"Make America Safe Again"

alukenic...@gmail.com

unread,

Jul 18, 2016, 9:19:15 PM7/18/16

to

We don't even know what that means.

Read More:
http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-672525.html

K Wills

unread,

Jul 19, 2016, 4:50:00 AM7/19/16

to

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 18:19:14 -0700 (PDT), alukenic...@gmail.com
wrote:

>We don't even know what that means.
>
>Read More:
>http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-672525.html

*You* don't know. Please don't suggest everyone has your lack of
intellect.

--
Shill #3.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/

BDK

unread,

Jul 19, 2016, 12:44:58 PM7/19/16

to

In article <a8e08407-995e-4f86...@googlegroups.com>,
alukenic...@gmail.com says...

>
> We don't even know what that means.
>
> Read More:
> http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-672525.html

Wow, your balls and Skippy have you totally figured out.

--
BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of
Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies.
Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former
Black Helicopter color consultant.

BDK

unread,

Jul 19, 2016, 12:47:53 PM7/19/16

to

In article <8dqrobdkcpgcfkpqp...@4ax.com>,
comp...@gmail.com says...

>
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 18:19:14 -0700 (PDT), alukenic...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >We don't even know what that means.
> >
> >Read More:
> >http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-672525.html
>
> *You* don't know. Please don't suggest everyone has your lack of
> intellect.

What are the odds that LOOkey and most of the pop of the Princeton, WV
area are more closely related than Clinton and Trump. That might explain
LOOkey's brain issues. I used the word brain, as opposed to nerve
cluster, as LOOkey is above an insect, in most ways.

Topaz

unread,

Jul 19, 2016, 4:09:21 PM7/19/16

to

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 18:19:14 -0700 (PDT), alukenic...@gmail.com
wrote:

>We don't even know what that means.
>

K Wills

unread,

Jul 20, 2016, 4:55:05 AM7/20/16

to

On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 12:44:51 -0400, BDK <Con...@Worldcontrol.com>
wrote:

>In article <a8e08407-995e-4f86...@googlegroups.com>,
>alukenic...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> We don't even know what that means.
>>
>> Read More:
>> http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-672525.html
>
>Wow, your balls and Skippy have you totally figured out.

So much so, I honestly have to wonder if they aren't Luke just
trying to stir up some sort of controversy. I don't expect to ever
*know*.

BDK

unread,

Jul 20, 2016, 2:21:02 PM7/20/16

to

In article <b3fuobl59ng363889...@4ax.com>,
comp...@gmail.com says...

>
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 12:47:43 -0400, BDK <Con...@Worldcontrol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <8dqrobdkcpgcfkpqp...@4ax.com>,
> >comp...@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 18:19:14 -0700 (PDT), alukenic...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >We don't even know what that means.
> >> >
> >> >Read More:
> >> >http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-672525.html
> >>
> >> *You* don't know. Please don't suggest everyone has your lack of
> >> intellect.
> >
> >What are the odds that LOOkey and most of the pop of the Princeton, WV
> >area are more closely related than Clinton and Trump. That might explain
> >LOOkey's brain issues. I used the word brain, as opposed to nerve
> >cluster, as LOOkey is above an insect, in most ways.
>

> I don't think either Clinton ever stole another's speech and used
> presented it as his or her own.

I think she just read what was given to her to read, and it blew up. I'm
related to an actor who has a big movie coming out. I tracked it down
and it appears his great grandfather was my grandfather's distant
cousin. Never met the guy, I never knew he even existed until he popped
up on TV shows about 10 years ago.

But in LOOkey's universe, we are obviously plotting something evil
together.

BDK

unread,

Jul 20, 2016, 9:40:37 PM7/20/16

to

In article <vc20pb9eq2ugoin3m...@4ax.com>,
comp...@gmail.com says...
>
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 14:20:55 -0400, BDK <Con...@Worldcontrol.com>
> wrote:
>
> [...]

