories.
>
They just stall on any true Independent reinvestigation until all the
"eyewitness" are dead then everything is "hearsay."
Plus they will deny that their deaths had anything to do with the
toxic waste laced air they were breathing after being told "It's ok"
by the EPA.
AllYou!
news:62e17fed-bea7-4e3c...@i12g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
> On Nov 12, 12:35 am, Nomen Publicus <zzas...@buffy.sighup.org.uk>
> wrote:
>> In sci.energy knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Kill all the witnesses.
>>
>> Why wait 8 years? They have all already told their stories.
>>
> Not to the court in a true "Investigation" or trial.
Which witness didn't tell what to whom? Names plase.
> They just stall on any true Independent reinvestigation until
> all the "eyewitness" are dead then everything is "hearsay."
There is no investigation that you would ever regard as 'true'
unless it agreed with your fantasies. And who should convene and
pay for such an investigation? No matter who does either, you'll
just claim that they were secretly financed, or threatened, or
otherwise forced to say what they say. There is no satisfying kooks
like you. Every one of you has mutually exclusive theories anyway.
> Plus they will deny that their deaths had anything to do with the
> toxic waste laced air they were breathing after being told "It's
> ok" by the EPA.
Just as *they* will deny that had anything to do with any
'independent investigation', right?
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Innews:62e17fed-bea7-4e3c...@i12g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>
> > On Nov 12, 12:35 am, Nomen Publicus <zzas...@buffy.sighup.org.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> In sci.energy knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> Kill all the witnesses.
>
> >> Why wait 8 years? They have all already told their stories.
>
> > Not to the court in a true "Investigation" or trial.
>
> Which witness didn't tell what to whom? Names plase.
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwQa5eokieY
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/
> > They just stall on any true Independent reinvestigation until
> > all the "eyewitness" are dead then everything is "hearsay."
>
> There is no investigation that you would ever regard as 'true'
> unless it agreed with your fantasies. And who should convene and
> pay for such an investigation? No matter who does either, you'll
> just claim that they were secretly financed, or threatened, or
> otherwise forced to say what they say. There is no satisfying kooks
> like you. Every one of you has mutually exclusive theories anyway.
>
> > Plus they will deny that their deaths had anything to do with the
> > toxic waste laced air they were breathing after being told "It's
> > ok" by the EPA.
>
> Just as *they* will deny that had anything to do with any
> 'independent investigation', right?
>
There was only a cover up.
http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/september-11th/83804-first-high-rise-building-collapses-history-why-would-n-i-s-t-not-test.html
There was no Independent Investigation.
Bush tried everything he could to not even have a Commission.
Then he tried to have a CFR/Illuminatti Henry Kissinger head the
Commission.
And you think it was all on the "up and up?"
Idiot.
>
>
> >>> After you lie to them of course.
> >>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/11/cancer-new-york-rescuers
>
And then ignore them again and make them pay for their own care.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sherman-yellen/betrayed-and-ignored-the-_b_88807.html
Iarnrod
> Kill all the witnesses.
> After you lie to them of course.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/11/cancer-new-york-rescuers
Are you truly fuckin' insane? Or are you just really really good at
pretending to be insane?
knews4...@yahoo.com
SpookTroll(R)
knews4...@yahoo.com
So you think this is all ok?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVeQLFdkRSI
Iarnrod
I think it's all lies, kook. Lies is all you got. Proven. You've not
yet said anything that's true.
knews4...@yahoo.com
And they have so many reasons to lie and YOU don't.
I see.
They must be getting paid to get sick and die.
Makes sense to you huh Spooky?
AllYou!
news:e920e62f-4dd8-4cb7...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
> On Nov 12, 12:16 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>> Innews:62e17fed-bea7-4e3c...@i12g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
>> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>>
>>> On Nov 12, 12:35 am, Nomen Publicus
>>> <zzas...@buffy.sighup.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> In sci.energy knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> Kill all the witnesses.
>>
>>>> Why wait 8 years? They have all already told their stories.
>>
>>> Not to the court in a true "Investigation" or trial.
>>
>> Which witness didn't tell what to whom? Names plase.
>>
> The 9-11 Coverup Commission.
Please post the name of a witness that did not get to tell their
story.
>
>>> They just stall on any true Independent reinvestigation until
>>> all the "eyewitness" are dead then everything is "hearsay."
>>
>> There is no investigation that you would ever regard as 'true'
>> unless it agreed with your fantasies. And who should convene and
>> pay for such an investigation? No matter who does either, you'll
>> just claim that they were secretly financed, or threatened, or
>> otherwise forced to say what they say. There is no satisfying
>> kooks like you. Every one of you has mutually exclusive
>> theories anyway.
>>
>>> Plus they will deny that their deaths had anything to do with
>>> the toxic waste laced air they were breathing after being told
>>> "It's ok" by the EPA.
>>
>> Just as *they* will deny that had anything to do with any
>> 'independent investigation', right?
>>
> There was only a cover up.
Prove it
> There was no Independent Investigation.
Independent of whom? How do you acheive the kind of independence
you're after?
> Bush tried everything he could to not even have a Commission.
Prove it.
> Then he tried to have a CFR/Illuminatti Henry Kissinger head the
> Commission.
> And you think it was all on the "up and up?"
As close as humanly possible. But what would satisfy you?
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
>> Then he tried to have a CFR/Illuminatti Henry Kissinger head the
>> Commission. And you think it was all on the "up and up?"
>
> As close as humanly possible.
This is an example of why you're viewed as a close-minded troll.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Run, Sarah, Run! 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AllYou!
Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> mused:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:44:34 -0500, "AllYou!"
> <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
>>> Then he tried to have a CFR/Illuminatti Henry Kissinger head
>>> the Commission. And you think it was all on the "up and up?"
>>
>> As close as humanly possible.
>
> This is an example of why you're viewed as a close-minded troll.
I consider that a compliment coming from you, especially when you
have proven to be a troll yourself by refusing to answer the
simplest of questions.
For instance, doesn't the fact that you refer to any place on Earth
as 'your home' make you an authoritarian? IOW, by what authority do
you reserve a place on the face of this planet to be for your use,
and only to be used by others subject to your permission? From
where do you derive that authority?
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> In news:hdjlat$eek$2...@news.eternal-september.org, Curly Surmudgeon
> <CurlySu...@live.com> mused:
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:44:34 -0500, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Then he tried to have a CFR/Illuminatti Henry Kissinger head the
>>>> Commission. And you think it was all on the "up and up?"
>>>
>>> As close as humanly possible.
>>
>> This is an example of why you're viewed as a close-minded troll.
>
> I consider that a compliment coming from you, especially when you have
> proven to be a troll yourself by refusing to answer the simplest of
> questions.
Your "questions" are designed to produce either a binary choice among two
detestable options or simply ridiculous and undeserving of an answer.
However the majority of your tripe here is simple denial or contradiction.
That is trolling.
> For instance, doesn't the fact that you refer to any place on Earth as
> 'your home' make you an authoritarian? IOW, by what authority do you
> reserve a place on the face of this planet to be for your use, and only
> to be used by others subject to your permission? From where do you
> derive that authority?
This is why you're viewed as a troll. Utterly off topic, irrelevant, and
designed to distract from the discussion.
AllYou!
Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> mused:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:30:47 -0500, "AllYou!"
> <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
>> In news:hdjlat$eek$2...@news.eternal-september.org, Curly
>> Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> mused:
>>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:44:34 -0500, "AllYou!"
>>> <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Then he tried to have a CFR/Illuminatti Henry Kissinger head
>>>>> the Commission. And you think it was all on the "up and up?"
>>>>
>>>> As close as humanly possible.
>>>
>>> This is an example of why you're viewed as a close-minded
>>> troll.
>>
>> I consider that a compliment coming from you, especially when
>> you have proven to be a troll yourself by refusing to answer
>> the simplest of questions.
>
> Your "questions" are designed to produce either a binary choice
> among two detestable options or simply ridiculous and
> undeserving of an answer. However the majority of your tripe
> here is simple denial or contradiction.
How is a question which askes from where you get the authority to
control who may be present on any particular place on the face of
the Earth a binary question?
> That is trolling.
Only if your assetions were true, which they are not.
>
>> For instance, doesn't the fact that you refer to any place on
>> Earth as 'your home' make you an authoritarian? IOW, by what
>> authority do you reserve a place on the face of this planet to
>> be for your use, and only to be used by others subject to your
>> permission? From where do you derive that authority?
>
> This is why you're viewed as a troll. Utterly off topic,
> irrelevant, and designed to distract from the discussion.
Obfscation noted.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> In news:hdjoq2$rnp$4...@news.eternal-september.org, Curly Surmudgeon
> <CurlySu...@live.com> mused:
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:30:47 -0500, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In news:hdjlat$eek$2...@news.eternal-september.org, Curly Surmudgeon
>>> <CurlySu...@live.com> mused:
>>>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:44:34 -0500, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Then he tried to have a CFR/Illuminatti Henry Kissinger head the
>>>>>> Commission. And you think it was all on the "up and up?"
>>>>>
>>>>> As close as humanly possible.
>>>>
>>>> This is an example of why you're viewed as a close-minded troll.
>>>
>>> I consider that a compliment coming from you, especially when you have
>>> proven to be a troll yourself by refusing to answer the simplest of
>>> questions.
>>
>> Your "questions" are designed to produce either a binary choice among
>> two detestable options or simply ridiculous and undeserving of an
>> answer. However the majority of your tripe here is simple denial or
>> contradiction.
>
> How is a question which askes from where you get the authority to
> control who may be present on any particular place on the face of the
> Earth a binary question?
Yet another example of why you are viewed as a troll. The only other
explanation is ignorance of common English. Your homework for tonight,
study the grammatical use of "either."
>> That is trolling.
>
> Only if your assetions were true, which they are not.
I'm content to allow readers to decide.
>>> For instance, doesn't the fact that you refer to any place on Earth as
>>> 'your home' make you an authoritarian? IOW, by what authority do you
>>> reserve a place on the face of this planet to be for your use, and
>>> only to be used by others subject to your permission? From where do
>>> you derive that authority?
