Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.conspiracy > #262750 > unrolled thread

Re: Nuke Em

Back to article view | Back to alt.conspiracy

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Nuke Em "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-08 19:28 -0500
    Re: Nuke Em jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-09 00:42 +0000
      Re: Nuke Em "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-08 20:33 -0500
        Re: Nuke Em jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-09 03:22 +0000
          Re: Nuke Em "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-09 06:45 -0500
            Re: Nuke Em jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-09 17:38 +0000
              Re: Nuke Em "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-09 14:23 -0500
                Re: Nuke Em jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-09 19:46 +0000
                  Re: Nuke Em "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-09 18:30 -0500
                    Re: Nuke Em jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-10 00:21 +0000
                      Re: Nuke Em "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-15 11:15 -0500
                        Re: Nuke Em jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-15 17:03 +0000
                          Re: Re: Nuke Em Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-16 06:54 -0500
                    Re: Nuke Em "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 21:40 -0500
          Re: Nuke Em "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 10:14 -0500
            Re: Nuke Em jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-09 17:39 +0000
              Re: Nuke Em "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-09 14:32 -0500
                Re: Nuke Em "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 15:48 -0500
                Re: Nuke Em edrhodes@hotmail.com - 2015-08-09 17:48 -0700
                  Re: Nuke Em "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-15 11:23 -0500
                    Re: Nuke Em "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 15:34 -0500
              Re: Nuke Em "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 15:45 -0500
                Re: Nuke Em jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-09 21:05 +0000
                  Jim's lies (was: Nuke Em) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-09 18:01 -0500
                    Re: Jim's lies jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-09 23:30 +0000
                      Re: Jim's lies "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-15 11:28 -0500
                        Re: Jim's lies jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-15 17:06 +0000
                          Re: Jim's lies "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 15:31 -0500
                        Re: Jim's lies Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-15 18:42 +0100
                          Re: Jim's lies "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-15 19:25 -0500
                            Re: Jim's lies jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-16 01:07 +0000
                            Re: Jim's lies Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-16 09:29 +0100
                    Re: Jim's lies (was: Nuke Em) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 21:35 -0500
        Re: Nuke Em "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 10:14 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#263583

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 11:23:29 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

><edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:c4d9eac4-872f-4af2-8af2-637723dd1aae@googlegroups.com...
>On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 3:33:25 PM UTC-4, Rocky wrote:
>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>> news:9sfk9c-t1o.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> > In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 03:22:22 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >>>>> Arguing with the insane is pointless, kook boi.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Have you ever won a jury trial 12 to 0 as a pro se litigant?  I have 
>> >>>> so I certainly know how to make an argument.
>> >>>
>> >>>Was this trial one of those high school things, kook boi?
>> >>>
>> >>>Or maybe just something you imagined...
>> >>
>> >>      The trial did happen. Rocky has been able to offer ample evidence
>> >> of this.
>> >>      I find it interesting that he is able to produce evidence for the
>> >> trial (actually a re-trial as he was found guilty at the first one),
>> >> but can offer no evidence for his claims about nukes.
>> >
>> > Insanity for most people is progressive; he was probably fully 
>> > functional for some part of his life.
>>
>> And you have been caught in a lie about radiation caused cancers in the
>> people that helped to clean up the site of the Great 9/11 Hoax.  See:
>>  http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/30/health/911-cancer-increase/
>>
>> BTW it wasn't a "re-trial" but a second trial and I obviously learned the
>> tricks of the Prosecutor on the first trial and kept him from using those
>> tricks a second time.  <G>
>>
>> Now the question is why do you keep lying about the First Responders and 
>> how a building collapse could leave "Surviving Walls" and leave "Surviving
>> Corners?"
>>
>> And I don't need to prove that nukes were used at ground zero since nobody
>> has been able to address how a building collapse could leave Surviving 
>> Walls and leave Surviving Corners and leave Survivors in Stairwell B of the 
>> North Tower other a DEEP UNDERGROUND nuke.
>>
>> BTW you and anybody else for that matter have to address the nukes used at
>> Ground Zero as DEEP UNDERGROUND NUKES because they perform a lot different
>> than ground level or airborne nukes as proven by the remains of the Twin
>> Towers.  DUH.
>
>DUH, yourself. YOU have never provided any support for the idea that DEEP 
>UNDERGROUND NUKES can affect the surface without the blast and shock wave 
>breaching the surface. And there's NO indication that there was a blast or 
>shock wave breaching the surface at the World Trade Center.
>
>=====================================
>
>ROTFLMAO because you have no proof that the CGIs that rammed into the Twin 
>Towers were not about the cheapest CGIs money could buy because there were 
>no crash dynamics whatsoever and the fact they were CGIs also easily 
>explains the fade in and fade out wing..  <G>

