Re: Asia is NOT attacking The USA and NATO: Millions are Dying because the United Snakes and Europe are Attacking the Innocent People of the Middle East
John Smith
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 20:42:41 -0700, John Smith<bit_b...@gmx.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/11/2011 8:04 PM, zayton wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> So, you think the CIA can project a hologram in a clear sky with no medium
>>> to project it on, but can't sync sound to the projection. The combination of
>>> credulity and stupidity required to entertain both of those notions at the
>>> same time is astounding.
>>
>> When you consider that the SR-71 Blackbird was first flown in the late
>> 1950s, when such a plane was widely still considered to be science
>> fiction ... I would, naturally, suspect they now have something just as
>> amazing and we would consider still in the realm of science ...
>> especially since the billions or even trillions which have been thrown
>> at black op development projects ...
>>
>> Perhaps here, it would be wise to never say never ...
>
> Perhaps it would be wise to distinguish wild speculation from actual
> evidence.
Wild speculation?
What part? That the SR-71 was designed and built in the 1950s.
That most scientists, back then, were unaware that such technology had
actually went beyond theory and had been implemented and was in use?
That an analogy of this, being made to suggest what is most likely
occurring today, is in error?
Funny, I think it all either absolute fact, or highly probably and based
in reality!
Regards,
JS
raven1
wrote:
>On 5/12/2011 8:04 AM, raven1 wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 May 2011 20:42:41 -0700, John Smith<bit_b...@gmx.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/11/2011 8:04 PM, zayton wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> So, you think the CIA can project a hologram in a clear sky with no medium
>>>> to project it on, but can't sync sound to the projection. The combination of
>>>> credulity and stupidity required to entertain both of those notions at the
>>>> same time is astounding.
>>>
>>> When you consider that the SR-71 Blackbird was first flown in the late
>>> 1950s, when such a plane was widely still considered to be science
>>> fiction ... I would, naturally, suspect they now have something just as
>>> amazing and we would consider still in the realm of science ...
>>> especially since the billions or even trillions which have been thrown
>>> at black op development projects ...
>>>
>>> Perhaps here, it would be wise to never say never ...
>>
>> Perhaps it would be wise to distinguish wild speculation from actual
>> evidence.
>
>Wild speculation?
>
>What part? That the SR-71 was designed and built in the 1950s.
>
>That most scientists, back then, were unaware that such technology had
>actually went beyond theory and had been implemented and was in use?
I think you're playing fast and loose with the word "theory" here. The
SR-71 was more a feat of engineering than theory.
>That an analogy of this, being made to suggest what is most likely
>occurring today, is in error?
How do you know what is likely occurring today? Based on what
evidence?
I was thinking along the lines of "So, you think the CIA can project
a hologram in a clear sky with no medium to project it on"
Do you have any evidence to suggest that this can be done, or is this,
again, speculation? And quite frankly, which is a more likely
explanation? That airplanes were used, or holograms? What happens if
the hologram equipment fails in mid-attack, and the plane just
vanishes?
>Funny, I think it all either absolute fact, or highly probably and based
>in reality!
Again, based on evidence, or speculation?
John Smith
>
> How do you know what is likely occurring today? Based on what
> evidence?
>
No one can, for an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, however, the military ALWAYS will
only declassify superior technology when the have something better ...
Janes (www.janes.com) is a good site to research this on. Or, any sites
which have an overview of historic military technology.
> I was thinking along the lines of "So, you think the CIA can project
> a hologram in a clear sky with no medium to project it on"
>
If two "invisible" laser beams intersect each other, at a point, the
frequency of the resulting light can be in the humanly visible spectrum.
Ever see the glass cubes with the "etchings of objects" in the interior?
This is the result of two laser beams, each of which passes the glass
without harming it. However, where the two beams cross/intersect, a
"fracturing" of the glass results at that small point. Tightly
controlled and manipulated, the "etching" is drawn ... visible
"pictures" can be drawn in the plain atmosphere using the same method,
with the two "invisible" beams already mentioned. This is done very
rapidly, but then, so is a picture "painted" on a TV picture tube, it
works quite nicely, since the human eye/brain is so slow in processing ...
> Do you have any evidence to suggest that this can be done, or is this,
> again, speculation? And quite frankly, which is a more likely
> explanation? That airplanes were used, or holograms? What happens if
> the hologram equipment fails in mid-attack, and the plane just
> vanishes?
>
Yes, if the beams cease to quit rapidly redrawing the "picture" in the
atmosphere, the picture ceases to exist. And the above applies ...
>> Funny, I think it all either absolute fact, or highly probably and based
>> in reality!
>
> Again, based on evidence, or speculation?
Proof ... the evidence is that it is already being done ...
Regards,
JS
Marc Riehm
> On Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:27 -0700, John Smith<bit_b...@gmx.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/12/2011 8:04 AM, raven1 wrote:
> I was thinking along the lines of "So, you think the CIA can project
> a hologram in a clear sky with no medium to project it on"
>
> Do you have any evidence to suggest that this can be done, or is this,
> again, speculation? And quite frankly, which is a more likely
> explanation? That airplanes were used, or holograms? What happens if
> the hologram equipment fails in mid-attack, and the plane just
> vanishes?
>
Such hologram equipment simply does not exist.
raven1
wrote:
Well duh. Tell that to the kooks.
raven1
wrote:
>On 5/12/2011 1:46 PM, raven1 wrote:
>
>>
>> How do you know what is likely occurring today? Based on what
>> evidence?
>>
>
>No one can, for an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, however, the military ALWAYS will
>only declassify superior technology when the have something better ...
>Janes (www.janes.com) is a good site to research this on. Or, any sites
>which have an overview of historic military technology.
IOW, based on nothing but your speculation.
>> I was thinking along the lines of "So, you think the CIA can project
>> a hologram in a clear sky with no medium to project it on"
>>
>
>If two "invisible" laser beams intersect each other, at a point, the
>frequency of the resulting light can be in the humanly visible spectrum.
>
>Ever see the glass cubes with the "etchings of objects" in the interior?
> This is the result of two laser beams, each of which passes the glass
>without harming it. However, where the two beams cross/intersect, a
>"fracturing" of the glass results at that small point. Tightly
>controlled and manipulated, the "etching" is drawn ... visible
>"pictures" can be drawn in the plain atmosphere using the same method,
>with the two "invisible" beams already mentioned. This is done very
>rapidly, but then, so is a picture "painted" on a TV picture tube, it
>works quite nicely, since the human eye/brain is so slow in processing ...
Have I mentioned yet that holograms look like holograms, not like
solid objects?
>> Do you have any evidence to suggest that this can be done, or is this,
>> again, speculation? And quite frankly, which is a more likely
>> explanation? That airplanes were used, or holograms? What happens if
>> the hologram equipment fails in mid-attack, and the plane just
>> vanishes?