>>
>> This is why you're viewed as a troll. Utterly off topic, irrelevant,
>> and designed to distract from the discussion.
>
> Obfscation noted.
Misdirection and trolling noted.
Iarnrod
> On Nov 12, 9:59 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 10:36 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 12, 4:02 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 12, 12:41 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > Kill all the witnesses.
> > > > > After you lie to them of course.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/11/cancer-new-york-rescuers
>
> > > > Are you truly fuckin' insane? Or are you just really really good at
> > > > pretending to be insane?
>
> > > So you think this is all ok?
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVeQLFdkRSI
>
> > I think it's all lies, kook. Lies is all you got. Proven. You've not
> > yet said anything that's true.
>
> And they have so many reasons to lie and YOU don't.
They and you lie because you are all paranoid delusional kooks. You're
the moon landing hoax, grassy knoll types whose brains are wired to
see boogey men everywhere. You can't accept the simple truth. What
else explains your firm belief in physically impossible stuff?
Iarnrod
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:44:34 -0500, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Then he tried to have a CFR/Illuminatti Henry Kissinger head the
> >> Commission. And you think it was all on the "up and up?"
>
> > As close as humanly possible.
>
> This is an example of why you're viewed as a close-minded troll.
Oh the IRONY!
Iarnrod
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:19:05 -0500, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Innews:hdjoq2$rnp$4...@news.eternal-september.org, Curly Surmudgeon
> >> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:30:47 -0500, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Innews:hdjlat$eek$2...@news.eternal-september.org, Curly Surmudgeon
> >>>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:44:34 -0500, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Then he tried to have a CFR/Illuminatti Henry Kissinger head the
> >>>>>> Commission. And you think it was all on the "up and up?"
>
> >>>>> As close as humanly possible.
>
> >>>> This is an example of why you're viewed as a close-minded troll.
>
> >>> I consider that a compliment coming from you, especially when you have
> >>> proven to be a troll yourself by refusing to answer the simplest of
> >>> questions.
>
> >> Your "questions" are designed to produce either a binary choice among
> >> two detestable options or simply ridiculous and undeserving of an
> >> answer. However the majority of your tripe here is simple denial or
> >> contradiction.
>
> > How is a question which askes from where you get the authority to
> > control who may be present on any particular place on the face of the
> > Earth a binary question?
>
> Yet another example of why you are viewed as a troll. The only other
> explanation is ignorance of common English. Your homework for tonight,
> study the grammatical use of "either."
>
> >> That is trolling.
>
> > Only if your assetions were true, which they are not.
>
> I'm content to allow readers to decide.
Umm, the verdict is in and he's right, you're wrong.
AllYou!
Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> mused:
>> Only if your assetions were true, which they are not.
>
> I'm content to allow readers to decide.
:-) Me too.
Bill Benton
> They and you lie because you are all paranoid delusional kooks. You're
> the moon landing hoax, grassy knoll types whose brains are wired to
> see boogey men everywhere. You can't accept the simple truth. What
> else explains your firm belief in physically impossible stuff?
...like a car that uses water for fuel. Chewey fell for that
one...hook, line and sinker. My urine car makes much more sense. Now,
if I could find just a few investors before the oil companies find out
about me ........... Chewey?
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
Then why do you snip context?
knews4...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
From: "Ted Zettergren" <ted.zetterg...@swipnet.se>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100
John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet <756atu$mkn
$...@client2.news.psi.net>...
>For those of you who are unfamiliar, Stanley Meyer patented some
>equipment for fueling an IC engine with hydrogen. In addition to this
>legitimate work, he claimed to be able decompose water into hydrogen
>and oxygen with >100% thermal efficiency, thereby inventing a
>"water-powered car". He sold "marketing rights" for this technology
>to unsuspecting people, one of whom is a regular reader of s.e.h.
>Back a couple years, a couple of his investors got wise to his scam
>and took him to court, where Meyer was found guilty of "gross and
>egregious fraud" and ordered to repay those 'investors'. As far as I
>know, those were the only 'investors' who ever recouped their
>'investment'. Meyer died earlier this year and his followers insist
>he was poisoned (all good perpetual motion inventors are stalked by
>THE CONSPIRACY).
>After being found guilty of fraud, Meyer sent a long rambling letter
>to the remainder of his 'investors', obviously hoping to ward off a
>spate of trials which would have drained him of his ill-gotten gains.
>It was replete with conspiracy paranoia and claimed that a recording
>device in the courtroom was turned off so the judge (obviously working
>under the direction of THE CONSPIRACY) could railroad Meyer into an
>unjust guilty verdict.
>As far as I know, Meyer's home base was Grove City, Ohio, and the
>court case took place in Shelby county, Ohio. I am going to be
>passing through Ohio in a couple weeks and Grove City is but 3 miles
>off my planned route. I can pass through Shelby county with only
>minor adjustment of my planned route through Indiana. I figured I'd
>stop in at the courthouse and see if I can pick up copies of the
>records of the trial.
>Does anybody know precisely where and when the trial took place?
>City, county, etc., date(s)??? Possibly an official case name?
>Thanks.
VERY GOOD Mr. Feiereisen
Take a copy of the tape fromx that trial and put it on the Real
Player
so we all can listen to what really happened in the Court.
The most interesting is to hear what the WFC Expert Witnesses and
Electrical Engineer Mathias Johanson has to say.
The first part of the trial started on Thursday/Friday, 1/2 February
1996 before Judge William Corzine III at the Common Pleas Court,
Chillicothe, Ohio.
By the way. If you like to do some experiment, try this.
AT FIRST:
You must know the difference between a chemical reaction and a
nuclear reaction. A lot of people don't understand that but they like
to argue a lot in every NG on Internet.
In a chemical reaction you need a lot of current and some salt for
making the water conductive.
In a nuclear reaction you don't need any current at all, only high
voltage. How much current you need in a real application depends
on how clean your water is. As cleaner as better.
Stanley Meyers method's have NOTHING to do with chemical
reactions.
HOW TO?
As a guide, you need US Patent 4,936,961 ref. figure 1 to 3F.
If you read something about magical frequencyis, forget that.
It works fine with 10KHz or something else if you preferred.
Use 50% duty cycle. BUT! the frequency will be doubled in the
step up circuit and that's the frequency the Water-Cell will work
with. The components must resist at least 2000V.
The Water-Cell is very simple. Take a lot of stainless steel tubes
with the inner diameter of the bigger tube 3mm bigger than the outer
diameter of the inner tube. From now you must look at this
Water-Cell as a capacitor with water as dilectricum.
The Water-Cell and the INDUCTOR will resonate at a specific
frequency. It's a normal RC-circuit.
Now the most important: The Water-Cell/Inductor frequency and
the doubled frequency from the generator must be exactly the
same. A special condition exists in a L/C Circuit, when it is
energized at a frequency at which the inductive reactance is equal
to the capacitive reactance, XL = XC.
Adjust the voltage peak level to reach a maximum hydrogen/oxygen
producing with a minimum of current using. If you earlier make
hydrogen with the electrolysis method with a lot of current,
this experiment will really surprise you.
For even less current you can make some experiment with a
centertapped puls-transformer.
Have a nice trip to Ohio!
Ted!
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=water+plasma+spark&search_type=&aq=2&oq=water+plasma
JW consulted Peter Lindemann on Meyer's process about 20 years ago.
He didn't understand it then.
He does now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOhNtRhJ5Rw&feature=PlayList&p=3C0857715537407D&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=65
Meyer has been dead for over ten years now.
Funny how he died the day he signed his deal to build his factory and
developement center.
This was just after he had completed his "Spark Injector" design.
You on the other hand have DONE NOTHING.
So, go to hell.
Know
Chewey's infamous water car !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell
Stanley Meyer "Water Fuel Cell"
knews4...@yahoo.com
Now WikiSpookpedia smears another dead man.
Why doesn't WikiCIA say he had just signed a 50 million dolar deal to
build his factory and developement center?
Thanks for proving my point.
Losers change subject headings...
And they don't do experiments either.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.survivalism/browse_frm/thread/2b99b345fd4570d9?hl=en#
Know
> On Nov 13, 2:15 pm, Know <Nutty4u2k...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 13, 11:58 am, "Bill Benton" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Iarnrod" <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > They and you lie because you are all paranoid delusional kooks. You're
> > > > the moon landing hoax, grassy knoll types whose brains are wired to
> > > > see boogey men everywhere. You can't accept the simple truth. What
> > > > else explains your firm belief in physically impossible stuff?
>
> > > ...like a car that uses water for fuel. Chewey fell for that
> > > one...hook, line and sinker. My urine car makes much more sense. Now,
> > > if I could find just a few investors before the oil companies find out
> > > about me ........... Chewey?
>
> > Chewey's infamous water car !
Why People Believe in Conspiracies
By Michael Shermer
“That’s what they want you to believe,” he said. “Who is they?” I
queried. “The government,” he whispered, as if “they” might be
listening at that very moment. “But didn’t Osama and some members of
al Qaeda not only say they did it,” I reminded him, “they gloated
about what a glorious triumph it was?”
“Oh, you’re talking about that video of Osama,” he rejoined knowingly.
“That was faked by the CIA and leaked to the American press to mislead
us. There has been a disinformation campaign going on ever since
9/11.”
Conspiracies do happen, of course. Abraham Lincoln was the victim of
an assassination conspiracy, as was Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand,
gunned down by the Serbian secret society called Black Hand. The
attack on Pearl Harbor was a Japanese conspiracy (although some
conspiracists think Franklin Roosevelt was in on it). Watergate was a
conspiracy (that Richard Nixon was in on). How can we tell the
difference between information and disinformation? As Kurt Cobain, the
rocker star of Nirvana, once growled in his grunge lyrics shortly
before his death from a self-inflicted (or was it?) gunshot to the
head, “Just because you’re paranoid don’t mean they’re not after you.”