     At this point I think everyone reading knows you admit you're
wrong by shifting the burden of proof. 
     Way to admit, again, that you were and are wrong. Not that this
TRUTH wasn't in question.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#262889

On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:39:53 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 03:22:22 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>>>>> Arguing with the insane is pointless, kook boi.
>>>> 
>>>> Have you ever won a jury trial 12 to 0 as a pro se litigant?  I have so I 
>>>> certainly know how to make an argument.
>>>
>>>Was this trial one of those high school things, kook boi?
>>>
>>>Or maybe just something you imagined...
>> 
>>      The trial did happen. Rocky has been able to offer ample evidence
>> of this. 
>>      I find it interesting that he is able to produce evidence for the
>> trial (actually a re-trial as he was found guilty at the first one),
>> but can offer no evidence for his claims about nukes. 
>
>Insanity for most people is progressive; he was probably fully functional
>for some part of his life. 

     You are correct. Though I still don't think mental illness is
Rocky's problem. I think it's that his intellect is so low, he is
honestly unable to accept the truth regarding 9/11.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#262899

In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:39:53 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 03:22:22 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> [...]
>>> 
>>>>>> Arguing with the insane is pointless, kook boi.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Have you ever won a jury trial 12 to 0 as a pro se litigant?  I have so I 
>>>>> certainly know how to make an argument.
>>>>
>>>>Was this trial one of those high school things, kook boi?
>>>>
>>>>Or maybe just something you imagined...
>>> 
>>>      The trial did happen. Rocky has been able to offer ample evidence
>>> of this. 
>>>      I find it interesting that he is able to produce evidence for the
>>> trial (actually a re-trial as he was found guilty at the first one),
>>> but can offer no evidence for his claims about nukes. 
>>
>>Insanity for most people is progressive; he was probably fully functional
>>for some part of his life. 
> 
>      You are correct. Though I still don't think mental illness is
> Rocky's problem. I think it's that his intellect is so low, he is
> honestly unable to accept the truth regarding 9/11.

I think it is a brain issue of some sort where he adds two and two to
get 7.9 and imagins non-existant connections.

Though he is hardly the brightest bulb on the string.

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#262909 — Jim's lies (was: Nuke Em)

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
news:0trk9c-pkp.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
> In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:39:53 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 03:22:22 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>>> Arguing with the insane is pointless, kook boi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you ever won a jury trial 12 to 0 as a pro se litigant?  I have 
>>>>>> so I
>>>>>> certainly know how to make an argument.
>>>>>
>>>>>Was this trial one of those high school things, kook boi?
>>>>>
>>>>>Or maybe just something you imagined...
>>>>
>>>>      The trial did happen. Rocky has been able to offer ample evidence
>>>> of this.
>>>>      I find it interesting that he is able to produce evidence for the
>>>> trial (actually a re-trial as he was found guilty at the first one),
>>>> but can offer no evidence for his claims about nukes.
>>>
>>>Insanity for most people is progressive; he was probably fully functional
>>>for some part of his life.
>>
>>      You are correct. Though I still don't think mental illness is
>> Rocky's problem. I think it's that his intellect is so low, he is
>> honestly unable to accept the truth regarding 9/11.
>
> I think it is a brain issue of some sort where he adds two and two to
> get 7.9 and imagins non-existant connections.
>
> Though he is hardly the brightest bulb on the string.

Jim, it is too bad you can be labeled a liar because you lied about the 
cancer in first responders and you lied about the "Surviving Walls and 
Surviving Corners of the Twin Towers because they were not random at all. 
They were the parts furthest from the hypocenters.

Plus you will have to prove a collapsing building can leave random surviving 
walls and surviving corners in the first place because I consider that a big 
lie too.