>>
>
>Yes, if the beams cease to quit rapidly redrawing the "picture" in the
>atmosphere, the picture ceases to exist. And the above applies ...
Have I mentioned yet that holograms look like holograms, not like
solid objects?
>>> Funny, I think it all either absolute fact, or highly probably and based
>>> in reality!
>>
>> Again, based on evidence, or speculation?
>
>Proof ... the evidence is that it is already being done ...
You've provided no evidence at all, just speculation. And very silly
speculation at that. For your next trick, please investigate whether
whales built Stonehenge.
John Smith
This is all your supposition. You offer nothing to back up your
statements, personal conclusions and opinions ... others here will
engage you on the level of discussion you put forward, keep up looking ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
Just keep in mind, you are speaking to someone, here, who actually
thinks the inside job involved criminal elements of our government
finding, funding, training and implementing the inside job with foreign
radicals which were inducted to do the job.
Although speculation on how it could have been accomplished with other
means is interesting, and I would hope a valid investigation even delves
into this, just to establish reality over all aspects of the inside job,
I tend to allow for real planes/drones/etc. hitting the building ... all
the interesting evidence and proofs which exist are not based on whether
a physical flying object struct the WTC buildings or not (and of course
NO PLANE ever struck building 7 which fell just like the twin towers.)
9/11 stands as an inside job no matter what. So, naturally, the planes
are of interest to a subset of all those whose interests center around 9/11.
SUMMARY: Any discussions just focusing on the planes is too limited and
misses the real physical proofs ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> On May 12, 7:02 pm, John Smith<bit_buc...@gmx.com> wrote:
>> On 5/12/2011 4:39 PM, oldwifetale wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> Which parts, precisely, have been proven false by videos?
>>
>> I believe this is the one talked about, your research should turn up a
>> better analysis and more fraudulent tapes, of course ...
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41UAnkQARFs
>>
>> Regards,
>> JS
>
> My research?
>
> I just watched that video about 5 times. To *me* the man in the video
> seems to be gesturing the same way other films have shown. He holds
> his hand palm-up, which i had noticed him doing one time in another
> video. His long thumb, especially, is shaped like what i have seen
> before. To me, it didn't appear that he was writing with his right
> hand, it appeared that he was putting something in his mouth - eating.
> I do not know the customs of ObL or his people, but i do know that
> *some* people from the middle-east eat *only* with their right hands
> as part of religious beliefs, whereas there are other things - such as
> pertaining to hygiene - that must only be done with the left hand. It
> may be said that he is left-handed, but where in that film is it
> obvious that he was writing? I don't see it. All i see is that he
> brought something up to his mouth, in his hand, and then put his hand
> back down. Also he had a very distinctive long nose. The low quality
> of the film prevents seeing it, but if you 'blur' your eyes to remove
> the appearance of pixels, it appears to be the same long, straight
> nose when he is facing the camera. Personally, i don't see anything
> about the film to indicate it is fake.
That tape, while done in stunning "Hollywood Style", with backdrops and
props from a movie studio, is only as good as the evidence which is
actually presented. Obviously, that is not a video forensics lab where
real videos are given real analysis ...
The expert is rather unclear on exactly which tape he is analyzing.
Here is one of tapes I am referring to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19eVwHAbmRI&feature=related
I'd say something is wrong. Perhaps the "expert" using facial
recognition was slipped a tape which is not in dispute?
Here is a discussion of the tape, centered around the CIA fraud:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8v9O9T-8wU
Undoubtedly, your researching abilities once you blow off the dust and
get more practice ...
Regards,
JS
raven1
wrote:
>On 5/12/2011 7:31 PM, raven1 wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 May 2011 19:47:07 -0400, Marc Riehm<mri...@sympatico.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11-05-12 4:46 PM, raven1 wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:27 -0700, John Smith<bit_b...@gmx.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/12/2011 8:04 AM, raven1 wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> I was thinking along the lines of "So, you think the CIA can project
>>>> a hologram in a clear sky with no medium to project it on"
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any evidence to suggest that this can be done, or is this,
>>>> again, speculation? And quite frankly, which is a more likely
>>>> explanation? That airplanes were used, or holograms? What happens if
>>>> the hologram equipment fails in mid-attack, and the plane just
>>>> vanishes?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Such hologram equipment simply does not exist.
>>
>> Well duh. Tell that to the kooks.
>>
>
>Just keep in mind, you are speaking to someone, here, who actually
>thinks the inside job involved criminal elements of our government
>finding, funding, training and implementing the inside job with foreign
>radicals which were inducted to do the job.
Yes, I do keep that in mind. I have no illusions that I'm going to
convince a "Truther" of the silliness of their position(s): my goal is
to point that silliness out to the general public.
John Smith
> On May 13, 4:45 am, John Smith<bit_buc...@gmx.com> wrote:
>> On 5/12/2011 8:04 PM, oldwifetale wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> ...
>>>> My research?
>>
>>>> I just watched that video about 5 times. To *me* the man in the video
>>>> seems to be gesturing the same way other films have shown. He holds
>>>> his hand palm-up, which i had noticed him doing one time in another
>>>> video. His long thumb, especially, is shaped like what i have seen
>>>> before. To me, it didn't appear that he was writing with his right
>>>> hand, it appeared that he was putting something in his mouth - eating.
>>>> I do not know the customs of ObL or his people, but i do know that
>>>> *some* people from the middle-east eat *only* with their right hands
>>>> as part of religious beliefs, whereas there are other things - such as
>>>> pertaining to hygiene - that must only be done with the left hand. It
>>>> may be said that he is left-handed, but where in that film is it
>>>> obvious that he was writing? I don't see it. All i see is that he
>>>> brought something up to his mouth, in his hand, and then put his hand
>>>> back down. Also he had a very distinctive long nose. The low quality
>>>> of the film prevents seeing it, but if you 'blur' your eyes to remove
>>>> the appearance of pixels, it appears to be the same long, straight
>>>> nose when he is facing the camera. Personally, i don't see anything
>>>> about the film to indicate it is fake.
>>
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCmkoaPIJC0&feature=related
>>
>>> (Tapes examined by expert in facial recognition)
>>
>> That tape, while done in stunning "Hollywood Style", with backdrops and
>> props from a movie studio, is only as good as the evidence which is
>> actually presented. Obviously, that is not a video forensics lab where
>> real videos are given real analysis ...
>>
>> The expert is rather unclear on exactly which tape he is analyzing.
>>
>> Here is one of tapes I am referring to:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19eVwHAbmRI&feature=related
>>
>> I'd say something is wrong. Perhaps the "expert" using facial
>> recognition was slipped a tape which is not in dispute?