But as former Nixon aide G. Gordon Liddy once told me (and he should
know!), the problem with government conspiracies is that bureaucrats
are incompetent and people can’t keep their mouths shut. Complex
conspiracies are difficult to pull off, and so many people want their
quarter hour of fame that even the Men in Black couldn’t squelch the
squealers from spilling the beans. So there’s a good chance that the
more elaborate a conspiracy theory is, and the more people that would
need to be involved, the less likely it is true.
Why do people believe in highly improbable conspiracies? In previous
columns I have provided partial answers, citing patternicity (the
tendency to find meaningful patterns in random noise) and agenticity
(the bent to believe the world is controlled by invisible intentional
agents). Conspiracy theories connect the dots of random events into
meaningful patterns and then infuse those patterns with intentional
agency. Add to those propensities the confirmation bias (which seeks
and finds confirmatory evidence for what we already believe) and the
hindsight bias (which tailors after-the-fact explanations to what we
already know happened), and we have the foundation for conspiratorial
cognition.
Examples of these processes can be found in journalist Arthur
Goldwag’s marvelous new book, Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret
Societies (Vintage, 2009), which covers everything from the
Freemasons, the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Group to black
helicopters and the New World Order. “When something momentous
happens, everything leading up to and away from the event seems
momentous, too. Even the most trivial detail seems to glow with
significance,” Goldwag explains, noting the JFK assassination as a
prime example. “Knowing what we know now ... film footage of Dealey
Plaza from November 22, 1963, seems pregnant with enigmas and ironies—
from the oddly expectant expressions on the faces of the onlookers on
the grassy knoll in the instants before the shots were fired (What
were they thinking?) to the play of shadows in the background (Could
that flash up there on the overpass have been a gun barrel gleaming in
the sun?). Each odd excrescence, every random lump in the visual
texture seems suspicious.” Add to these factors how compellingly a
good narrative story can tie it all together—think of Oliver Stone’s
JFK or Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons, both What should we believe?
Transcendentalists tend to believe that everything is interconnected
and that all events happen for a reason. Empiricists tend to think
that randomness and coincidence interact with the causal net of our
world and that belief should depend on evidence for each individual
claim. The problem for skepticism is that transcendentalism is
intuitive; empiricism is not. Or as folk rock group Buffalo
Springfield once intoned: Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it
will creep ...
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Nov 13, 8:23 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 13, 2:15 pm, Know <Nutty4u2k...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 13, 11:58 am, "Bill Benton" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "Iarnrod" <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > They and you lie because you are all paranoid delusional kooks. You're
> > > > > the moon landing hoax, grassy knoll types whose brains are wired to
> > > > > see boogey men everywhere. You can't accept the simple truth. What
> > > > > else explains your firm belief in physically impossible stuff?
>
> > > > ...like a car that uses water for fuel. Chewey fell for that
> > > > one...hook, line and sinker. My urine car makes much more sense. Now,
> > > > if I could find just a few investors before the oil companies find out
> > > > about me ........... Chewey?
>
> > > Chewey's infamous water car !
>
(Fixed bad English in title.)
People believe in conspiracies because history has proven over and
over that the greedy psychopaths keep doing evil things.
Why they don't believe in the "government's conspiracy theory" is
because anyone with a lick of sense can see that it has more holes in
it than Swiss Cheese.
All one need as is one question to blow any of them out of the water.
For instance:
Why were the Secret Service Agents who were tasked with walking along
with JFK's limosine with their hands literally on the car, "called
off" and told to stand away from the car seconds before his head was
blown off?
Anyone can look at the films and see the Agents raising their hands
and shoulders looking in disbelief as they are told to break protocal
and step away from the car so the shooters can get a clear shot.
This call everything about Oawald and the "government's" one man
conspiracy into hell. Did Oswald have the ability to get the Agents to
step away from their posts? Who had this authority?
And then of course they had to have Oswald DEAD TOO so he couldn't
keep saying "I'm a patsy here."
So they again broke protocal and waltzed him out in front of a firing
squad.
"Dead men tell no tales."
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
P. Maffia
fools of themselves over and over again!!
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b81831f2-00bb-478d...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
HH&C
> Kill all the witnesses.
> After you lie to them of course.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/11/cancer-new-york-rescuers
Why are you cross posting to all of these newsgroups?
misc.survivalism,
misc.taxes,
sci.energy.hydrogen,
sci.energy,
us.politics
Iarnrod
knews4...@yahoo.com
> And those like you who fail to learn anything at all, are doomed to make
> fools of themselves over and over again!!
>
>
http://www.911proof.com
AllYou!
Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> mused:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:12:11 -0500, "AllYou!"
> <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
>> In news:hdjqcs$rnp$1...@news.eternal-september.org, Curly
>> Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> mused:
>>
>>>> Only if your assetions were true, which they are not.
>>>
>>> I'm content to allow readers to decide.
>>
>> :-) Me too.
>
> Then why do you snip context?
It's all already there for everyone to read.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> In news:hdk9ns$rnp$1...@news.eternal-september.org, Curly Surmudgeon
> <CurlySu...@live.com> mused:
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:12:11 -0500, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In news:hdjqcs$rnp$1...@news.eternal-september.org, Curly Surmudgeon
>>> <CurlySu...@live.com> mused:
>>>
>>>>> Only if your assetions were true, which they are not.
>>>>
>>>> I'm content to allow readers to decide.
>>>
>>> :-) Me too.
>>
>> Then why do you snip context?
>
> It's all already there for everyone to read.
Nope, you snipped text that you did not want others to read. That is
deceitful.
Al Dykes
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 14, 3:33=A0am, Know <Nutty4u2k...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 13, 8:23=A0pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 13, 2:15=A0pm, Know <Nutty4u2k...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Nov 13, 11:58=A0am, "Bill Benton" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > "Iarnrod" <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>ou're
>> > > > > the moon landing hoax, grassy knoll types whose brains are wired =
>to
>> > > > > see boogey men everywhere. You can't accept the simple truth. Wha=
>t
>> > > > > else explains your firm belief in physically impossible stuff?
>>
>> > > > one...hook, line and sinker. =A0My urine car makes much more sense.=
> =A0Now,
>> > > > if I could find just a few investors before the oil companies find =
>out
>> > > > about me ........... =A0Chewey?
>>
>> > > Chewey's infamous water car !
>>
>> Why People Believe in Conspiracies(?)
>
>(Fixed bad English in title.)
>
>People believe in conspiracies because history has proven over and
>over that the greedy psychopaths keep doing evil things.
That's a platitude.
DEFINITION: A platitude is a trite, meaningless, biased, or prosaic
statement that is presented as if it were significant and
original. The word derives from plat, the French word for "flat."
Whether any given statement is considered to have meaning is highly
subjective, so platitude is often.but not always.used as a
pejorative term to describe seemingly profound statements that a
certain person views as unoriginal or shallow. An example of a
platitude is "go with the flow" or "a rule is a rule."
To the degree that it may be true for 19 Islamists that hijacked 4
planes on 9/11, the burden is you you, the person that is asserting
something unstated to make the case for the claim.
Just using the words in a sentance doesn't prove anything.
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
AllYou!
Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> mused:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 09:58:38 -0500, "AllYou!"
> <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
>> In news:hdk9ns$rnp$1...@news.eternal-september.org, Curly
>> Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> mused:
>>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:12:11 -0500, "AllYou!"
>>> <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In news:hdjqcs$rnp$1...@news.eternal-september.org, Curly
>>>> Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> mused:
>>>>
>>>>>> Only if your assetions were true, which they are not.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm content to allow readers to decide.
>>>>
>>>> :-) Me too.
>>>
>>> Then why do you snip context?
>>
>> It's all already there for everyone to read.
>
> Nope, you snipped text that you did not want others to read.
Anyone who can read my repost could've read my original post, as
well as your's.
> That is deceitful.
That is deceitful
knews4...@yahoo.com
> In article <b81831f2-00bb-478d-afec-0a7354d27...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
No it isn't.
It is histotrical fact.
Anyone can read or observe history from last week to last thousand
years to see it.
> DEFINITION: A platitude is a trite, meaningless, biased, or prosaic
> statement that is presented as if it were significant and
> original. The word derives from plat, the French word for "flat."
> Whether any given statement is considered to have meaning is highly
> subjective, so platitude is often.but not always.used as a
> pejorative term to describe seemingly profound statements that a
> certain person views as unoriginal or shallow. An example of a
> platitude is "go with the flow" or "a rule is a rule."
>
History being full of evil conspirators is not subjective.
It's a proven fact.
You are obfuscating.
> To the degree that it may be true for 19 Islamists that hijacked 4
> planes on 9/11, the burden is you you, the person that is asserting
> something unstated to make the case for the claim.
>
There is no proff besides the governments claim that 19 "hijackers did
it" too.
There are no pictures of them at the airport.
No names on the original flight lists.
Fer Christ sake 6 of them are not even dead.
> Just using the words in a sentance doesn't prove anything.
>
And so when YOU say, "Everything you are told about 9-11 is a lie," I
should believe YOUR PLATITUDE?
> --
> Al Dykes (Spook)
Al Dykes
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 15, 9:24=A0am, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>> In article <b81831f2-00bb-478d-afec-0a7354d27...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =A0<knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 14, 3:33=3DA0am, Know <Nutty4u2k...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 13, 8:23=3DA0pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Nov 13, 2:15=3DA0pm, Know <Nutty4u2k...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On Nov 13, 11:58=3DA0am, "Bill Benton" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > "Iarnrod" <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>. Y=3D
>> >ou're
>> >> > > > > the moon landing hoax, grassy knoll types whose brains are wir=
>ed =3D
>> >to
>> >> > > > > see boogey men everywhere. You can't accept the simple truth. =
>Wha=3D
>> >t
>> >> > > > > else explains your firm belief in physically impossible stuff?
>>
>t
>> >> > > > one...hook, line and sinker. =3DA0My urine car makes much more s=
>ense.=3D
>> > =3DA0Now,
>> >> > > > if I could find just a few investors before the oil companies fi=
>nd =3D
>> >out
>> >> > > > about me ........... =3DA0Chewey?