>
> >> >What are the odds that LOOkey and most of the pop of the Princeton, WV
> >> >area are more closely related than Clinton and Trump. That might explain
> >> >LOOkey's brain issues. I used the word brain, as opposed to nerve
> >> >cluster, as LOOkey is above an insect, in most ways.
> >>
> >> I don't think either Clinton ever stole another's speech and used
> >> presented it as his or her own.
> >
> >I think she just read what was given to her to read, and it blew up.
>

> It's almost assured a speech writer was employed. This would be
> the norm. However, it is Melania who gave the speech, so it falls on
> her.

>
> >I'm
> >related to an actor who has a big movie coming out. I tracked it down
> >and it appears his great grandfather was my grandfather's distant
> >cousin. Never met the guy, I never knew he even existed until he popped
> >up on TV shows about 10 years ago.
> >
>

> Is it Dale Midkiff? Don't give me right if I'm not right :)

That's too funny. No, it's not him. I've barely heard of him. The guy
I'm talking about does not have leading man looks, that's for sure. He's
not a pretty boy, he's the character actor type. And without a doubt,
he's the ugliest of any of my relatives, at least the ones I know of.

> What's kind of funny, is that I tend to imagine what people from
> Usenet look like, if I don't know. I've always envisioned you looking
> like Dale Midkiff.

I look like a semi hairless gorilla. With the hairless part being on my
head.

> Don't try to deny the connection. Like Dale, you have one nose.
> Two eyes AND two ears. I bet you have a single mouth as well. In Luke
> Logic (TM) this is absolute PROOF that you do look like the actor!

And I'm playing him, according to Ed. Or he's playing me..I don't know..

>
> >But in LOOkey's universe, we are obviously plotting something evil
> >together.
>

> Back in the 80's and early 90's, when I was quite obese, I was
> often told that if I were to lighten my hair color, I could pass for
> being John Candy's son. There is, as far as I am aware, no family
> connection. I doubt he's of Romani heritage, though having done no
> research, I must state it is POSSIBLE.
> But Luke may well believe we are, or were since John is dead,
> plotting something. Something sinister.

LOOkey and Ed both probably don't think he's even dead.

> As a joke I did once write to Mel Brooks' company offering to
> play the part of Barf's son in a sequel to Spaceballs. This was in, I
> think, 1995. I'm not 100% sure of the year, but it was after John
> died.

I think LOOkey has that locked up.

> As of my writing this, I've not heard back. I'm starting to lose
> hope in getting the part :)

Awwww.

BDK

unread,

Jul 21, 2016, 10:15:09 AM7/21/16

to

In article <qo41pbhlqd00ntpm6...@4ax.com>,
comp...@gmail.com says...

>
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 21:40:29 -0400, BDK <Con...@Worldcontrol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <vc20pb9eq2ugoin3m...@4ax.com>,
> >comp...@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 14:20:55 -0400, BDK <Con...@Worldcontrol.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> >> >What are the odds that LOOkey and most of the pop of the Princeton, WV
> >> >> >area are more closely related than Clinton and Trump. That might explain
> >> >> >LOOkey's brain issues. I used the word brain, as opposed to nerve
> >> >> >cluster, as LOOkey is above an insect, in most ways.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't think either Clinton ever stole another's speech and used
> >> >> presented it as his or her own.
> >> >
> >> >I think she just read what was given to her to read, and it blew up.
> >>
> >> It's almost assured a speech writer was employed. This would be
> >> the norm. However, it is Melania who gave the speech, so it falls on
> >> her.
> >>
> >> >I'm
> >> >related to an actor who has a big movie coming out. I tracked it down
> >> >and it appears his great grandfather was my grandfather's distant
> >> >cousin. Never met the guy, I never knew he even existed until he popped
> >> >up on TV shows about 10 years ago.
> >>
> >> Is it Dale Midkiff? Don't give me right if I'm not right :)
> >
> >That's too funny. No, it's not him. I've barely heard of him.
>

> Other than Pet Semetary and Timetrax, I don't know that he's done
> any other work. And I only watched Timetrax because of Mia Sara. By
> the time she ceased appearing, I had become hooked on the show.