>
>
>
> Why do you consider his *opinions* more credible than any other
> person's opinions? It seems to me that some 'researchers' are
> stretching for any and all *opinions* that are in line with their own
> thinking, rather than considering any other possibilities. You present
> a video of a man *claiming* that CIA basically admitted the video was
> a fake - in lieu of presenting any direct source of CIA "admitting" it
> was a fake.
>
> That is not objective 'analysis', Mr. Smith.
>
>
>>
>> Undoubtedly, your researching abilities will improve, with practice ...
>>
>> Regards,
>> JS
>
> Condescending much?
>
> The analyst (in so-called "Hollywood style" - or what i'd call
> "professional") pointed out the one thing that was very obvious about
> that confession tape - which was that it was slightly *squished*.
> That's why you see a supposedly "fat" ObL. You do know that a video
> can be distorted (elongated or shortened) in the same way that a photo
> can be distorted, don't you?
>
> A problem that i have with *some* conspiracy theories is that they
> grow more and more complex over the years... getting further and
> further away from the simple truth that was staring you right in the
> face the entire time.
>
Yes. I see you having complete trouble with anything which does not
support your opinion.
As I pointed out, and you skipped over, it is only the analysis and the
evidence in the video which is of importance.
http://911blimp.net/vid_fakeOsamaVideo.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWikH3Ws4Bc
http://www.obamaantichrist.org/911-conspiracy-the-bin-laden-tape-is-a-fake/
As I said, your investigation will turn up enough material to keep you
busy for days, if not weeks ... once you actually start the
investigation ...
But, get ready for the new faked videos of his death at the compound, in
Pakistan, locals are already saying it is not bin laden in the video and
asking about the "disappeared body." Roughly just what Americans are
finding fault with ... getting better and better!
Regards,
JS
John Smith
>
>
>> Why do you consider his *opinions* more credible than any other
It is the video, not your dressed up hollywood backdrops attempting to
make celebrity status out of the trimmings ... one more time ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> now why would the al qaeda website use the video and say its their own?
al qaeda didn't exist until the CIA invented/constructed/financed it ...
Regards,
JS
oldwifetale
> > A problem that i have with *some* conspiracy theories is that they
> > grow more and more complex over the years... getting further and
> > further away from the simple truth that was staring you right in the
> > face the entire time.
>
> Yes. I see you having complete trouble with anything which does not
> support your opinion.
And what *opinion* would that be?
(Did you seriously add rush limbaugh groups??? I took them off. Oh
yeah, that's *all* i need.)
> As I pointed out, and you skipped over, it is only the analysis and the
> evidence in the video which is of importance.
>
> http://911blimp.net/vid_fakeOsamaVideo.shtml
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWikH3Ws4Bc
>
> http://www.obamaantichrist.org/911-conspiracy-the-bin-laden-tape-is-a...
>
> As I said, your investigation will turn up enough material to keep you
> busy for days, if not weeks ... once you actually start the
> investigation ...
Mm-hmm...
>
> But, get ready for the new faked videos of his death at the compound, in
> Pakistan, locals are already saying it is not bin laden in the video and
> asking about the "disappeared body." Roughly just what Americans are
> finding fault with ... getting better and better!
>
> Regards,
> JS
Pakistan locals? Really? That's interesting (in more ways than one).
Because his family *and* Al Qaeda accept that it was him.
John Smith
>
>>> A problem that i have with *some* conspiracy theories is that they
>>> grow more and more complex over the years... getting further and
>>> further away from the simple truth that was staring you right in the
>>> face the entire time.
>>
>> Yes. I see you having complete trouble with anything which does not
>> support your opinion.
>
> And what *opinion* would that be?
>
The one which drives you to keep making these posts asking about the
fraudulent videos, rather than researching this yourself, the data is as
available to you as it is to me ...
> (Did you seriously add rush limbaugh groups??? I took them off. Oh
> yeah, that's *all* i need.)
>
Yep ... and any I feel fitting ...
>
>> As I pointed out, and you skipped over, it is only the analysis and the
>> evidence in the video which is of importance.
>>
>> http://911blimp.net/vid_fakeOsamaVideo.shtml
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWikH3Ws4Bc
>>
>> http://www.obamaantichrist.org/911-conspiracy-the-bin-laden-tape-is-a...
>>
>> As I said, your investigation will turn up enough material to keep you
>> busy for days, if not weeks ... once you actually start the
>> investigation ...
>
> Mm-hmm...
>
>>
>> But, get ready for the new faked videos of his death at the compound, in
>> Pakistan, locals are already saying it is not bin laden in the video and
>> asking about the "disappeared body." Roughly just what Americans are
>> finding fault with ... getting better and better!
>>
>> Regards,
>> JS
>
> Pakistan locals? Really? That's interesting (in more ways than one).
> Because his family *and* Al Qaeda accept that it was him.
Yeah, we have been over that a few times, already.
oldwifetale
> >>> A problem that i have with *some* conspiracy theories is that they
> >>> grow more and more complex over the years... getting further and
> >>> further away from the simple truth that was staring you right in the
> >>> face the entire time.
>
> >> Yes. I see you having complete trouble with anything which does not
> >> support your opinion.
>
> > And what *opinion* would that be?
>
> The one which drives you to keep making these posts asking about the
> fraudulent videos, rather than researching this yourself, the data is as
> available to you as it is to me ...
You are exaggerating again. I asked *one time*, and then i stated my
opinion based on what i observed with my own eyes, provided my reasons
(which you did not address), and posted a video made with a facial
recognition analyst. Perhaps your feeling of my 'persistence' is
subjective.
> > (Did you seriously add rush limbaugh groups??? I took them off. Oh
> > yeah, that's *all* i need.)
>
> Yep ... and any I feel fitting ...
You feel that Rush Limbaugh groups are 'fitting'?
Why?
[snip]
> >> But, get ready for the new faked videos of his death at the compound, in
> >> Pakistan, locals are already saying it is not bin laden in the video and
> >> asking about the "disappeared body." Roughly just what Americans are
> >> finding fault with ... getting better and better!
>
> >> Regards,
> >> JS
>
> > Pakistan locals? Really? That's interesting (in more ways than one).
> > Because his family *and* Al Qaeda accept that it was him.
>
> Yeah, we have been over that a few times, already.
Have we? I notice that you've already predetermined that any videos
that get released are fake. That's quite a 'skill' you've got there.
John Smith
>
>>>>> A problem that i have with *some* conspiracy theories is that they
>>>>> grow more and more complex over the years... getting further and
>>>>> further away from the simple truth that was staring you right in the
>>>>> face the entire time.
>>
>>>> Yes. I see you having complete trouble with anything which does not
>>>> support your opinion.
>>
>>> And what *opinion* would that be?
>>
>> The one which drives you to keep making these posts asking about the
>> fraudulent videos, rather than researching this yourself, the data is as
>> available to you as it is to me ...