Rocky 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#262919 — Re: Jim's lies

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> Jim, it is too bad you can be labeled a liar because you lied about the 
> cancer in first responders and you lied about the "Surviving Walls and 
> Surviving Corners of the Twin Towers because they were not random at all. 
> They were the parts furthest from the hypocenters.

You mean the part where you think the ONLY cause of cancer is radiation,
lunatic boi?

Where was the rising dome of dirt you get from an underground nuclear
explosion, lunatic boi?

> Plus you will have to prove a collapsing building can leave random surviving 
> walls and surviving corners in the first place because I consider that a big 
> lie too.

Controlled demolition doesn't leave anything standing, lunatic boi.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263549 — Re: Jim's lies

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
news:oc4l9c-77c.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Jim, it is too bad you can be labeled a liar because you lied about the
>> cancer in first responders and you lied about the "Surviving Walls and
>> Surviving Corners of the Twin Towers because they were not random at all.
>> They were the parts furthest from the hypocenters.
>
> You mean the part where you think the ONLY cause of cancer is radiation,
> lunatic boi?
>
> Where was the rising dome of dirt you get from an underground nuclear
> explosion, lunatic boi?

You idiot.  The only way you get a rising dome of dirt is if the nukes were 
detonated in dirt.  The nukes they detonated in Nuke York City were in rock 
and then they didn't show the ground they showed the top of the Twin Towers 
instead so they knew what not to show you.  <G>

>> Plus you will have to prove a collapsing building can leave random 
>> surviving
>> walls and surviving corners in the first place because I consider that a 
>> big
>> lie too.

> Controlled demolition doesn't leave anything standing, lunatic boi.

But a Nuclear Controlled Demoltion will leave "sUrviving cornErs" just like 
the Twin Towers left.

Rocky 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263563 — Re: Jim's lies

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
> news:oc4l9c-77c.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Jim, it is too bad you can be labeled a liar because you lied about the
>>> cancer in first responders and you lied about the "Surviving Walls and
>>> Surviving Corners of the Twin Towers because they were not random at all.
>>> They were the parts furthest from the hypocenters.
>>
>> You mean the part where you think the ONLY cause of cancer is radiation,
>> lunatic boi?
>>
>> Where was the rising dome of dirt you get from an underground nuclear
>> explosion, lunatic boi?
> 
> You idiot.  The only way you get a rising dome of dirt is if the nukes were 
> detonated in dirt.  The nukes they detonated in Nuke York City were in rock 
> and then they didn't show the ground they showed the top of the Twin Towers 
> instead so they knew what not to show you.  <G>

Wrong again, kook.

A nuclear explosion turns the surrounding material into plasma be it
dirt or rock creating a huge high pressure bubble, kook.

There are thousands of pictures of everything, kook.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263581 — Re: Jim's lies

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 17:06:56 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
>> news:oc4l9c-77c.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim, it is too bad you can be labeled a liar because you lied about the
>>>> cancer in first responders and you lied about the "Surviving Walls and
>>>> Surviving Corners of the Twin Towers because they were not random at all.
>>>> They were the parts furthest from the hypocenters.
>>>
>>> You mean the part where you think the ONLY cause of cancer is radiation,
>>> lunatic boi?
>>>
>>> Where was the rising dome of dirt you get from an underground nuclear
>>> explosion, lunatic boi?
>> 
>> You idiot.  The only way you get a rising dome of dirt is if the nukes were 
>> detonated in dirt.  The nukes they detonated in Nuke York City were in rock 
>> and then they didn't show the ground they showed the top of the Twin Towers 
>> instead so they knew what not to show you.  <G>
>
>Wrong again, kook.
>
>A nuclear explosion turns the surrounding material into plasma be it
>dirt or rock creating a huge high pressure bubble, kook.
>
>There are thousands of pictures of everything, kook.