>
> >The guy
> >I'm talking about does not have leading man looks, that's for sure.
>

> Charles Bronson did fairly well looking as he did. As such,
> there is hope for him.

Bronson was MUCH better looking than my relative is. And he's doing
fairly well, even by Hollywood standards. He's getting $2million a
shot..

>
> >He's
> >not a pretty boy, he's the character actor type. And without a doubt,
> >he's the ugliest of any of my relatives, at least the ones I know of.
> >
>

> Character actors are very important to Hollywood. Without them,
> the leads wouldn't look so talented.
> My all time favorite character actor is John Colicos. He is known
> for playing parts like Kor, the Klingon in an episode of Star Trek
> (TOS and DS9). He also played Boltar in the original, and best,
> Battlestar Gallactica.
> It was sad when he died.

I liked him, he always played murderers and stuff. Another guy who I
knew was Simon Oakland. He used to come to Vegas and stay in a crappy
motel I was doing security at. He was really nice and I talked to him
quite a few times. I also was neighbors with Tony "The Ant" Spilotro, of
"Casino" movie fame. Our yellow Labs played and walked together a couple
of times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Spilotro

He died bad..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t9x_y3vFic

>
> >> What's kind of funny, is that I tend to imagine what people from
> >> Usenet look like, if I don't know. I've always envisioned you looking
> >> like Dale Midkiff.
> >
> >I look like a semi hairless gorilla. With the hairless part being on my
> >head.
> >
>

> <LukeLogic (TM) mode>
>
> I'd expect someone who looks a lot like Dale Midkiff to deny
> looking like him. That PROVES you DO look like him.
>
> </mode>

I wish.

>
> >> Don't try to deny the connection. Like Dale, you have one nose.
> >> Two eyes AND two ears. I bet you have a single mouth as well. In Luke
> >> Logic (TM) this is absolute PROOF that you do look like the actor!
> >
> >And I'm playing him, according to Ed. Or he's playing me..I don't know..
> >
>

> We would need Eddie to know for sure.

>
> >> >But in LOOkey's universe, we are obviously plotting something evil
> >> >together.
> >>
> >> Back in the 80's and early 90's, when I was quite obese, I was
> >> often told that if I were to lighten my hair color, I could pass for
> >> being John Candy's son. There is, as far as I am aware, no family
> >> connection. I doubt he's of Romani heritage, though having done no
> >> research, I must state it is POSSIBLE.
> >> But Luke may well believe we are, or were since John is dead,
> >> plotting something. Something sinister.
> >
> >LOOkey and Ed both probably don't think he's even dead.
> >
>

> If I were still fat, and did something news worthy, I'm sure
> Eddie would claim John and I are the same person.

>
> >> As a joke I did once write to Mel Brooks' company offering to
> >> play the part of Barf's son in a sequel to Spaceballs. This was in, I
> >> think, 1995. I'm not 100% sure of the year, but it was after John
> >> died.
> >
> >I think LOOkey has that locked up.
> >
>

> Nah. He can't even play the part of a Christian convincingly.
> The level of acting necessary to play a major role in a fill is far
> beyond Luke's abilities.
> To be honest, it's probably beyond mine as well. There is a
> reason the whole of my acting career consists of being an extra on a
> few TV shows.

>
> >> As of my writing this, I've not heard back. I'm starting to lose
> >> hope in getting the part :)
> >
> >Awwww.
>

> <Carl Spackler Mode>
>
> So, I tell them I'm a pro actor, and who do you think they give
> me? *The* Matt Damon, himself. Mr.Jason Borne. The tight t-shirt, the
> grace, bad hair cut... striking.
> So, I'm on the first tee with him. I give him the driver. He
> hauls off and whacks one - big hitter, Matt Damon- long, into a
> ten-thousand foot crevasse, right at the base of this glacier. Do you
> know what the Matt Damon says? "Matt Damon."
> So we finish the eighteenth and he's gonna stiff me. And I say,
> "Hey, Matt, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the
> effort, you know?"
> And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die,
> on your deathbed, you will receive a killer part in a Kevin Smith
> film." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.
>
> </mode>

Congrats.