>>
>> >> > > Chewey's infamous water car !
>>
>> >> Why People Believe in Conspiracies(?)
>>
>> >(Fixed bad English in title.)
>>
>> >People believe in conspiracies because history has proven over and
>> >over that the greedy psychopaths keep doing evil things.
>>
>>
>
>No it isn't.
>It is histotrical fact.
>Anyone can read or observe history from last week to last thousand
>years to see it.
>
>c
>> =A0 =A0statement that is presented as if it were significant and
>> =A0 =A0original. The word derives from plat, the French word for "flat."
>> =A0 =A0Whether any given statement is considered to have meaning is highl=
>y
>> =A0 =A0subjective, so platitude is often.but not always.used as a
>> =A0 =A0pejorative term to describe seemingly profound statements that a
>> =A0 =A0certain person views as unoriginal or shallow. An example of a
>> =A0 =A0platitude is "go with the flow" or "a rule is a rule."
>>
>History being full of evil conspirators is not subjective.
>It's a proven fact.
>You are obfuscating.
>
>> To the degree that it may be true for 19 Islamists that hijacked 4
>> planes on 9/11, the burden is you you, the person that is asserting
>> something unstated to make the case for the claim.
>>
>There is no proff besides the governments claim that 19 "hijackers did
>it" too.
The 19 Arab Islamist Hijackers Edited 7/16/09
http://911links.webs.com/19Hijackers.htm
Table of Contents
[1] Reading list for all the evidence we have about the hijackers.
[2] The martyrdom videos made by 7 of the hijackers.
[3] Arabic spoken in cockpits of hijacked planes.
[4] Boarding manifest for Flt11 that shows hijacker's names
[5] The names of the hijackers
[6] BBC on the names and reporting of the hijackers
[7] Answers to Zeitgeist The Movie: - Flight Manifests
[8] Status of Hijacker DNA - (2009)
[9] Answer to "At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive"
[10] bin Laden Connections to the 19 hijackers
[11] News Report on hijackers as of Nov 2, 2001
[12] Hanjour as a pilot
[13] Photo and DNA ID match of some of the hijackers.
[14] Identification of the Flt 77 hijackers
[15] Pictures of the Hanjour and another hijacker boarding the airplanes.
[16] Details of airline tickets for some of the hijackers.
[17] 166-page 9/11 Commission document contains lots of information on hijacker visa applications, with a particular focus on Mohamed Atta.
[18] This 9/11 Commission document includes an INS analysis of Abdulaziz al-Omari's passport, presumably recovered from the Flight 11 crash scene, and reports on another Abdulaziz al-Omari who had no connection at all with terrorism or the plot, but was caught up in one of the "hijacker still alive" stories.
If you want to knowwhy each person is on the list, read any or all of these books to get an idea of just how much evidence for who hijacked the planes and how they are connected directly to bin Laden and KSM and the American Embassy bombings in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole. Some of these names were known to the FBI even before 9/11/2001 for their crimes.
[1] ----- Essential reading list ---------------------------
The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 by Lawrence
Perfect Soldiers: The 9/11 Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It by Terry Mcdermott
The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America, by James Bamford.
PBS Video on Bamford http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spyfactory/program.html
Spying Blind by Amy Zegart
Perfect Soldiers by Terry McDermott
[2] -------Hijacker videos -------------------------------------------
This video has the martyrdom videos made by some of the hijackers.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1619489
Hijackers video wills (Scroll down to the bottom)
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Responsibility
[3] -------Arab Audio on Voice recorders --------------
We have the audio of Arabs on the recovered cockpit voice recorders.
The CVR clearly captured the words of the hijackers, including words in Arabic from the microphone in the pilot headset up to the end of the flight. The hijackers' statements, the clarity of the recording, the position of the microphone in the pilot headset, and the corresponding manipulations of flight controls provide the evidence. The quotes are taken from our listening to the CVR, aided by an Arabic speaker.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report/Notes/Part_1
[4] -----------Boarding Manifests ---------------------------
I have the boarding manifest for Flt11 that shows the names.
http://www.911myths.com/images/8/84/Flight_11_Manifest.gif http://www.911myths.com/images/8/84/Flight_11_Manifest.gif
Discussion
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124907
Flash app shows seating, calls , hijackers,
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200018.html
[5] -----Hijacker names ------------------------------
AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77
1) Khalid Almihdhar - Possible Saudi national
-Possible resident of San Diego, California, and New York
-Alias: Sannan Al-Makki; Khalid Bin Muhammad; 'Addallah Al-Mihdhar;
Khalid Mohammad Al-Saqaf
2) Majed Moqed - Possible Saudi national
-Alias: Majed M.GH Moqed; Majed Moqed, Majed Mashaan Moqed
3) Nawaf Alhazmi - Possible Saudi national
-Possible resident of Fort Lee, New Jersey; Wayne, New Jersey; San Diego, California
-Alias: Nawaf Al-Hazmi; Nawaf Al Hazmi; Nawaf M.S. Al Hazmi
4) Salem Alhazmi - Possible Saudi national
-Possible resident of Fort Lee, New Jersey; Wayne, New Jersey
5) Hani Hanjour -
-Possible resident of Phoenix, Arizona, and San Diego, California
-Alias: Hani Saleh Hanjour; Hani Saleh; Hani Hanjour, Hani Saleh H. Hanjour
AMERICAN AIRLINES #11 BOEING 767
1) Satam M.A. Al Suqami- Possible Saudi national
-Dates of birth used: June 28, 1976; Last known address: United Arab Emirates
2) Waleed M. Alshehri - Possible Saudi national
-Dates of birth used: September 13, 1974; January 1, 1976; March 3,
1976; July 8, 1977; December 20, 1978; May 11, 1979; November 5, 1979
-Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida; Orlando, Florida;
Daytona Beach, Florida
-Believed to be a pilot
3) Wail M. Alshehri
-Date of birth used: September 1, 1968
-Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida; Newton, Massachusetts
-Believed to be a pilot
4) Mohamed Atta - Possible Egyptian national
-Date of birth used: September 1, 1968
-Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida; Coral Springs, Florida;
Hamburg, Germany
-Believed to be a pilot
-Alias: Mehan Atta; Mohammad El Amir; Muhammad Atta; Mohamed El
Sayed; Mohamed Elsayed; Muhammad Muhammad Al Amir Awag Al Sayyid
Atta; Muhammad Muhammad Al-Amir Awad Al Sayad
5) Abdulaziz Alomari - Possible Saudi national
-Dates of birth used: December 24, 1972 and May 28, 1979
-Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida
-Believed to be a pilot
UNITED AIRLINES #175 BOEING 767
1) Marwan Al-Shehhi
-Date of birth used: May 9, 1978
-Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida
-Believed to be a pilot
-Alias: Marwan Yusif Muhammad Rashid Al-Shehi; Marwan Yusif Muhammad
Rashid Lakrab Al-Shihhi; Abu Abdullah
2) Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad
-Possible residence(s): Delray Beach, Florida
-Alias: Fayez Ahmad; Banihammad Fayez Abu Dhabi Banihammad; Fayez
Rashid Ahmed; Banihammad Fayez; Rasid Ahmed Hassen Alqadi; Abu
Dhabi Banihammad ; Ahmed Fayez; Faez Ahmed
3) Ahmed Alghamdi
-Alias: Ahmed Salah Alghamdi
4) Hamza Alghamdi
-Possible residence(s): Delray Beach, Florida
-Alias: Hamza Al-Ghamdi; Hamza Ghamdi; Hamzah Alghamdi; Hamza
Alghamdi Saleh
5) Mohand Alshehri
-Possible residence(s): Delray Beach, Florida
-Alias: Mohammed Alshehhi; Mohamd Alshehri; Mohald Alshehri
UNITED AIRLINES #93 BOEING 757
1) Saeed Alghamdi
-Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida
-Alias: Abdul Rahman Saed Alghamdi; Ali S Alghamdi; Al- Gamdi; Saad
M.S. Al Ghamdi; Sadda Al Ghamdi; Saheed Al-Ghamdi; Seed Al Ghamdi
2) Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi - Possible Saudi national
-Date of birth used: October 11, 1980
-Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida
-Alias: Ahmed Alhaznawi
3) Ahmed Alnami
-Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida
-Alias: Ali Ahmed Alnami; Ahmed A. Al-Nami; Ahmed Al- Nawi
4) Ziad Samir Jarrah
-Believed to be a pilot
-Alias: Zaid Jarrahi; Zaid Samr Jarrah; Ziad S. Jarrah; Ziad Jarrah
Jarrat, Ziad Samir Jarrahi
[6] -----------------------------------------
BBC on the names and reporting of the hijackers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html
[7] ----------------------------------
Answers to Zeitgeist The Movie: - Flight Manifests
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCj8X2glIrA
[8] ------------------------------------------------
Newsweek - Remains of the Day
Nineteen hijackers died on 9/11. What should be done with what's left of them? Eve Conant
From the magazine issue dated Jan 12, 2009
...Through a combination of innovative DNA-mapping techniques, help from the FBI's crime lab and dumb luck, the scientists have now ID'd four of the 10 New York hijackers. The remains of the nine hijackers from the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crash sites have also been confirmed; six other hijackers have yet to be identified. ...
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177724/output/print
[9] -----------------------------------------------
At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html
BBC Response
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html
[10] ----------------------------------------------------
bib Laden Connections to the 19 hijackers
[11] -------------------------------------------------------
News report as of Nov 2, 2001
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/02/attack/main316806.shtml
[12] --------------------------------------------
New York Newsday article from 9/23/01. "Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said." Most of the complaints that I've seen were that he couldn't land well. Considering what he was planning on doing, I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't exactly the top of his "skills to hone" list.
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/nynewsday_sep23.html
Woman taught 9/11 hijacker how to fly
http://www.capeargus.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=55&fArticleId=3171841
[13] -------------------------
Photo and DNA ID match of some of the pilots.