     Everything except the effects of the phantom nukes.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263575 — Re: Jim's lies

On 15/08/2015 17:28, Rocky wrote:
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:oc4l9c-77c.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Jim, it is too bad you can be labeled a liar because you lied about the
>>> cancer in first responders and you lied about the "Surviving Walls and
>>> Surviving Corners of the Twin Towers because they were not random at all.
>>> They were the parts furthest from the hypocenters.
>>
>> You mean the part where you think the ONLY cause of cancer is radiation,
>> lunatic boi?
>>
>> Where was the rising dome of dirt you get from an underground nuclear
>> explosion, lunatic boi?
>
> You idiot.  The only way you get a rising dome of dirt is if the nukes were
> detonated in dirt.  The nukes they detonated in Nuke York City were in rock
> and then they didn't show the ground they showed the top of the Twin Towers
> instead so they knew what not to show you.  <G>
>
>>> Plus you will have to prove a collapsing building can leave random
>>> surviving
>>> walls and surviving corners in the first place because I consider that a
>>> big
>>> lie too.
>
>> Controlled demolition doesn't leave anything standing, lunatic boi.
>
> But a Nuclear Controlled Demoltion will leave "sUrviving cornErs" just like
> the Twin Towers left.
>
> Rocky
>
>

Can you point out to us where a "Nuclear Controlled Demoltion" has taken 
place, then we cam compare the events?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263622 — Re: Jim's lies

"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
news:mqntil$4gu$1@dont-email.me...
> On 15/08/2015 17:28, Rocky wrote:
>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>> news:oc4l9c-77c.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim, it is too bad you can be labeled a liar because you lied about the
>>>> cancer in first responders and you lied about the "Surviving Walls and
>>>> Surviving Corners of the Twin Towers because they were not random at 
>>>> all.
>>>> They were the parts furthest from the hypocenters.
>>>
>>> You mean the part where you think the ONLY cause of cancer is radiation,
>>> lunatic boi?
>>>
>>> Where was the rising dome of dirt you get from an underground nuclear
>>> explosion, lunatic boi?
>>
>> You idiot.  The only way you get a rising dome of dirt is if the nukes 
>> were
>> detonated in dirt.  The nukes they detonated in Nuke York City were in 
>> rock
>> and then they didn't show the ground they showed the top of the Twin 
>> Towers
>> instead so they knew what not to show you.  <G>
>>
>>>> Plus you will have to prove a collapsing building can leave random
>>>> surviving
>>>> walls and surviving corners in the first place because I consider that 
>>>> a
>>>> big
>>>> lie too.
>>
>>> Controlled demolition doesn't leave anything standing, lunatic boi.
>>
>> But a Nuclear Controlled Demoltion will leave "sUrviving cornErs" just 
>> like
>> the Twin Towers left.
>>
>> Rocky
>>
>>
>
> Can you point out to us where a "Nuclear Controlled Demoltion" has taken 
> place, then we cam compare the events?

Why don't you go the other way around and try to say that the surviving 
corners of the Twin Towers are consistent with a collapse?  ROTFLMAO

Oh yes, the "Surviving Corners" of the Twin Towers which can only be 
recreated by an NCD can be found at:
 http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5090/1289/1600/Ground%20Zero%20on%209111.jpg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263628 — Re: Jim's lies

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
> news:mqntil$4gu$1@dont-email.me...


>> Can you point out to us where a "Nuclear Controlled Demoltion" has taken 
>> place, then we cam compare the events?
> 
> Why don't you go the other way around and try to say that the surviving 
> corners of the Twin Towers are consistent with a collapse?  ROTFLMAO

The collapes in New York are fully consistant with every other building
collapse on the planet with a similar fire, kook.

There has never been a "Nuclear Controlled Demoltion" anywhere on the
planet, kook.

<snip remaining kook babble>


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263712 — Re: Jim's lies

On 16/08/2015 01:25, Rocky wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:mqntil$4gu$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 15/08/2015 17:28, Rocky wrote:
>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>> news:oc4l9c-77c.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jim, it is too bad you can be labeled a liar because you lied about the
>>>>> cancer in first responders and you lied about the "Surviving Walls and
>>>>> Surviving Corners of the Twin Towers because they were not random at
>>>>> all.
>>>>> They were the parts furthest from the hypocenters.
>>>>
>>>> You mean the part where you think the ONLY cause of cancer is radiation,
>>>> lunatic boi?
>>>>
>>>> Where was the rising dome of dirt you get from an underground nuclear
>>>> explosion, lunatic boi?
>>>
>>> You idiot.  The only way you get a rising dome of dirt is if the nukes
>>> were
>>> detonated in dirt.  The nukes they detonated in Nuke York City were in
>>> rock
>>> and then they didn't show the ground they showed the top of the Twin
>>> Towers
>>> instead so they knew what not to show you.  <G>
>>>
>>>>> Plus you will have to prove a collapsing building can leave random
>>>>> surviving
>>>>> walls and surviving corners in the first place because I consider that
>>>>> a
>>>>> big
>>>>> lie too.
>>>
>>>> Controlled demolition doesn't leave anything standing, lunatic boi.
>>>
>>> But a Nuclear Controlled Demoltion will leave "sUrviving cornErs" just
>>> like
>>> the Twin Towers left.
>>>
>>> Rocky
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Can you point out to us where a "Nuclear Controlled Demoltion" has taken
>> place, then we cam compare the events?
>
> Why don't you go the other way around and try to say that the surviving
> corners of the Twin Towers are consistent with a collapse?  ROTFLMAO