Government Shill #2

unread,

Jul 21, 2016, 10:23:27 PM7/21/16

to

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 18:19:14 -0700 (PDT), alukenic...@gmail.com wrote:

>We don't even know what that means.

Getting rid of all the assault rifles would be a good start.

Shill #2
--
"I'm a different kind of looney than Westboro Baptist Church."
Andrew Luke Nichols
alt.conspiracy - 06 December 2012

BDK

unread,

Jul 21, 2016, 11:27:52 PM7/21/16

to

In article <bo03pbl2l9tbjmoo5...@4ax.com>,
gov....@gmail.com says...

>
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 18:19:14 -0700 (PDT), alukenic...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >We don't even know what that means.
>
> Getting rid of all the assault rifles would be a good start.
>
> Shill #2

And what about the "non assault" rifles that differ mainly in looks, but
no one seems to care anything about?

The number of mass killings done with assault rifles is minuscule. Just
keeping loons from having guns would be the biggest help..

Government Shill #2

unread,

Jul 22, 2016, 12:18:06 AM7/22/16

to

On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 23:27:43 -0400, BDK <Con...@Worldcontrol.com> wrote:

>In article <bo03pbl2l9tbjmoo5...@4ax.com>,
>gov....@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 18:19:14 -0700 (PDT), alukenic...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >We don't even know what that means.
>>
>> Getting rid of all the assault rifles would be a good start.
>>
>> Shill #2
>
>And what about the "non assault" rifles that differ mainly in looks, but
>no one seems to care anything about?

That's why I said it'd be a good start. Not the only thing. One thing at a
time? :-)

>The number of mass killings done with assault rifles is minuscule. Just
>keeping loons from having guns would be the biggest help..

Having loons in nice, cozy, asylums would be another good place to start.

Shill #2
--
"He's a fake kook. I'm a real one."
andrew luke nichols
alt.conspiracy - 19 March 2012

alukenic...@gmail.com

unread,

Jul 22, 2016, 7:47:35 AM7/22/16

to

Ladies and Gents, I do believe we are seeing the rise of the Police State.

Luke

BDK

unread,

Jul 22, 2016, 11:33:33 AM7/22/16

to

In article <07n3pbh7kfvh6d3rg...@4ax.com>,
comp...@gmail.com says...
>
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 10:15:03 -0400, BDK <Con...@Worldcontrol.com>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>

> >> >The guy
> >> >I'm talking about does not have leading man looks, that's for sure.
> >>
> >> Charles Bronson did fairly well looking as he did. As such,
> >> there is hope for him.
> >
> >
> >Bronson was MUCH better looking than my relative is.
>

> YIKES!

>
> >And he's doing
> >fairly well, even by Hollywood standards. He's getting $2million a
> >shot..
>

> Not too shabby.

>
> >> >He's
> >> >not a pretty boy, he's the character actor type. And without a doubt,
> >> >he's the ugliest of any of my relatives, at least the ones I know of.
> >>
> >> Character actors are very important to Hollywood. Without them,
> >> the leads wouldn't look so talented.
> >> My all time favorite character actor is John Colicos. He is known
> >> for playing parts like Kor, the Klingon in an episode of Star Trek
> >> (TOS and DS9). He also played Boltar in the original, and best,
> >> Battlestar Gallactica.
> >> It was sad when he died.
> >
> >I liked him, he always played murderers and stuff. Another guy who I
> >knew was Simon Oakland. He used to come to Vegas and stay in a crappy
> >motel I was doing security at. He was really nice and I talked to him
> >quite a few times. I also was neighbors with Tony "The Ant" Spilotro, of
> >"Casino" movie fame. Our yellow Labs played and walked together a couple
> >of times.
> >
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Spilotro
> >
>

> I always presumed "Ant" came from the first three letters of his
> name. The idea of Piss ant had never crossed my mind.