>
> You are exaggerating again. I asked *one time*, and then i stated my
> opinion based on what i observed with my own eyes, provided my reasons
> (which you did not address), and posted a video made with a facial
> recognition analyst. Perhaps your feeling of my 'persistence' is
> subjective.
>
Persistance accounts for nothing, if the data is flawed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWikH3Ws4Bc
But, here is facial recognition done in real time ... and, without
"benefit" of an experts interpretations.
>
>>> (Did you seriously add rush limbaugh groups??? I took them off. Oh
>>> yeah, that's *all* i need.)
>>
>> Yep ... and any I feel fitting ...
>
> You feel that Rush Limbaugh groups are 'fitting'?
>
> Why?
>
Because he is "The Great Leader of Neocons" ... democans, republicrats
... everyone needs in on the discussions.
> [snip]
>
>>>> But, get ready for the new faked videos of his death at the compound, in
>>>> Pakistan, locals are already saying it is not bin laden in the video and
>>>> asking about the "disappeared body." Roughly just what Americans are
>>>> finding fault with ... getting better and better!
>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> JS
>>
>>> Pakistan locals? Really? That's interesting (in more ways than one).
>>> Because his family *and* Al Qaeda accept that it was him.
>>
>> Yeah, we have been over that a few times, already.
>
> Have we? I notice that you've already predetermined that any videos
> that get released are fake. That's quite a 'skill' you've got there.
No. The ones which have been faked frequently fall apart in the
analysis ...
Regards,
JS
raven1
wrote:
Wow, that's probably the funniest case of projection I've ever seen.
You're the one offering unsupported speculation, I'm just pointing it
out.
> others here will
>engage you on the level of discussion you put forward, keep up looking ...
I haven't found a "Truther" yet who was capable of putting forth a
rational argument, so I won't hold my breath.
oldwifetale
> > You are exaggerating again. I asked *one time*, and then i stated my
> > opinion based on what i observed with my own eyes, provided my reasons
> > (which you did not address), and posted a video made with a facial
> > recognition analyst. Perhaps your feeling of my 'persistence' is
> > subjective.
>
> Persistance accounts for nothing, if the data is flawed:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWikH3Ws4Bc
>
> But, here is facial recognition done in real time ... and, without
> "benefit" of an experts interpretations.
"Real time"???
More like "wasted time".
I just watched your latest "proof".
Try explaining - in your own words - the "logic" of that video.
> >>> (Did you seriously add rush limbaugh groups??? I took them off. Oh
> >>> yeah, that's *all* i need.)
>
> >> Yep ... and any I feel fitting ...
>
> > You feel that Rush Limbaugh groups are 'fitting'?
>
> > Why?
>
> Because he is "The Great Leader of Neocons" ... democans, republicrats
> ... everyone needs in on the discussions.
Pfft.
Maybe on *your* time.
I didn't invite them.
So... i just deleted your Rush groups.
Again.
> >>> Pakistan locals? Really? That's interesting (in more ways than one).
> >>> Because his family *and* Al Qaeda accept that it was him.
>
> >> Yeah, we have been over that a few times, already.
>
> > Have we? I notice that you've already predetermined that any videos
> > that get released are fake. That's quite a 'skill' you've got there.
>
> No. The ones which have been faked frequently fall apart in the
> analysis ...
So far, i haven't seen any such "analysis".
John Smith
>
>>> You are exaggerating again. I asked *one time*, and then i stated my
>>> opinion based on what i observed with my own eyes, provided my reasons
>>> (which you did not address), and posted a video made with a facial
>>> recognition analyst. Perhaps your feeling of my 'persistence' is
>>> subjective.
>>
>> Persistance accounts for nothing, if the data is flawed:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWikH3Ws4Bc
>>
>> But, here is facial recognition done in real time ... and, without
>> "benefit" of an experts interpretations.
>
> "Real time"???
> More like "wasted time".
> I just watched your latest "proof".
> Try explaining - in your own words - the "logic" of that video.
>
As the fellow is demonstrating what facial recognition software finds in
the video, he invites you to do the analysis yourself -- trust but
verify, if you will ... As soon as you do, you will have something to
discuss ... the logic is in the demonstration and pointing out that is
verifiable by anyone viewing ... we already realize you are poised to
maintain that water is dry, if it would support your opinions ...
>
>
>>>>> (Did you seriously add rush limbaugh groups??? I took them off. Oh
>>>>> yeah, that's *all* i need.)
>>
>>>> Yep ... and any I feel fitting ...
>>
>>> You feel that Rush Limbaugh groups are 'fitting'?
>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> Because he is "The Great Leader of Neocons" ... democans, republicrats
>> ... everyone needs in on the discussions.
>
> Pfft.
> Maybe on *your* time.
> I didn't invite them.
> So... i just deleted your Rush groups.
> Again.
>
Yes. You have demonstrated a proclivity to focus narrowly on what
represents your opinions and guesses ... your posts demonstrate this to
an absolute degree ... indeed, you are best surrounded by your own brand
of wackos ...
>
>>>>> Pakistan locals? Really? That's interesting (in more ways than one).
>>>>> Because his family *and* Al Qaeda accept that it was him.
>>
>>>> Yeah, we have been over that a few times, already.
>>
>>> Have we? I notice that you've already predetermined that any videos
>>> that get released are fake. That's quite a 'skill' you've got there.
>>
>> No. The ones which have been faked frequently fall apart in the
>> analysis ...
>
> So far, i haven't seen any such "analysis".
>
Yes. I think one thing is absolutely demonstrated by you ... if one is
to bite a hunk of your arse off, you won't see it ...
ROFLOL
Regards,
JS
zayton
> On 5/12/2011 8:04 AM, raven1 wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 May 2011 20:42:41 -0700, John Smith<bit_b...@gmx.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/11/2011 8:04 PM, zayton wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> So, you think the CIA can project a hologram in a clear sky with
>>>> no medium to project it on, but can't sync sound to the
>>>> projection. The combination of credulity and stupidity required to
>>>> entertain both of those notions at the same time is astounding.
>>>
>>> When you consider that the SR-71 Blackbird was first flown in the
>>> late 1950s, when such a plane was widely still considered to be
>>> science fiction ... I would, naturally, suspect they now have
>>> something just as amazing and we would consider still in the realm
>>> of science ... especially since the billions or even trillions
>>> which have been thrown at black op development projects ...
>>>
>>> Perhaps here, it would be wise to never say never ...
>>
>> Perhaps it would be wise to distinguish wild speculation from actual
>> evidence.
>
> Wild speculation?
>
> What part? That the SR-71 was designed and built in the 1950s.
>
> That most scientists, back then, were unaware that such technology had
> actually went beyond theory and had been implemented and was in use?
Yes this part.