This 9/11 Commission document explains how the FBI attempted to verify the hijackers identities (includes an apparent DNA match with Jarrah).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13950034/T5-B62-T-Eldridge-Files-Aliases-and-IDs-Fdr-Doc-Req-54-and-43-FBI-ID-of-Hijackers-by-Family-Members-PENTTBOM
http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Team5_Box62_AliasesAndIDs-FBIIDsHijackers-1.pdf
[14] ---- Identification of the Flt 77 hijackers ---------
This 9/11 Commission document includes details of a forensic examination of hijacker ID cards recovered from the Pentagon, and a list of identification documents belonging to the hijackers (passports, visas, driving licences, more).
http://911myths.com/images/b/ba/Team5_Box46_Chronology_US_Identifications.pdf
[15] --------------------------------
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x34702
[16] ---------------------------------
Details in hijacker tickets.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4722224#post4722224
[17] ------------------------------
http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Team5_Box51_Hijacker-Primary-Docs_AA11-ChronologySaudiVisaApps.pdf
[18] ------------------------------
Iarnrod
Yes! Knowsknothing, you're wising up!
Iarnrod
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 09:58:38 -0500, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Innews:hdk9ns$rnp$1...@news.eternal-september.org, Curly Surmudgeon
> >> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:12:11 -0500, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Innews:hdjqcs$rnp$1...@news.eternal-september.org, Curly Surmudgeon
>
> >>>>> Only if your assetions were true, which they are not.
>
> >>>> I'm content to allow readers to decide.
>
> >>> :-) Me too.
>
> >> Then why do you snip context?
>
> > It's all already there for everyone to read.
>
> Nope, you snipped text that you did not want others to read. That is
> deceitful.
It is no such thing. Your entire goofy delusional post still exists
for anyone stupid enough to want to read your fantasies.
knews4...@yahoo.com
Then why are we arguing?
Thousands of prominent people know the 3 buildings were demolished.
They are not fools.
You haven't provided one shred of evidence that you know more than
any ONE of them.
You just arm wave and DoubleSpookSpeak.
I'll just hang with these guys.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Griscom
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,635160132,00.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070905_former_congressional.htm
Kirby M. Wilson
> On Nov 15, 6:17 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 2:18 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 14, 12:55 pm, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net> wrote:> And those like you who fail to learn anything at all, are doomed to make
> > > > fools of themselves over and over again!!
>
> > > Yes all these fools....http://www.911proof.com
>
> > Yes! Knowsknothing, you're wising up!
>
> for anyone stupid enough to want to read your fantasies.
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Myths
http://www.answers.com/topic/debunking-9-11-myths
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
http://www.slate.com/id/2088092/
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/158816635X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fahrenheit-2777
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/04/19/cstillwell.DTL
http://www.2spare.com/item_43133.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/
knews4...@yahoo.com
On Nov 16, 5:14 am, "Kirby M. Wilson" The Spook<kir...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Nov 15, 11:11 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 6:17 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 15, 2:18 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 14, 12:55 pm, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net> wrote:> And those like you who fail to learn anything at all, are doomed to make
> > > > > fools of themselves over and over again!!
>
> > > > Yes all these fools....http://www.911proof.com
>
> > > Yes! Knowsknothing, you're wising up!
>
> > It is no such thing. Your entire goofy delusional post still exists
> > for anyone stupid enough to want to read your fantasies.
>
Yea.
These are stupid delusional posts of government swill swallowing
"believers."
Then we have the truth.
www.ae911truth.org
Iarnrod
> On Nov 15, 6:17 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 2:18 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 14, 12:55 pm, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net> wrote:> And those like you who fail to learn anything at all, are doomed to make
> > > > fools of themselves over and over again!!
>
> > > Yes all these fools....http://www.911proof.com
>
> > Yes! Knowsknothing, you're wising up!
>
> Then why are we arguing?
We're not. I am schooling your stupid kooker ass. "arguing" implies
you actually have a cogent argument, which you do not.
> Thousands of prominent people know the 3 buildings were demolished.
They know no such thing since that's been proven beyond doubt to be a
complete physical impossibility.
> They are not fools.
They are, of course. Like you, they reject proven reality and all the
evidence behind it while rushing to embrace contradictory, disproven
and physically impossible explanations that have zero evidence.
> You haven't provided one shred of evidence that you know more than
> any ONE of them.
I have, of course, not in dispute. I have absolutely proven my case.
Right out of the box. There is no such thing in existence as your
cartoon magic silent and invisible explosives and gravity-defying
thermite. That alone makes your claims physically impossible. Thermite
cannot do what was done on 9/11 and no explosives went off. Case
closed. You cannot proceed one more step without being in Disney's
Fantasyland
> You just arm wave and DoubleSpookSpeak.
Nope. I prove. You don't even offer any evidence. Because you have
none.
> I'll just hang with these guys.
Of course you will, because they are as insane as you and they affirm
your kooker beliefs -- although they have no evidence either.
Iarnrod
> Then we have the truth.www.ae911truth.org
Prove one thing on that kooksite, knowsknothing. You won't and you
can't.
AllYou!
news:918a9142-0abf-4c27...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
> On Nov 15, 6:17 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 2:18 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 14, 12:55 pm, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net>
>>> wrote:> And those like you who fail to learn anything at all,
>>> are doomed to make
>>>> fools of themselves over and over again!!
>>
>>> Yes all these fools....http://www.911proof.com
>>
>> Yes! Knowsknothing, you're wising up!
>
> Then why are we arguing?
> Thousands of prominent people know the 3 buildings were
> demolished.
In fact, it's millions upon millions. They all know that each tower
was hit by a plane, that this weakened the buildings, as well as set
off fires that further weakened them until they collapsed.
DanB
> In
> news:918a9142-0abf-4c27...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
> knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
>> Thousands of prominent people know the 3 buildings were
>> demolished.
>
> In fact, it's millions upon millions. They all know that each tower
> was hit by a plane, that this weakened the buildings, as well as set
> off fires that further weakened them until they collapsed.
Wow, I didn't know there were three towers!
AllYou!
DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
There weren't. He mentioned 3 buildings, then I referrred to the
towers (i.e., two out of the 3 buildings to which he referred). But
I understand your confusion.
DanB
I was never confused, so, how could you 'understand' it?
AllYou!
The premise of your question was that there were three towers.
That's pretty clear evidence to me of your confusion.
DanB
Let me help. The first op points out that three buildings failed. The
second op, (you), follows about planes and towers as if 'all three
buildings were towers and hit by planes.'
So I followed with tongue in cheek. But you seem to take yourself so
seriously that it went over your head with a swoosh!
'Clear evidence', you are a pill.....
AllYou!
As I said, I understand your confusion about this. My follow up was
only concerning 2 of the 3 buildings to which the OP referred. I
explained that already.
>
> So I followed with tongue in cheek. But you seem to take
> yourself so seriously that it went over your head with a swoosh!
I didn't take myself seriously at all. You jumped my post in order
to be a wiseass, and now that you got all caught up in your own
bullshit, you're too embarrassed to admit it.
>
> 'Clear evidence', you are a pill.....
I have no doubt you feel that way.
DanB
I understand your confusion as you are incapable of following a thread.
>> So I followed with tongue in cheek. But you seem to take
>> yourself so seriously that it went over your head with a swoosh!
>
> I didn't take myself seriously at all.
Sure looks like it.
> You jumped my post in order
> to be a wiseass, and now that you got all caught up in your own
> bullshit, you're too embarrassed to admit it.
About as pot/kettle an example as I've seen.
>> 'Clear evidence', you are a pill.....
>
> I have no doubt you feel that way.
You are becoming boring.....
AllYou!
I'm at a loss to understand your vitriol here. You were the one who
came out of the woodwork to try to poke fun at my post (which, BTW,
I don't mind a bit), and then, when you failed to take a tongue in
cheek response to your own tongue in cheek post, you initiated name
calling, and now, when your further embarrassed by your own
misunderstanding of almost every thing in this exchange, you launch
even more insults.
Exactly of what are you so afraid? If you can't take a little bit
of ribbing and poking, I suggest, very strongly, that you should not
initiate it.
>>> So I followed with tongue in cheek. But you seem to take
>>> yourself so seriously that it went over your head with a
>>> swoosh!
>>
>> I didn't take myself seriously at all.
>
> Sure looks like it.
I'm sure that it did to you.
>> You jumped my post in order
>> to be a wiseass, and now that you got all caught up in your own
>> bullshit, you're too embarrassed to admit it.
>
> About as pot/kettle an example as I've seen.
That doesn't even begin to make any sense. I'm not the one who
jumped your post. You are the one who jumped mine.
>
>>> 'Clear evidence', you are a pill.....
>>
>> I have no doubt you feel that way.
>
> You are becoming boring.....
Which begs at least 3 questions......
DanB
...
>> I understand your confusion as you are incapable of following a
>> thread.
>
> I'm at a loss to understand your vitriol here. You were the one who
> came out of the woodwork to try to poke fun at my post (which, BTW,
> I don't mind a bit), and then, when you failed to take a tongue in
> cheek response to your own tongue in cheek post, you initiated name
> calling, and now, when your further embarrassed by your own
> misunderstanding of almost every thing in this exchange, you launch
> even more insults.
Wow, you are a piece of work. If I don't understand, according to you,
you come off all god like to fix it. Even when I 'clearly' stated out of
the gate that I was not confused. But you keep insisting, creating your
own truth, if you will. But if I say, 'I understand your confusion...'
that becomes name calling! Where do you get this stuff?
> Exactly of what are you so afraid? If you can't take a little bit
> of ribbing and poking, I suggest, very strongly, that you should not
> initiate it.
Ahh, another of your truths, that I'm afraid. Don't you see I started
with the ribbing but it was you that took the stoic stance? Of course not.
BTW, suggest anything you would like but from here I can't possibly take
you 'seriously'. You are truly weird, with visions of grandeur no less...
>>>> So I followed with tongue in cheek. But you seem to take
>>>> yourself so seriously that it went over your head with a
>>>> swoosh!
>>> I didn't take myself seriously at all.
>> Sure looks like it.