At 5'2", he was about the opposite of what I thought of as a hit
man/enforcer.

> It's said you learn something new every day.

>
> >He died bad..
> >
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t9x_y3vFic
> >
>

> Is that how he died in real life? Not a pleasant way to go, but
> there are worse ways.

Yeah, that's how he really died, buried alive. I can't think of too many
worse ways than getting the crap beat out of you with a bat, and then
dumped into a shallow grave, especially if you are awake.

>
> >> >> What's kind of funny, is that I tend to imagine what people from
> >> >> Usenet look like, if I don't know. I've always envisioned you looking
> >> >> like Dale Midkiff.
> >> >
> >> >I look like a semi hairless gorilla. With the hairless part being on my
> >> >head.
> >>
> >> <LukeLogic (TM) mode>
> >>
> >> I'd expect someone who looks a lot like Dale Midkiff to deny
> >> looking like him. That PROVES you DO look like him.
> >>
> >> </mode>
> >
> >I wish.
> >
>

> I kind of wish I resembled him as well.
>
> [...]

>
> >> >> As of my writing this, I've not heard back. I'm starting to lose
> >> >> hope in getting the part :)
> >> >
> >> >Awwww.
> >>
> >> <Carl Spackler Mode>
> >>
> >> So, I tell them I'm a pro actor, and who do you think they give
> >> me? *The* Matt Damon, himself. Mr.Jason Borne. The tight t-shirt, the
> >> grace, bad hair cut... striking.
> >> So, I'm on the first tee with him. I give him the driver. He
> >> hauls off and whacks one - big hitter, Matt Damon- long, into a
> >> ten-thousand foot crevasse, right at the base of this glacier. Do you
> >> know what the Matt Damon says? "Matt Damon."
> >> So we finish the eighteenth and he's gonna stiff me. And I say,
> >> "Hey, Matt, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the
> >> effort, you know?"
> >> And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die,
> >> on your deathbed, you will receive a killer part in a Kevin Smith
> >> film." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.
> >>
> >> </mode>
> >
> >Congrats.
>

> Didn't you get the reference?

Nope, I saw it once a long time ago, and that was enough for me. A whole
lotta watch looking going on that night at the movies. Not as annoying
as Ghostbusters. Damn I hated that POS.

Government Shill #2

unread,

Jul 22, 2016, 7:58:38 PM7/22/16

to

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 03:44:35 -0500, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 12:23:20 +1000, Government Shill #2
><gov....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 18:19:14 -0700 (PDT), alukenic...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>We don't even know what that means.
>>
>>Getting rid of all the assault rifles would be a good start.
>>
>

> It will never happen so long as the Second Amendment is in
>effect. If another Amendment nullifying the Second is ratified, then
>it can happen.

Sadly, I think that you are right.

Luckily, I live in a different country.

Shill #2
--
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already
tomorrow in Australia.
Charles M. Schulz (1922 - 2000)

Government Shill #2

unread,

Jul 22, 2016, 8:02:52 PM7/22/16

to

You have no idea what a Police State is.

This doesn't shock me. You have no idea about numerous subjects.

Topaz

unread,

Jul 23, 2016, 6:53:59 AM7/23/16

to

On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 09:58:34 +1000, Government Shill #2

<gov....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 03:44:35 -0500, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 12:23:20 +1000, Government Shill #2
>><gov....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 18:19:14 -0700 (PDT), alukenic...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>We don't even know what that means.
>>>
>>>Getting rid of all the assault rifles would be a good start.
>>>
>>

Since the USA government did 911, is disarming the citizens really a
good idea?