Not only scientists but the scientifically literate public knew the general
capability of technology then, just as they do now. There were people who
payed no attention to science who would have been astonished by the
technology, just as there were those who believed, even back then that the
government had technnology for time travel and teleportation; but people who
kept up with technological theories knew pretty well what was possible then,
just as they do now.
>
> That an analogy of this, being made to suggest what is most likely
> occurring today, is in error?
>
> Funny, I think it all either absolute fact, or highly probably and
> based in reality!
>
> Regards,
> JS
You're still delusional.
zayton
> On 5/12/2011 1:46 PM, raven1 wrote:
>
>>
>> How do you know what is likely occurring today? Based on what
>> evidence?
>>
>
> No one can, for an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, however, the military ALWAYS
> will only declassify superior technology when the have something
> better ... Janes (www.janes.com) is a good site to research this on. Or,
> any sites which have an overview of historic military technology.
>
>> I was thinking along the lines of "So, you think the CIA can project
>> a hologram in a clear sky with no medium to project it on"
>>
>
> If two "invisible" laser beams intersect each other, at a point, the
> frequency of the resulting light can be in the humanly visible
> spectrum.
> Ever see the glass cubes with the "etchings of objects" in the
> interior? This is the result of two laser beams, each of which
> passes the glass without harming it. However, where the two beams
> cross/intersect, a "fracturing" of the glass results at that small
> point. Tightly controlled and manipulated, the "etching" is drawn
> ... visible "pictures" can be drawn in the plain atmosphere using the
> same method,
No.
You can't etch air.
with the two "invisible" beams already mentioned. This
> is done very rapidly, but then, so is a picture "painted" on a TV
> picture tube, it works quite nicely, since the human eye/brain is so
> slow in processing ...
Air isn't a phosper-coated material.
>> Do you have any evidence to suggest that this can be done, or is
>> this, again, speculation? And quite frankly, which is a more likely
>> explanation? That airplanes were used, or holograms? What happens if
>> the hologram equipment fails in mid-attack, and the plane just
>> vanishes?
>>
>
> Yes, if the beams cease to quit rapidly redrawing the "picture" in the
> atmosphere, the picture ceases to exist. And the above applies ...
You can't draw pictures on airl.
>
>>> Funny, I think it all either absolute fact, or highly probably and
>>> based in reality!
>>
>> Again, based on evidence, or speculation?
>
> Proof ... the evidence is that it is already being done ...
Not in air.
>
> Regards,
> JS
John Smith
You are a fool, where the two beams strike each other (overlap), a
visible frequency of light can be created, with the proper manipulations
of the two beams, and where they over lap, a picture can be painted ...
Forget phosphor, the TV screen was only used as an example of a beam
painting a picture, in real time, with the eye too slow to detect ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
You are a simple obfuscating baboon ... plonk ...
Find someone in your age group to play with ...
Regards,
JS
zayton
Not a coherant picture in open air.
Not with current technology.
Not even with technology for which current theory exists.
A perfectly diffused mist or fog is required.
Even then, projection is possible only over short distance and in relatively
small scale.
>
> Forget phosphor, the TV screen was only used as an example of a beam
> painting a picture, in real time, with the eye too slow to detect ...
>
You must have a medium (not air) in or on which to "paint"; and it can only
be done in limited scale at near distance.
oldwifetale
> > Try explaining - in your own words - the "logic" of that video.
>
> As the fellow is demonstrating what facial recognition software finds in
> the video, he invites you to do the analysis yourself --
And the, uh, "facial recognition software" he used was....?
> trust but
> verify, if you will ... As soon as you do, you will have something to
> discuss ... the logic is in the demonstration and pointing out that is
> verifiable by anyone viewing ... we already realize you are poised to
> maintain that water is dry, if it would support your opinions ...
We do?
[snip]
> >>> You feel that Rush Limbaugh groups are 'fitting'?
>
> >>> Why?
>
> >> Because he is "The Great Leader of Neocons" ... democans, republicrats
> >> ... everyone needs in on the discussions.
>
> > Pfft.
> > Maybe on *your* time.
> > I didn't invite them.
> > So... i just deleted your Rush groups.
> > Again.
>
> Yes. You have demonstrated a proclivity to focus narrowly on what
> represents your opinions and guesses ... your posts demonstrate this to
> an absolute degree ... indeed, you are best surrounded by your own brand
> of wackos ...
Really? To an "absolute degree"?
(haha...)
> >>>>> Pakistan locals? Really? That's interesting (in more ways than one).
> >>>>> Because his family *and* Al Qaeda accept that it was him.
>
> >>>> Yeah, we have been over that a few times, already.
>
> >>> Have we? I notice that you've already predetermined that any videos
> >>> that get released are fake. That's quite a 'skill' you've got there.
>
> >> No. The ones which have been faked frequently fall apart in the
> >> analysis ...
>
> > So far, i haven't seen any such "analysis".
>
> Yes. I think one thing is absolutely demonstrated by you ... if one is
> to bite a hunk of your arse off, you won't see it ...
>
> ROFLOL
>
> Regards,
> JS
Have we determined that to an absolute degree?
"ROFLOL"
John Smith
>
>>> Try explaining - in your own words - the "logic" of that video.
>>
>> As the fellow is demonstrating what facial recognition software finds in
>> the video, he invites you to do the analysis yourself --
>
> And the, uh, "facial recognition software" he used was....?
>
I am not certain, the software which came with my security cams is the
one I used, then my facial recognition software which came as security
on my computer and allows me to simply sit in front of my computer and
be logged on has an option to scan a file, it worked ... if you are
looking for freeware, Picasa 3.5 or newer should work. I am sure there
is much more available for free, on the web.
But, you exemplify exactly my point(s.)
People with the least of clues, the least of skills, the least of the
powers of logic and reason and without advantage of a sufficient
education are the first to jump in and start attempting to enter
discussions for which they are ill suited ... I mean, what is wrong with
you guys demanding respect! HUH!
ROFLOL
My plonk bucket contains dozens of your your ilk ...
... plonk ...
BTW, you do realize there is a learning curve into becoming proficient
in the use of a computer, right ... check back with me in six-months or
so ...
Regards,
JS
oldwifetale
> >>> Try explaining - in your own words - the "logic" of that video.
>
> >> As the fellow is demonstrating what facial recognition software finds in
> >> the video, he invites you to do the analysis yourself --
>
> > And the, uh, "facial recognition software" he used was....?
>
> I am not certain, the software which came with my security cams is the
> one I used, then my facial recognition software which came as security
> on my computer and allows me to simply sit in front of my computer and
> be logged on has an option to scan a file, it worked ... if you are
> looking for freeware, Picasa 3.5 or newer should work. I am sure there
> is much more available for free, on the web.
Ooooh, i seeeee.
> But, you exemplify exactly my point(s.)
Well, i must humbly admit that i am nothing if not exemplary.