Evasion noted
You are making the claim, you provide the evidence.

Your lack of presenting it means that your claim fails.

>
> Oh yes, the "Surviving Corners" of the Twin Towers which can only be
> recreated by an NCD can be found at:
>   http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5090/1289/1600/Ground%20Zero%20on%209111.jpg
>

Yes, it's a picture, it proves nothing about your claim, unless you can 
point us to a comparable event.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#262957 — Re: Jim's lies (was: Nuke Em)

On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 18:01:23 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>
><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
>news:0trk9c-pkp.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:39:53 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 03:22:22 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Arguing with the insane is pointless, kook boi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you ever won a jury trial 12 to 0 as a pro se litigant?  I have 
>>>>>>> so I
>>>>>>> certainly know how to make an argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Was this trial one of those high school things, kook boi?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Or maybe just something you imagined...
>>>>>
>>>>>      The trial did happen. Rocky has been able to offer ample evidence
>>>>> of this.
>>>>>      I find it interesting that he is able to produce evidence for the
>>>>> trial (actually a re-trial as he was found guilty at the first one),
>>>>> but can offer no evidence for his claims about nukes.
>>>>
>>>>Insanity for most people is progressive; he was probably fully functional
>>>>for some part of his life.
>>>
>>>      You are correct. Though I still don't think mental illness is
>>> Rocky's problem. I think it's that his intellect is so low, he is
>>> honestly unable to accept the truth regarding 9/11.
>>
>> I think it is a brain issue of some sort where he adds two and two to
>> get 7.9 and imagins non-existant connections.
>>
>> Though he is hardly the brightest bulb on the string.
>
>Jim, it is too bad you can be labeled a liar because you lied about the 
>cancer in first responders 

     Where is this lie to be found? If you're not lying yourself,
you'll post the quote and MID.

>and you lied about the "Surviving Walls and 
>Surviving Corners of the Twin Towers because they were not random at all. 
>They were the parts furthest from the hypocenters.

     You'll post the proof that these hypocenters existed, of course. 
     Oh wait. You've been asked to do that MANY times, and you've
ALWAYS played an avoidance game, or ran away from the request. You
will do so again because you KNOW no nukes were used.

>
>Plus you will have to prove a collapsing building can leave random surviving 
>walls and surviving corners in the first place because I consider that a big 
>lie too.

     Controlled demolitions, like you're trying and failing to claim,
won't. But you know that.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#262820

On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 20:33:17 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

[...]

>>> You lack of a valid argument is noted and incase you don't know it is
>>> because you don't have a valid argument to support the governments 
>>> official bullshit about 9/11.
>>>
>>> Rocky
>>
>> Arguing with the insane is pointless, kook boi.
>
>Have you ever won a jury trial 12 to 0 as a pro se litigant?  I have so I 
>certainly know how to make an argument.
>

     Many people have won cases as pro se litigants. This doesn't make
any of them experts in the field of nuclear explosives. A truth you've
been PROVING for a few years.

>You on the other hand haven't given any support whatsoever to the 
>government's official bullshit about 9/11.  

     Whereas the report does this, and does this more than adequately,
there is no reason for anyone else to do so.

>It is clear that you know you 
>can't since their photos of the alleged hijackers were from the wrong 
>airport and then the movies they had were not time stamped so they were 
>invalid as evidence too.  <G>

     You keep making this claim, yet have offered no valid, verifiable
evidence of it. 
     Hypocrite much?

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | alt.conspiracy

csiph-web