CIA insider tells 911 truth. Time to re-examine your World-view,
America!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnbMjAN7Bws

The sudden, complete, straight down at near free-fall speed collapse
of steel framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes,
is the SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's few small
fires and superficial debris damage could not account for this
collapse, which had all the earmarks of controlled demolition by
explosives. Videos clearly show this. Such demolitions take many days
or weeks to set up - not the few hours between the plane "attacks" and
the collapse. The explosives therefore had to be put in place
BEFOREHAND. This lends credibility to the use of previously placed
explosives to bring down the towers as well, which like the badly
damaged and fire-gutted Deutchbank building would probably have
remained standing.

Propaganda shills, disinformationists, and those in psychological
denial still insist the collapse of WTC 7 could not be what it
obviously was, and they employ often ludicrous rationalizations and
fabrications, elaborate lies, and infantile ad-hominem attacks to
defend their indefensible position. The REAL terrorists are desperate
to cover up their mass-murderous crime of the century - the permitting
if not perpetration of, and subsequent political and economic
exploitation of the fully preventable 9/11 disaster.

Could Bin Laden have somehow totally incapacitated NORAD - the world's
most sophisticated aerospace defense system - on that horrible
morning? I don't think so!

There is evidence of an INSIDE JOB even more clear and indisputable
than the explosive demolition collapse of building 7 and the standing
down of NORAD. Many very small HUMAN BODY FRAGMENTS have been found on
the roofs of nearby buildings. These were too far away to be from
jumpers from the towers. If the towers simply collapsed from damage
and fire alone, what blew these bodies to smithereens and sent the
fragments flying for considerable distances? The plane impacts did not
have the explosive brisance (shattering force) necessary to do this -
only HIGH EXPLOSIVES can blow bodies to tiny bits and throw them such
distances.

So - who can credibly account for these body fragments, other than
their being the result of high explosives being detonated in the
towers?

The following article proves, using the inviolate laws of physics, the
falsity of the government's propaganda explanation for the World Trade
Center building collapses:

SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE - GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK

On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade
Center (WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent
people. Videos of the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for
days. About 5 hours after the towers fell, WTC building 7 also
collapsed suddenly, completely, and straight down at near free-fall
speed. This steel-framed building was not touched by the planes that
struck the towers, and had sustained relatively minor debris damage
and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily damaged remained
standing.

In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan
Reynolds, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates stated, "The American people know what they saw with their own
eyes on September11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government
conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale."

We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's
tale that's "beyond the pale!"

Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics,
and the emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have
stymied objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of
authoritarian assertions?

The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told
us that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now
referred to as a "pancake collapse". According to the government
claims, the plane crashes and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet
fuel is NOT exotic) fires heated the UL-certified structural steel to
the point where it was significantly weakened, which is very difficult
to believe, never mind repeat in an experiment. Even with massive
fires that incinerate everything else, the steel frames of such
buildings generally remain standing.

According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical
evidence was quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly
caused part of the tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the
tower, which, we've been repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain
reaction of the lower floors sequentially, one at a time, yielding to
the weight falling from above.

There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the
observed facts

* It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical
steel core columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the
next.

* The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to
gravity
alone.

This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from
the air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the
tower. Those undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered
resistance thousands of times greater than that of air. Those lower
stories, and the central steel core columns, had successfully
supported the mass of the tower for 30 years despite hurricane-force
winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.

Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the
way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively without friction
as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing
the fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute?

What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers
could not have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower
stories, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is
shown to be physically impossible!

So WHERE DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?

Conclusions

In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the
observed duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more
of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met

* The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero
resistance to the collapse.
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any
expenditure of energy.
* The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by
magic.

None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible,
conditions can be accounted for by the official government theory of
9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to
prop up this official myth of 9/11.

The Bottom Line

It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the
WTC collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the
plane impacts.

The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that
the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but
rather they came down because something else was causing them to
disintegrate.