> People with the least of clues, the least of skills, the least of the
> powers of logic and reason and without advantage of a sufficient
> education are the first to jump in and start attempting to enter
> discussions for which they are ill suited ... I mean, what is wrong with
> you guys demanding respect! HUH!
Huh! All that from a few posts, eh?
>
> ROFLOL
>
> My plonk bucket contains dozens of your your ilk ...
>
> ... plonk ...
>
> BTW, you do realize there is a learning curve into becoming proficient
> in the use of a computer, right ... check back with me in six-months or
> so ...
Why? Does your plonking mechanism expire then?
So funny. :)
I mean... (hut hum) *considering*.
joeturn
> On Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:27 -0700, John Smith <bit_buc...@gmx.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 5/12/2011 8:04 AM, raven1 wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On 5/11/2011 8:04 PM, zayton wrote:
>
> >>>> ...
> >>>> credulity and stupidity required to entertain both of those notions at the
> >>>> same time is astounding.
>
> >>> When you consider that the SR-71 Blackbird was first flown in the late
> >>> 1950s, when such a plane was widely still considered to be science
> >>> fiction ... I would, naturally, suspect they now have something just as
> >>> amazing and we would consider still in the realm of science ...
> >>> especially since the billions or even trillions which have been thrown
> >>> at black op development projects ...
>
> >>> Perhaps here, it would be wise to never say never ...
>
> >> Perhaps it would be wise to distinguish wild speculation from actual
> >> evidence.
>
> >Wild speculation?
>
> >What part? That the SR-71 was designed and built in the 1950s.
>
> >That most scientists, back then, were unaware that such technology had
> >actually went beyond theory and had been implemented and was in use?
>
> SR-71 was more a feat of engineering than theory.
>
> >That an analogy of this, being made to suggest what is most likely
> >occurring today, is in error?
>
> evidence?
>
> a hologram in a clear sky with no medium to project it on"
>
> again, speculation? And quite frankly, which is a more likely
> explanation? That airplanes were used, or holograms? What happens if
> the hologram equipment fails in mid-attack, and the plane just
> vanishes?
>
> >in reality!
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The hologram did fell in mid flight and the plane lost its wings and
grew them back twice before impact as captured by Evan Fairbanks film!
joeturn
> On 11-05-12 4:46 PM, raven1 wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:27 -0700, John Smith<bit_buc...@gmx.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On 5/12/2011 8:04 AM, raven1 wrote:
> > I was thinking along the lines of "So, you think the CIA can project
> > a hologram in a clear sky with no medium to project it on"
>
> > Do you have any evidence to suggest that this can be done, or is this,
> > again, speculation? And quite frankly, which is a more likely
> > explanation? That airplanes were used, or holograms? What happens if
> > the hologram equipment fails in mid-attack, and the plane just
> > vanishes?
>
Sure it does Nasas Bluebeam Project has came a long way,they will show
the whole world a fake rapture.
zayton
Teach us a lesson; take your delusions and go home and refuse to play with
us any more....
zayton
and on nobody else's?
It takes a special kind of insanity to hang your delusions on one other
nutcase's doctored footage!
joeturn
>
> - Show quoted text -
His footage was not doctored it caught lots of goodies that the CIA
wanted to remain silent.It caught dumptrucks and cranes on
standby,then they jumped on it with both feet claiming it to be
faked,but it was the real deal.It caught the CIA agent in action
projecting the hologram.That was not a cell phone in his hand!
http://www.livevideo.com/video/C8E9BD6476324BD0A6878640A2961D8B/evan-...
joeturn
> On May 13, 9:14 pm, "zayton" <zay...@newwavecomm.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> wanted to remain silent.It caught dumptrucks and cranes on
> standby,then they jumped on it with both feet claiming it to be
> faked,but it was the real deal.It caught the CIA agent in action
> projector
>
> http://www.livevideo.com/video/C8E9BD6476324BD0A6878640A2961D8B/evan-...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
just fixing the link
http://www.livevideo.com/video/C8E9BD6476324BD0A6878640A2961D8B/evan-fairbank-monitor-zoom-s.aspx
joeturn
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here is what Evan Fairbanks captured on film watch the wings come and
go.
BDK
@s2g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, joetu...@yahoo.com says...
It's because of him using a shitty video camera, you idiot.
--
BDK- Top of the government shill heap for over 10 years running!
joeturn
> In article <5afd8443-45cf-43d5-987b-1ef3b2b8d0d6
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why would a professional photographer jeopardise his career with a
crappy camera?
george
> Why would a professional photographer jeopardise his career with a
> crappy camera?
Because he can
BDK
@c41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, joetu...@yahoo.com says...
Don't ask me, ask him. Who says he's a pro anyway? A kooksite? Only a
total idiot wouldn't see instantly that your "disappearing wings" are
nothing more than video artifacts.
joeturn
He was at the church shooting film with a professional camera,He
grabbed that same professional video camera and it captured more than
the feds wanted to be made public so they claim it a fake video!
Listen carefully to his interview!
joeturn
> In article <6e2bffd8-15eb-4ea7-b42d-62f0b3082a80
> @c41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, joeturn2...@yahoo.com says...
Look at that one winged plane at1:03 such beautiful footage nothing
but a professional camera can capture such beauty!
joeturn
> @s2g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, joeturn2...@yahoo.com says...
>
> - Show quoted text -
You feds claimed him a fake but he caught all them cranes and
dumptrucks on stanby and the monitor holograming the plane.
Dont you remember bi george you were the one projecting the image of a
plane going slam through the building and the aluminum nose was not
even bent coming out the other side! That Evin almost spoiled it for
you didn't he?
John Smith
Since the radar and other antenna and electronics are in the nose, the
nose would have either been fiberglass or plastic ...
Regards,
JS
george
> On May 17, 8:31 pm, george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 18, 12:24 pm, joeturn <joeturn2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why would a professional photographer jeopardise his career with a
> > > crappy camera?
>
> > Because he can
>
> He was at the church shooting film with a professional camera,He
> grabbed that same professional video camera and it captured more than
> the feds wanted to be made public so they claim it a fake video!
I have a 'professional' Mamiya twin lens reflex camera but I much
prefer using the little 12meg pocket camera.
As for that fantastic 'professional' video camera claim its refuted
itself by the source
BDK
24g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, joetu...@yahoo.com says...
No, only an artifacting camera can picture it that way.
BDK
92f0ab...@t19g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, joetu...@yahoo.com
says...
BWHAHAHAHAHA! That's hilarious, and insane. BTW, I'm not a "fed".
>
> Dont you remember bi george you were the one projecting the image of a
> plane going slam through the building and the aluminum nose was not
> even bent coming out the other side! That Evin almost spoiled it for
> you didn't he?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b2Uk6ngQD8&feature=related
You have to remember who you're raving at, I'm not George. Not that it
matters, you're totally batshit crazy anyway.
george
> Look at that one winged plane at1:03 such beautiful footage nothing
> but a professional camera can capture such beauty!