>
> I'm sure that it did to you.
Still does.. Boring....
>>> You jumped my post in order
>>> to be a wiseass, and now that you got all caught up in your own
>>> bullshit, you're too embarrassed to admit it.
>> About as pot/kettle an example as I've seen.
>
> That doesn't even begin to make any sense. I'm not the one who
> jumped your post. You are the one who jumped mine.
Jumped!? Who are you, the usenet cop? You are all serious and defensive
yet accuse me of getting 'caught up'. Pot/Kettle.
Yet, I understand your confusion.....
>>>> 'Clear evidence', you are a pill.....
>>> I have no doubt you feel that way.
>> You are becoming boring.....
>
> Which begs at least 3 questions......
Gee, I guess I have to make that one clear too. I call you a pill and
you have no doubt I feel that way. Well Duh! That is what I wrote! So, I
find that boring.
On with your begging...
AllYou!
DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
> AllYou! wrote:
>> In news:ydAMm.21576$rE5....@newsfe08.iad,
>> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>
> ...
>
>>> I understand your confusion as you are incapable of following a
>>> thread.
>>
>> I'm at a loss to understand your vitriol here. You were the
>> one who came out of the woodwork to try to poke fun at my post
>> (which, BTW, I don't mind a bit), and then, when you failed to
>> take a tongue in cheek response to your own tongue in cheek
>> post, you initiated name calling, and now, when your further
>> embarrassed by your own misunderstanding of almost every thing
>> in this exchange, you launch even more insults.
>
> Wow, you are a piece of work. If I don't understand, according
> to you, you come off all god like to fix it. Even when I
> 'clearly' stated out of the gate that I was not confused. But
> you keep insisting, creating your own truth, if you will. But if
> I say, 'I understand your confusion...' that becomes name
> calling! Where do you get this stuff?
You really need to take a chill pill. First of all, if you really
think that a simple denyal of confusion is, in any way, some sort of
evidence of a lack of confusion, then you're really much more
confused than I ever thought.
Secondly, just as you claim that your comments to me were tongue in
cheek, so were mine. DUH!
thridly, none of the above excuses your resort to name calling and
acrimony. It just doesn't.
>> Exactly of what are you so afraid? If you can't take a little
>> bit of ribbing and poking, I suggest, very strongly, that you
>> should not initiate it.
>
> Ahh, another of your truths, that I'm afraid. Don't you see I
> started with the ribbing but it was you that took the stoic
> stance? Of course not.
So, it's OK for you to rib, but when the ribbing goes in your
direction, it's not, ribbing? Hmmmmm.
Yes, my truth is that you resorted to vitriol with the name-calling.
That's a sure indication of anger, whether you deny it or not, and
anger always springs from fear, whether you believe it, or not.
> BTW, suggest anything you would like but from here I can't
> possibly take you 'seriously'. You are truly weird, with visions
> of grandeur no less...
THAT'S THE POINT! :-) Just as I was not supposed to take you
seriously (and didn't), neither were you supposed to take me
seriously etiher. Sheeeeeesh!
>
>>>>> So I followed with tongue in cheek. But you seem to take
>>>>> yourself so seriously that it went over your head with a
>>>>> swoosh!
>>>> I didn't take myself seriously at all.
>>> Sure looks like it.
>>
>> I'm sure that it did to you.
>
> Still does.. Boring....
I would not have expected you to change your mind.
>>>> You jumped my post in order
>>>> to be a wiseass, and now that you got all caught up in your
>>>> own bullshit, you're too embarrassed to admit it.
>
>>> About as pot/kettle an example as I've seen.
>>
>> That doesn't even begin to make any sense. I'm not the one who
>> jumped your post. You are the one who jumped mine.
>
> Jumped!? Who are you, the usenet cop? You are all serious and
> defensive yet accuse me of getting 'caught up'. Pot/Kettle.
You're horribly confused again. I'll help you to understand it.
You see, this has nothing to do with any kind of enforcement at all
(re: 'cop'). It's simply a fact that you came out of nowhere to
post a jibe at one of my posts (i.e., jumped) for the purpose of
poking a little bit of fun at my wording (which is fine by me), and
so I poked a little bit of fun back when you got all twisted around
(which should've been fine by you), but then you got all huffy and
angry about it.
See it now? To somehow claim that this resitation of the facts
somehow fits me as well as it fits you is just silly. I never
'jumped' any of your posts at all.
> Yet, I understand your confusion.....
I'm sure you think that you do, even though you can't point to any.
:-)
>>>>> 'Clear evidence', you are a pill.....
>>>> I have no doubt you feel that way.
>>> You are becoming boring.....
>>
>> Which begs at least 3 questions......
>
> Gee, I guess I have to make that one clear too. I call you a
> pill and you have no doubt I feel that way. Well Duh! That is what
> I
> wrote! So, I find that boring.
Are you under the impression that any of that had anything to do
with my comment?
> On with your begging...
You're confused yet again. My claim that your comment begs three
questions doesn't mean that I'm the one doing the begging. It means
that your comment begs some questions.
You're having trouble keeping up, aren't you.
DanB
You are still rolling with the same stuff, trying to create a truth
about me. Lame.
> Secondly, just as you claim that your comments to me were tongue in
> cheek, so were mine. DUH!
I pointed it out explicitly, so, what are you talking about?
> thridly, none of the above excuses your resort to name calling and
> acrimony. It just doesn't.
Still the cop and at that, I said woosh and you said wiseass. Are your
laws posted somewhere?
>>> Exactly of what are you so afraid? If you can't take a little
>>> bit of ribbing and poking, I suggest, very strongly, that you
>>> should not initiate it.
>> Ahh, another of your truths, that I'm afraid. Don't you see I
>> started with the ribbing but it was you that took the stoic
>> stance? Of course not.
>
> So, it's OK for you to rib, but when the ribbing goes in your
> direction, it's not, ribbing? Hmmmmm.
Still a pill. You are claiming ribbing yet I see stoic.
> Yes, my truth is that you resorted to vitriol with the name-calling.
> That's a sure indication of anger, whether you deny it or not, and
> anger always springs from fear, whether you believe it, or not.
Boy, talk about needing a chill pill....
>> BTW, suggest anything you would like but from here I can't
>> possibly take you 'seriously'. You are truly weird, with visions
>> of grandeur no less...
>
> THAT'S THE POINT! :-) Just as I was not supposed to take you
> seriously (and didn't), neither were you supposed to take me
> seriously etiher. Sheeeeeesh!
That was lame.
>>>>>> So I followed with tongue in cheek. But you seem to take
>>>>>> yourself so seriously that it went over your head with a
>>>>>> swoosh!
>>>>> I didn't take myself seriously at all.
>>>> Sure looks like it.
>>> I'm sure that it did to you.
>> Still does.. Boring....
>
> I would not have expected you to change your mind.
Yet, you would like to make me?
>>>>> You jumped my post in order
>>>>> to be a wiseass, and now that you got all caught up in your
>>>>> own bullshit, you're too embarrassed to admit it.
>>>> About as pot/kettle an example as I've seen.
>>> That doesn't even begin to make any sense. I'm not the one who
>>> jumped your post. You are the one who jumped mine.
>> Jumped!? Who are you, the usenet cop? You are all serious and
>> defensive yet accuse me of getting 'caught up'. Pot/Kettle.
>
> You're horribly confused again. I'll help you to understand it.
Cheeky.
>
> You see, this has nothing to do with any kind of enforcement at all
> (re: 'cop'). It's simply a fact that you came out of nowhere to
> post a jibe at one of my posts (i.e., jumped) for the purpose of
> poking a little bit of fun at my wording (which is fine by me), and
> so I poked a little bit of fun back when you got all twisted around
> (which should've been fine by you), but then you got all huffy and
> angry about it.
Ha! I'm anything but angry, I'm amused when you are not boring. The more
you stomp your feet the more fun I'm having. 'Jump your post', like you
'own' what post on usenet. Get over it, i.e. grow up...
> See it now? To somehow claim that this resitation of the facts
> somehow fits me as well as it fits you is just silly. I never
> 'jumped' any of your posts at all.
Right... So god like you are...
>> Yet, I understand your confusion.....
>
> I'm sure you think that you do, even though you can't point to any.
> :-)
Right from the start you have been nothing but full of yourself. It is
pretty obvious you are confused and frightened now.
>>>>>> 'Clear evidence', you are a pill.....
>>>>> I have no doubt you feel that way.
>>>> You are becoming boring.....
>>> Which begs at least 3 questions......
>> Gee, I guess I have to make that one clear too. I call you a
>> pill and you have no doubt I feel that way. Well Duh! That is what
>> I
>> wrote! So, I find that boring.
>
> Are you under the impression that any of that had anything to do
> with my comment?
Try a dictionary for 'boring'.
>> On with your begging...
>
> You're confused yet again. My claim that your comment begs three
> questions doesn't mean that I'm the one doing the begging. It means
> that your comment begs some questions.
>
> You're having trouble keeping up, aren't you.
Nope, that your MO is to create truths that suit your agenda is quite
transparent. And your squirming is getting boring.
AllYou!
Did you not claim that a denial of confusion is evidence of the lack
of it?
>> Secondly, just as you claim that your comments to me were
>> tongue in cheek, so were mine. DUH!
>
> I pointed it out explicitly, so, what are you talking about?
Your confusion is duly noted. You pointed it out, but after the
fact. I pointed mine out after the fact too. So what? The fact
remains the we each poked at each other, but you are the only one
who resorted to vitriol over it.
>> thridly, none of the above excuses your resort to name calling
>> and acrimony. It just doesn't.
>
> Still the cop and at that, I said woosh and you said wiseass.
> Are your laws posted somewhere?
A cop enforces rules. I'm not suggesting that there's any rule
against sinking to the level that you did. I'm only pointing out
the fact that you did. See how easily confused you get?
>>>> Exactly of what are you so afraid? If you can't take a little
>>>> bit of ribbing and poking, I suggest, very strongly, that you
>>>> should not initiate it.