So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates'
other premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is
left to you to decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly
incorrect presumptions, is also flawed.

The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, also
collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192

No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever
collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel
columns

Understanding the full truth of 9/11 seems to require two separate
awakenings.

The first, awakening to the fraudulence of the "official 9/11 story,"
is a pretty simple brain function and only requires a little study,
logic or curiosity. We can help a lot with that part here and it's a
major purpose of this site.

The second step, however, consciously confronting the implications of
that knowledge--and what it says about our media, politics and
economic system today--is by far the harder awakening and requires an
enormous exercise of nerve and heart. (As the Chinese say, "You cannot
wake up a man who is pretending to sleep.") In other words, this part
of the journey depends more on character than on maps and evidence so
we can't help you much here, except to point out inspiring heroes and
heroines who have courageously faced that truth, spoken out, and
survived...

K Wills

unread,

Jul 23, 2016, 8:56:17 AM7/23/16

to

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 04:47:34 -0700 (PDT), alukenic...@gmail.com
wrote:

You also believed the end was going to occur a while back. You
even had a count down timer.
You believe a lot that is not a part of reality.

alukenic...@gmail.com

unread,

Jul 24, 2016, 3:15:07 PM7/24/16

to

On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 8:56:17 AM UTC-4, K Wills wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 04:47:34 -0700 (PDT), alukenic...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 9:19:15 PM UTC-4, alukenic...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> We don't even know what that means.
> >>
> >> Read More:
> >> http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-672525.html
> >
> >Ladies and Gents, I do believe we are seeing the rise of the Police State.
> >
>
> You also believed the end was going to occur a while back. You
> even had a count down timer.
> You believe a lot that is not a part of reality.
>

I still have a Countdown Clock. This time I added the extra days from the prophecy in the Book of Daniel.

It's +/- a bit, but should be real close.

http://seven-years.bravehost.com/index.html

BDK

unread,

Jul 24, 2016, 4:56:42 PM7/24/16

to

In article <65dea803-0f70-44ab...@googlegroups.com>,
alukenic...@gmail.com says...

You get off on this stuff don't you?

Government Shill #2

unread,

Jul 24, 2016, 5:03:45 PM7/24/16

to

On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 12:15:06 -0700 (PDT), alukenic...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 8:56:17 AM UTC-4, K Wills wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 04:47:34 -0700 (PDT), alukenic...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 9:19:15 PM UTC-4, alukenic...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> We don't even know what that means.
>> >>
>> >> Read More:
>> >> http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-672525.html
>> >
>> >Ladies and Gents, I do believe we are seeing the rise of the Police State.
>> >
>>
>> You also believed the end was going to occur a while back. You
>> even had a count down timer.
>> You believe a lot that is not a part of reality.
>>
>
>I still have a Countdown Clock. This time I added the extra days from the prophecy in the Book of Daniel.
>
>It's +/- a bit, but should be real close.

Like the last half dozen times you were "real close"?

K Wills

unread,

Jul 25, 2016, 5:05:11 AM7/25/16

to

On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 12:15:06 -0700 (PDT), alukenic...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 8:56:17 AM UTC-4, K Wills wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 04:47:34 -0700 (PDT), alukenic...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 9:19:15 PM UTC-4, alukenic...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> We don't even know what that means.
>> >>
>> >> Read More:
>> >> http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-672525.html
>> >
>> >Ladies and Gents, I do believe we are seeing the rise of the Police State.
>>
>> You also believed the end was going to occur a while back. You
>> even had a count down timer.
>> You believe a lot that is not a part of reality.
>>
>
>I still have a Countdown Clock. This time I added the extra days from the prophecy in the Book of Daniel.
>
>It's +/- a bit, but should be real close.

What LIE will you offer to honor your true god, Satan, when this
counter reaches zero with nothing occurring? What will you offer a
month later? Six months later? And so on and so on...

[Cue Luke running to hide from the truth.]