What one winged aircraft ?
You haven't watched that video have you
arthr...@webtv.net
He probably thinks of the 'flying wings' of the 3rd reich .
RHF
> In article <5afd8443-45cf-43d5-987b-1ef3b2b8d0d6
For One and All,
Ever seen the Heat Waves on the Surface of a Black-Top
Roadway and the Visual Distortion they Cause ?
Ever seen the Visual Distortion caused by Non-Visual
Column of Air Pollution {Smoke / Air Particulates } in
the Air between You and an Object ?
now you see it and now you don't ~ RHF
-yes-it-is-that-simple-
.
joeturn
>
> - Show quoted text -
I see,so it just melted through the building and bounced back into
shape that explains everything then. Thanks for you keen eye!
joeturn
You idiot Evin was a freelance photographer working on a film for the
church,he gravbbed the video camera from one of their camera men it
was not a toy such as yours!
Bi-george get back in the truck you are an imbarrisment to me,just
stick to spell ckecking your thought proces has melted down
Because you can?
Do fibeglass cockpits not splatter on impact?
joeturn
> In article <8325c27e-08a1-47ad-a66f-e6bdff1983ac@
> 24g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, joeturn2...@yahoo.com says...
Your confusing the added footaged the CIA put in his documentary to
make it look fake.Now their camera was most likely too sophisticated
for them to operate or they to used a pocket cam!
John Smith
Its' being there is an impossibility, unless someone placed it there, DUH!
"The problem here is that the nose cone of a Boeing 757 is made of
carbon-fibre (like fibreglass); there is no metal nose cone on a 757. An
average strength man (or strong woman) could make mincemeat of a 757
nose cone in about 15 minutes with nothing more than a light axe or a
sledgehammer - the same cannot be said of the outer wall of the
Pentagon. Punching through stone facade and 2 exterior concrete and
brick walls, 4 or more interior poured concrete walls, and a poured
concrete floor, to conveniently land front-and-center on a piece of
board for photographers is out of the question."
FROM HERE:
http://911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackLegend.shtml
Here is a nose cone which has been damaged in flight:
http://www.p2pconsortium.com/index.php/topic/16284-northwest-jet-lands-in-tampa-with-dented-nose-cone/
Obviously, idiots attempted the fraud with that nose cone supposedly
going though reinforced concrete! But then, look at the public
servants, they have been chosen for puppets, not intelligence!
Regards,
JS
joeturn
> In article <dc89221b-c8f8-4157-90e9-
> 92f0abef8...@t19g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, joeturn2...@yahoo.com
If youve seen one Government shill you have seen them all!
All the feds read my replys I could have put it on singles chat and
there you would answer it!
joeturn
You have nailed it did you know the late great Peter Jennings from CNN
was a [poor source as told by BDK?
joeturn
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm sure they coated the lens with vicks salve to oliminate heat wave
as you can see the building did not fade in and out,just the wings,try
that next time you go to target practice but just wipe it in your eye
to keep it from seeming out of focus!
joeturn
>
> Obviously, idiots attempted the fraud with that nose cone supposedly
> going though reinforced concrete! But then, look at the public
> servants, they have been chosen for puppets, not intelligence!
>
> Regards,
>
> - Show quoted text -
John you must cast the plane out of your mind it was a cartoon.NO
PLANES were hyjacked nor crashed on 911.The planes people thought thet
saw were made of nothing but digital imaging software from AVID
Technology.
This is my favorite
BDK
@r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, joetu...@yahoo.com says...
It's great when kooks try to out kook the other.
BDK
@l18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, joetu...@yahoo.com says...
You're confused, you think you're sane. You aren't.
BDK
34g2000pru.googlegroups.com>, joetu...@yahoo.com says...
WTF are you babbling about?
bkn...@conramp.net
<joetu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 18, 1:05 pm, John Smith <bit_buc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/18/2011 9:54 AM, joeturn wrote:
Attention Please:
To anyone responding to the idiot known as John Smith:
Please remove rec.sport.golf from the list of news groups.
Thanks.
___,
\o
|
/ \
.
“Someone likes every shot”
bk
John Smith
ROFLOL!!!
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> It's great when kooks try to out kook the other.
>
kook?
ROFLOL
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> Attention Please:
>
> To anyone responding to the idiot known as John Smith:
> Please remove rec.sport.golf from the list of news groups.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> ___,
> \o
> |
> / \
> .
> bk
(WARNING: Above edited for truthful content.)
Regards,
JS
RHF
The Buildings {Fixed Objects} Were Not Moving
-hint- The Airplanes [Moving Objects}
-minor-technical-point- It's a Motion-Picture Camera
that does Frames-per-Second to create the Illusion
of a 'Moving' Image :
* The Buildings {Fixed Objects} have 'Persistence'
from Frame-to-Frame
* The Airplanes [Moving Objects} Do Not Have
'Persistence' from Frame-to-Frame
-result- now you see it and now you don't ~ RHF
-yes-again-it-is-that-simple-
.
John Smith
> ...
> Why is it that kooks don't think things through :(
> There are a number of very solid assemblies on an aircraft.
> Like engines and undercarriage.
> One engine was located a distance from the building.
> What you see coming out with the fireball is the engine....
> And why are you attempting to piss golf players off ?
Are your little golf balls itching too?
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> YEAH RIIIGHT.
> All that video does is give another view of the second airliner
> impacting the Tower.
> And it (the video) has been around for a long time
>
> And you trust the word of a godbotherer?
> How about giving me all your property because after Saturday you wont
> need it according to a godbotherer :)
Even this slut/whore probable told the truth now and then:
http://www.bloggernews.net/126565
Regards,
JS
Government Shill #2
He's taken Babbleloonian to the next level by inventing words that *almost* look
like English ones, but aren't quite.
eg. "oliminate" = eliminate perhaps?
"vicks salve"??? Hmmm... maybe Vicks VapoRub?
~BG must be so proud.
Shill #2
--
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"
Ralph Wiggum
joeturn
So your hiway should not move since it is just layinhg there and not
moving! Give it up RHF it was digital fade from the hologram not heat
wave. It is that simple!
joeturn
> On Wed, 18 May 2011 14:34:18 -0400, BDK <Cont...@Worldcontrol.com> wrote:
> >In article <0c0f2be9-15b0-4e96-8f95-eedbd8d19676@
>
> - Show quoted text -
You have exceeded my expectations of you again you have grammarized my
post wand still managed to appear the village idiot!I will cast my
vote for you to become valordictorian of google tech!
Spell check Bi-George TIA
cuh...@webtv.net
QUEERS, THEY LOOK JUST LIKE FAGGOT QUEERS TOO!
cuhulin
arthr...@webtv.net
Peter Jennings worked at ABC for many years . He never worked at CNN-
it was at CTV (Canada TV) where his career started .He was a very good
man . May he rest in Peace .
cuh...@webtv.net
You know I am always Right.