>
>>> Ahh, another of your truths, that I'm afraid. Don't you see I
>>> started with the ribbing but it was you that took the stoic
>>> stance? Of course not.
>>
>> So, it's OK for you to rib, but when the ribbing goes in your
>> direction, it's not, ribbing? Hmmmmm.
>
> Still a pill. You are claiming ribbing yet I see stoic.
That's exactly the problem with thin skinned people.
>> Yes, my truth is that you resorted to vitriol with the
>> name-calling. That's a sure indication of anger, whether you
>> deny it or not, and anger always springs from fear, whether you
>> believe it, or not.
>
> Boy, talk about needing a chill pill....
Over your head, wasn't it.
>>> BTW, suggest anything you would like but from here I can't
>>> possibly take you 'seriously'. You are truly weird, with
>>> visions of grandeur no less...
>>
>> THAT'S THE POINT! :-) Just as I was not supposed to take
>> you seriously (and didn't), neither were you supposed to take me
>> seriously etiher. Sheeeeeesh!
>
> That was lame.
WAAAAAAY over your head now.
>>>>>>> So I followed with tongue in cheek. But you seem to take
>>>>>>> yourself so seriously that it went over your head with a
>>>>>>> swoosh!
>>>>>> I didn't take myself seriously at all.
>>>>> Sure looks like it.
>>>> I'm sure that it did to you.
>>> Still does.. Boring....
>>
>> I would not have expected you to change your mind.
>
> Yet, you would like to make me?
Of course not. I sense that you've got huge authority issues with
all of the confusion about cops and rules and laws and now, 'make
me'. Relax. This is just Usenet. :-)
>>>>>> You jumped my post in order
>>>>>> to be a wiseass, and now that you got all caught up in your
>>>>>> own bullshit, you're too embarrassed to admit it.
>>>>> About as pot/kettle an example as I've seen.
>>>> That doesn't even begin to make any sense. I'm not the one
>>>> who jumped your post. You are the one who jumped mine.
>>> Jumped!? Who are you, the usenet cop? You are all serious and
>>> defensive yet accuse me of getting 'caught up'. Pot/Kettle.
>>
>> You're horribly confused again. I'll help you to understand it.
>
> Cheeky.
>
>>
>> You see, this has nothing to do with any kind of enforcement at
>> all (re: 'cop'). It's simply a fact that you came out of
>> nowhere to post a jibe at one of my posts (i.e., jumped) for
>> the purpose of poking a little bit of fun at my wording (which
>> is fine by me), and so I poked a little bit of fun back when
>> you got all twisted around (which should've been fine by you),
>> but then you got all huffy and angry about it.
>
> Ha! I'm anything but angry, I'm amused when you are not boring.
> The more you stomp your feet the more fun I'm having. 'Jump your
> post', like you 'own' what post on usenet. Get over it, i.e.
> grow up...
If you're not angry, then why did you resort to vitriol and
acrimony?
>> See it now? To somehow claim that this resitation of the facts
>> somehow fits me as well as it fits you is just silly. I never
>> 'jumped' any of your posts at all.
>
> Right... So god like you are...
Again with the authority issues. And now, you jumped from cop to
god. Hmmmmm. Have you ever discussed your issues with a
professional?
>>> Yet, I understand your confusion.....
>>
>> I'm sure you think that you do, even though you can't point to
>> any. :-)
>
> Right from the start you have been nothing but full of yourself.
Ironically, it was you who decided to come out of nowhere when you
thought I made a mistake by referring to 3 towers, and not just the
2. THAT was the start.
> It is pretty obvious you are confused and frightened now.
I have no doubt that's the way you see it.
>>>>>>> 'Clear evidence', you are a pill.....
>>>>>> I have no doubt you feel that way.
>>>>> You are becoming boring.....
>>>> Which begs at least 3 questions......
>>> Gee, I guess I have to make that one clear too. I call you a
>>> pill and you have no doubt I feel that way. Well Duh! That is
>>> what I
>>> wrote! So, I find that boring.
>>
>> Are you under the impression that any of that had anything to do
>> with my comment?
>
> Try a dictionary for 'boring'.
OK, but are you under the impression that any of that had anything
to do with my comment?
>>> On with your begging...
>>
>> You're confused yet again. My claim that your comment begs
>> three questions doesn't mean that I'm the one doing the
>> begging. It means that your comment begs some questions.
>>
>> You're having trouble keeping up, aren't you.
>
> Nope, that your MO is to create truths that suit your agenda is
> quite transparent. And your squirming is getting boring.
Did you know that simple minds get bored when the conversation
drifts beyond their intellectual limits? Just asking.
DanB
Nope. Another of your 'truths'?
>>> Secondly, just as you claim that your comments to me were
>>> tongue in cheek, so were mine. DUH!
>> I pointed it out explicitly, so, what are you talking about?
>
> Your confusion is duly noted. You pointed it out, but after the
> fact. I pointed mine out after the fact too. So what? The fact
> remains the we each poked at each other, but you are the only one
> who resorted to vitriol over it.
Pot/Kettle...
>>> thridly, none of the above excuses your resort to name calling
>>> and acrimony. It just doesn't.
>> Still the cop and at that, I said woosh and you said wiseass.
>> Are your laws posted somewhere?
>
> A cop enforces rules. I'm not suggesting that there's any rule
> against sinking to the level that you did. I'm only pointing out
> the fact that you did. See how easily confused you get?
Nope. Let me quote: 'none of the above excuses your resort...' You are
scolding me for some improper conduct that you set the bar on. You are
not getting this, are you?
>>>>> Exactly of what are you so afraid? If you can't take a little
>>>>> bit of ribbing and poking, I suggest, very strongly, that you
>>>>> should not initiate it.
>>>> Ahh, another of your truths, that I'm afraid. Don't you see I
>>>> started with the ribbing but it was you that took the stoic
>>>> stance? Of course not.
>>> So, it's OK for you to rib, but when the ribbing goes in your
>>> direction, it's not, ribbing? Hmmmmm.
>> Still a pill. You are claiming ribbing yet I see stoic.
>
> That's exactly the problem with thin skinned people.
Yawn, pot/kettle...
>>> Yes, my truth is that you resorted to vitriol with the
>>> name-calling. That's a sure indication of anger, whether you
>>> deny it or not, and anger always springs from fear, whether you
>>> believe it, or not.
>> Boy, talk about needing a chill pill....
>
> Over your head, wasn't it.
In your little mind i would suppose.
>
>>>> BTW, suggest anything you would like but from here I can't
>>>> possibly take you 'seriously'. You are truly weird, with
>>>> visions of grandeur no less...
>>> THAT'S THE POINT! :-) Just as I was not supposed to take
>>> you seriously (and didn't), neither were you supposed to take me
>>> seriously etiher. Sheeeeeesh!
>> That was lame.
>
> WAAAAAAY over your head now.
Go God!
>
>>>>>>>> So I followed with tongue in cheek. But you seem to take
>>>>>>>> yourself so seriously that it went over your head with a
>>>>>>>> swoosh!
>>>>>>> I didn't take myself seriously at all.
>>>>>> Sure looks like it.
>>>>> I'm sure that it did to you.
>>>> Still does.. Boring....
>>> I would not have expected you to change your mind.
>> Yet, you would like to make me?
>
> Of course not. I sense that you've got huge authority issues with
> all of the confusion about cops and rules and laws and now, 'make
> me'. Relax. This is just Usenet. :-)
That was lame. You back peddle like a child.
>>>>>>> You jumped my post in order
>>>>>>> to be a wiseass, and now that you got all caught up in your
>>>>>>> own bullshit, you're too embarrassed to admit it.
>>>>>> About as pot/kettle an example as I've seen.
>>>>> That doesn't even begin to make any sense. I'm not the one
>>>>> who jumped your post. You are the one who jumped mine.
>>>> Jumped!? Who are you, the usenet cop? You are all serious and
>>>> defensive yet accuse me of getting 'caught up'. Pot/Kettle.
>>> You're horribly confused again. I'll help you to understand it.
>> Cheeky.
>>
>>> You see, this has nothing to do with any kind of enforcement at
>>> all (re: 'cop'). It's simply a fact that you came out of
>>> nowhere to post a jibe at one of my posts (i.e., jumped) for
>>> the purpose of poking a little bit of fun at my wording (which
>>> is fine by me), and so I poked a little bit of fun back when
>>> you got all twisted around (which should've been fine by you),
>>> but then you got all huffy and angry about it.
>> Ha! I'm anything but angry, I'm amused when you are not boring.
>> The more you stomp your feet the more fun I'm having. 'Jump your
>> post', like you 'own' what post on usenet. Get over it, i.e.
>> grow up...
>
> If you're not angry, then why did you resort to vitriol and
> acrimony?
Errr. That is your invention, you MO.
>>> See it now? To somehow claim that this resitation of the facts
>>> somehow fits me as well as it fits you is just silly. I never
>>> 'jumped' any of your posts at all.
>> Right... So god like you are...
>
> Again with the authority issues. And now, you jumped from cop to
> god. Hmmmmm. Have you ever discussed your issues with a
> professional?
Do you usually get away with this? Just because it works on a grade
school playground...
>
>>>> Yet, I understand your confusion.....
>>> I'm sure you think that you do, even though you can't point to
>>> any. :-)
>> Right from the start you have been nothing but full of yourself.
>
> Ironically, it was you who decided to come out of nowhere when you
> thought I made a mistake by referring to 3 towers, and not just the
> 2. THAT was the start.
There is that 'jump my post' again. And if I had a point it was that you
left one of the buildings out. Changed the subject if you will.
>
>> It is pretty obvious you are confused and frightened now.
>
> I have no doubt that's the way you see it.
Boring.
>>>>>>>> 'Clear evidence', you are a pill.....
>>>>>>> I have no doubt you feel that way.
>>>>>> You are becoming boring.....
>>>>> Which begs at least 3 questions......
>>>> Gee, I guess I have to make that one clear too. I call you a
>>>> pill and you have no doubt I feel that way. Well Duh! That is
>>>> what I
>>>> wrote! So, I find that boring.
>>> Are you under the impression that any of that had anything to do
>>> with my comment?
>> Try a dictionary for 'boring'.
>
> OK, but are you under the impression that any of that had anything
> to do with my comment?
Which begs the question.
>>>> On with your begging...
>>> You're confused yet again. My claim that your comment begs
>>> three questions doesn't mean that I'm the one doing the
>>> begging. It means that your comment begs some questions.
>>>
>>> You're having trouble keeping up, aren't you.
>> Nope, that your MO is to create truths that suit your agenda is
>> quite transparent. And your squirming is getting boring.
>
> Did you know that simple minds get bored when the conversation
> drifts beyond their intellectual limits? Just asking.
You think you are an intellectual now!? You really are confused.
AllYou!
Actually, you did, so yes, it is. Your whole basis for claiming
that I should've known that you were not confused is that you told
me that you were not confused. See how confused you are?
>>>> Secondly, just as you claim that your comments to me were
>>>> tongue in cheek, so were mine. DUH!
>
>>> I pointed it out explicitly, so, what are you talking about?
>>
>> Your confusion is duly noted. You pointed it out, but after the
>> fact. I pointed mine out after the fact too. So what? The
>> fact remains the we each poked at each other, but you are the
>> only one who resorted to vitriol over it.
>
> Pot/Kettle...
Still confused, I see.
>>>> thridly, none of the above excuses your resort to name calling
>>>> and acrimony. It just doesn't.
>
>>> Still the cop and at that, I said woosh and you said wiseass.
>>> Are your laws posted somewhere?
>>
>> A cop enforces rules. I'm not suggesting that there's any rule
>> against sinking to the level that you did. I'm only pointing
>> out the fact that you did. See how easily confused you get?
>
> Nope. Let me quote: 'none of the above excuses your resort...'
> You are scolding me for some improper conduct that you set the
> bar on. You are not getting this, are you?
I find it interesting that you feel scolded, though it does tie in
with your feeling that I'm a cop, or better yet, god.
>>>>>> Exactly of what are you so afraid? If you can't take a
>>>>>> little bit of ribbing and poking, I suggest, very strongly,
>>>>>> that you should not initiate it.
>>>>> Ahh, another of your truths, that I'm afraid. Don't you see I
>>>>> started with the ribbing but it was you that took the stoic
>>>>> stance? Of course not.
>>>> So, it's OK for you to rib, but when the ribbing goes in your
>>>> direction, it's not, ribbing? Hmmmmm.
>
>>> Still a pill. You are claiming ribbing yet I see stoic.
>>
>> That's exactly the problem with thin skinned people.
>
> Yawn, pot/kettle...
In what way?
>>>> Yes, my truth is that you resorted to vitriol with the
>>>> name-calling. That's a sure indication of anger, whether you
>>>> deny it or not, and anger always springs from fear, whether
>>>> you believe it, or not.
>
>>> Boy, talk about needing a chill pill....
>>
>> Over your head, wasn't it.
>
> In your little mind i would suppose.
You'd be wrong.
>>>>> BTW, suggest anything you would like but from here I can't
>>>>> possibly take you 'seriously'. You are truly weird, with
>>>>> visions of grandeur no less...
>>>> THAT'S THE POINT! :-) Just as I was not supposed to take
>>>> you seriously (and didn't), neither were you supposed to take
>>>> me seriously etiher. Sheeeeeesh!
>>> That was lame.
>>
>> WAAAAAAY over your head now.
>
> Go God!
Yes, can I help you?
>>>>>>>>> So I followed with tongue in cheek. But you seem to take
>>>>>>>>> yourself so seriously that it went over your head with a
>>>>>>>>> swoosh!
>>>>>>>> I didn't take myself seriously at all.
>>>>>>> Sure looks like it.
>>>>>> I'm sure that it did to you.
>>>>> Still does.. Boring....
>>>> I would not have expected you to change your mind.
>>> Yet, you would like to make me?
>>
>> Of course not. I sense that you've got huge authority issues
>> with all of the confusion about cops and rules and laws and
>> now, 'make me'. Relax. This is just Usenet. :-)
>
> That was lame. You back peddle like a child.
I guess all you've got left are these child like quips instead of
anything of any interst, so I'll let you go now.
[snip more very confused ramblings]
DanB
...
>>>>> You really need to take a chill pill. First of all, if you
>>>>> really think that a simple denyal of confusion is, in any way,
>>>>> some sort of evidence of a lack of confusion, then you're
>>>>> really much more confused than I ever thought.
>>>> You are still rolling with the same stuff, trying to create a
>>>> truth about me. Lame.
>>> Did you not claim that a denial of confusion is evidence of the
>>> lack of it?
>> Nope. Another of your 'truths'?
>
> Actually, you did, so yes, it is...
This should be rich. Your claim that, 'a denial of confusion is evidence
of the lack of it...' are in my words.
As I never jumped though this convoluted hoop you invented, but you
think so, it shows how very confused you really are.
>>>>> Secondly, just as you claim that your comments to me were
>>>>> tongue in cheek, so were mine. DUH!
>>>> I pointed it out explicitly, so, what are you talking about?
>>> Your confusion is duly noted. You pointed it out, but after the
>>> fact. I pointed mine out after the fact too. So what? The
>>> fact remains the we each poked at each other, but you are the
>>> only one who resorted to vitriol over it.
>> Pot/Kettle...
>
> Still confused, I see.
Nope. But keep squirming...
>>>>> thridly, none of the above excuses your resort to name calling
>>>>> and acrimony. It just doesn't.
>>>> Still the cop and at that, I said woosh and you said wiseass.
>>>> Are your laws posted somewhere?
>>> A cop enforces rules. I'm not suggesting that there's any rule
>>> against sinking to the level that you did. I'm only pointing
>>> out the fact that you did. See how easily confused you get?
>> Nope. Let me quote: 'none of the above excuses your resort...'
>> You are scolding me for some improper conduct that you set the
>> bar on. You are not getting this, are you?
>
> I find it interesting that you feel scolded, though it does tie in
> with your feeling that I'm a cop, or better yet, god.
Projecting again!? I don't feel scolded, read, 'you took it upon youself
to scold me.' You clearly wrote, 'none of the above excuses your
resort...' Your invention that I think you more than a gnat or that I
give a shit if you scold me. Your school yard antics are becoming boring.
>>>>>>> Exactly of what are you so afraid? If you can't take a
>>>>>>> little bit of ribbing and poking, I suggest, very strongly,
>>>>>>> that you should not initiate it.
>>>>>> Ahh, another of your truths, that I'm afraid. Don't you see I
>>>>>> started with the ribbing but it was you that took the stoic
>>>>>> stance? Of course not.
>>>>> So, it's OK for you to rib, but when the ribbing goes in your
>>>>> direction, it's not, ribbing? Hmmmmm.
>>>> Still a pill. You are claiming ribbing yet I see stoic.
>>> That's exactly the problem with thin skinned people.
>> Yawn, pot/kettle...
>
> In what way?
Confused? Why, your thin skin! Do you also have a reading comprehension
problem?
>>>>> Yes, my truth is that you resorted to vitriol with the
>>>>> name-calling. That's a sure indication of anger, whether you
>>>>> deny it or not, and anger always springs from fear, whether
>>>>> you believe it, or not.
>>>> Boy, talk about needing a chill pill....
>>> Over your head, wasn't it.
>> In your little mind i would suppose.
>
> You'd be wrong.
In your little mind...
>>>>>> BTW, suggest anything you would like but from here I can't
>>>>>> possibly take you 'seriously'. You are truly weird, with
>>>>>> visions of grandeur no less...
>>>>> THAT'S THE POINT! :-) Just as I was not supposed to take
>>>>> you seriously (and didn't), neither were you supposed to take
>>>>> me seriously etiher. Sheeeeeesh!
>>>> That was lame.
>>> WAAAAAAY over your head now.
>> Go God!
>
> Yes, can I help you?
... Says it all....
>>>>>>>>>> So I followed with tongue in cheek. But you seem to take
>>>>>>>>>> yourself so seriously that it went over your head with a
>>>>>>>>>> swoosh!
>>>>>>>>> I didn't take myself seriously at all.
>>>>>>>> Sure looks like it.
>>>>>>> I'm sure that it did to you.
>>>>>> Still does.. Boring....
>>>>> I would not have expected you to change your mind.
>>>> Yet, you would like to make me?
>>> Of course not. I sense that you've got huge authority issues
>>> with all of the confusion about cops and rules and laws and
>>> now, 'make me'. Relax. This is just Usenet. :-)
>> That was lame. You back peddle like a child.
>
> I guess all you've got left are these child like quips instead of
> anything of any interst, so I'll let you go now.
Sure you will... You can't help your self as you are all about being
right no matter how screwed up your thinking. But if you really do drop
out that is fine with me. As I've pointed out, you are getting pretty
boring.
>
> [snip more very confused ramblings]
Yea, I know you are ashamed of yourself in this thread....
AllYou!
DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
> Yea, I know you are ashamed of yourself in this thread....
Ahhhhh, the always popular 'I know you are, but what am I?' defense.
Thanks for playing. But seriously, get some help with those
persecution, fear, anger, and authority complex issues.
Ya, I know......
'Pot/Kettle'
:-)
--
"If you ever reach total enlightenment while you're drinking a beer,
I bet it makes beer shoot out your nose."
DanB
> In news:5cGMm.38463$%j4.2...@newsfe18.iad,
> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>
>> Yea, I know you are ashamed of yourself in this thread....
>
> Ahhhhh, the always popular 'I know you are, but what am I?' defense.
I see you don't like your stupid game when you are on the other end.
> Thanks for playing. But seriously, get some help with those
> persecution, fear, anger, and authority complex issues.
Hehe. I know you are but what am I? You are just not getting this are you?
> Ya, I know......
>
> 'Pot/Kettle'
Call'm like I see'm. I see you lied when you posted, "so I'll let you go
now.."
Gota say it again, you are a piece of work...
AllYou!
of stupidity. :-)