Articles, Articles, Articles.Jerome Corsi's Book.
http://www.wnd.com
http://www.worldnetdaily.com
Watchin 10:00 PM WJTV 12 tee vee noos.Woooo, look at all the Tourist
peoples in Vicksburg,Mississippi.Some Tourist people on a hill with
their picture cameras, taking pictures of the flooding Missy Sippy
River.A guy from Ohio said he likes it here, the people are friendly.
cuhulin
joeturn
>
> - Show quoted text -
His interview with Evin Fairbanks was the source and it was ABC.
Thanks for the correction ,They killed him off with cancer because of
his knowlege of the 911 coverup.
skep...@aol.com
>
> Obviously, idiots attempted the fraud with that nose cone supposedly
> going though reinforced concrete! But then, look at the public
> servants, they have been chosen for puppets, not intelligence!
>
> Regards,
>
> - Show quoted text -
And speaking of public servants, we must realize, Joeturn, that we are
discussing with a nest of vipers. Fascists within the US government
committed false flag attacks to start a war which has murdered
millions. The US Capitalist blew up the Murrah Federal Building in
1996, they blew up the World Trade Center in 1993, killing 11, and
injuring hundreds, our masters attacked again on Sept 11, 2001. Then
the gang of Fascists attacked the Madrid Trains, the London Subway
underground (Guiliani was on hand to do that one too!) The Fascists
did the 7/7 attacks and blamed it on innocent Muslim youth. Today
Israel is harvesting organs out of live Palestinians, and alt.atheism
may have some paid traitors committing treason every time they type.
Fascists have some mighty crimes to cover up. Fascists think the false
flag attacks are humorous. I don't think the attacks are humorous. The
war is a crime.
skep...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
[shouting] NOTICE HOW THE PRO OFFICIAL STORY APOLOGISTS ARE NOT CASUAL
POSTERS, BUT TRAINED IN MANIPULATION AND KNOWLEDGABLE TO THE UTMOST
DEGREE IN EVERY ASPECT OF DEBUNKING 911 TRUTH! THIS IS PART OF AN
OPERATION OF DISINFORMATION BY GOVERNMENT SHILLS, NOT HONEST DEBATE BY
DISINTERESTED PARTIES.
John Smith
> ...
> [shouting] NOTICE HOW THE PRO OFFICIAL STORY APOLOGISTS ARE NOT CASUAL
> POSTERS, BUT TRAINED IN MANIPULATION AND KNOWLEDGABLE TO THE UTMOST
> DEGREE IN EVERY ASPECT OF DEBUNKING 911 TRUTH! THIS IS PART OF AN
> OPERATION OF DISINFORMATION BY GOVERNMENT SHILLS, NOT HONEST DEBATE BY
> DISINTERESTED PARTIES.
Really? Huh?
They just look like persistent morons who repetitively repeat the same
lines with the same results, but offer no concrete support of their
suppositions and opinions -- one could interpret that to be insanity! I
do ...
Regards,
JS
joeturn
>
> - Show quoted text -
The 911 truth movement started out as a means to proove the Government
was committing treason and mass murder but the Government shills have
infiltrated all the 911 sites and are destroying them with mis-
imformation specifically hearded to cover up the missile attacks at
the PentaGram.
joeturn
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here is Mengel's gift to society its a short story but it includes the
life of Cathy Obrien you seen on the above video.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/transforusa/transformation.htm
joeturn
>
> - Show quoted text -
THis shows promise!
Government Shill #2
Bwahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
"...grammarized my post wand still managed..."
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!
"...valordictorian..."
Bwahahahahahaha!
Stop! STOP!
You're making my sides ache!
Shill #2
--
Pfft...English! Who needs that? I'm never going to England.
Homer J. Simpson
Government Shill #2
>[shouting] NOTICE HOW THE PRO OFFICIAL STORY APOLOGISTS ARE NOT CASUAL
>POSTERS, BUT TRAINED IN MANIPULATION AND KNOWLEDGABLE TO THE UTMOST
>DEGREE IN EVERY ASPECT OF DEBUNKING 911 TRUTH! THIS IS PART OF AN
>OPERATION OF DISINFORMATION BY GOVERNMENT SHILLS, NOT HONEST DEBATE BY
>DISINTERESTED PARTIES.
Debate?
I'm just here to laugh at you Numbbats and your stupid ideas.
There is no need to debate the clearly ridiculous.
Shill #2
--
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible
positions.
Thomas Jefferson
Joe from Kokomo
> They just look like persistent morons who repetitively repeat the
> same lines with the same results, but offer no concrete support of
> their suppositions and opinions -- one could interpret that to be
> insanity! I do ...
Huh?
You've just described...YOURSELF!
* persistent moron (2362 posts and counting)
* repetitively repeat the same lines with the same results
* offer no concrete support of their suppositions and opinions
This describes YOU to a "T".
> one could interpret that to be insanity!
And your point is...?
BDK
gov....@gmail.com says...
Sounds like a good guess.
>
> "vicks salve"??? Hmmm... maybe Vicks VapoRub?
I don't know what else that it could be.
>
> ~BG must be so proud.
Chip off the old loose screw.
>
> Shill #2
BDK
gov....@gmail.com says...
And I though Seon made up words.
BDK
df1d41...@p13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, joetu...@yahoo.com
says...
He got cancer because he smoked a shitload of cigarettes, that's why. He
wasn't crazy, stupid, or gullible enough to belive in 911 troof.
BDK
14g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, joetu...@yahoo.com says...
BWHAHAHAHAHA! You're in full blown batshit crazy mode today Joe.
BDK
@l14g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, skep...@aol.com says...
The attacks aren't humerous at all, but your delusions are. Funny as
hell, in fact.
John Smith
I think if you check your statistics, more people are getting lung
cancer than ever before, and smoking has never been lower ...
The cig cover story is beginning to fall apart ...
Regards,
JS
joeturn
> In article <a750a709-eeda-47ac-a1d8-
> df1d41a84...@p13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, joeturn2...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
They took DDT off the market and replaced it with radio isotopes to
kill the cut worm.But the bird eggs regained their strength!Soo many
humans soo little birds!
george
Where's that bloody decoder ring when you need it
joeturn
>
> - Show quoted text -
Check your clit!
John Smith
She has it on, but she forgot she ate the manual on how to use it!
Regards,
JS
joeturn
>
> - Show quoted text -
Cant you just see BDK getting his dental braces hung up on georges
clit ring?
John Smith
They make anal ones?
Regards,
JS
John Smith
Them boys just ain't right, they seem a bit too happy, a bit "too gay"
about each other, if you know what I mean!
EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!
Regards,
JS