Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.conspiracy > #272204 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-24 05:28 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-12-25 16:30 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 157 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.conspiracy
Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-24 05:28 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 15:53 +1100
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-23 21:18 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-24 00:14 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 03:59 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 03:59 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-25 08:58 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 14:07 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-26 19:53 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 05:27 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-28 07:24 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 03:58 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-29 04:45 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 04:56 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-29 22:24 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 17:44 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-30 06:52 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 03:48 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-30 22:18 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 20:54 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? dmaster <dan.woj@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-31 09:32 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 14:14 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-01 10:41 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 12:47 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-01 22:21 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 06:05 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-03 17:20 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 15:24 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-05 06:36 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 23:13 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 03:56 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 01:14 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-05 20:20 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 21:02 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-01-06 00:37 -0500
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 22:43 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 06:30 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 22:41 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 04:22 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 20:32 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-07 06:37 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 03:34 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 23:47 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 00:03 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 01:10 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 01:14 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 05:56 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 09:01 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 05:33 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 09:30 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 05:34 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 05:55 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 05:55 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-08 18:27 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? edrhodes@hotmail.com - 2016-01-06 19:42 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-07 06:34 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 03:34 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? edrhodes@hotmail.com - 2016-01-07 01:54 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-08 07:01 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 05:55 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-09 10:05 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 05:38 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-01-09 10:28 -0500
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 12:10 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 14:29 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 14:34 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-01-10 10:08 -0500
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 16:51 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 01:00 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 01:37 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 01:42 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 01:45 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 04:19 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 04:18 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 04:17 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-17 06:07 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 05:23 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-02 23:41 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-25 15:14 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-25 16:22 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-25 19:42 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-29 00:29 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-29 00:38 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? PaxPerPoten <PPP@USA.org> - 2015-12-29 03:10 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-29 01:49 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-29 02:07 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-29 02:35 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-29 02:46 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 04:56 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-29 13:05 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-29 08:52 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-29 16:59 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 02:44 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-30 13:37 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 17:45 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 04:56 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-29 08:59 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-12-29 18:23 -0500
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 17:45 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-12-30 06:33 -0500
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 02:25 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-30 07:56 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-30 16:20 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-30 10:32 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-30 17:54 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 20:53 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-31 04:36 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-31 01:29 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 05:23 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 05:23 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-30 17:58 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-30 16:26 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-30 23:08 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-02 13:46 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-02 23:31 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-03 08:58 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-03 20:22 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-01-03 14:37 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 15:24 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-03 22:35 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-01-03 19:57 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-04 03:04 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-04 06:31 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 04:05 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 04:04 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 23:58 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 23:43 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 20:53 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-17 08:11 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-17 08:33 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 01:13 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 01:36 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-01-17 04:10 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 22:48 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 04:35 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-18 03:34 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-18 03:55 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-18 19:55 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 05:25 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 05:24 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 05:24 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-17 17:52 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-01-17 13:55 -0500
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 17:19 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-18 04:33 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 14:38 +1100
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 23:12 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 23:27 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 04:35 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-24 04:51 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-27 03:56 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 03:59 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-27 20:40 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-28 18:39 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 02:37 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 20:52 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-25 16:30 -0800
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 05:28 +0100 |
| Subject | Why "9/11" ? |
| Message-ID | <de1ajbFfdvjU1@mid.individual.net> |
Hi NG What is actually the meaning of 9/11? I ask my calculator: 9/11=0,8181818181818181818181818181818... It is actually 'sacred geometry' and means 'as above so below'. (just assume you 'are' a 1 at 200th position and have only '81' as neighbours). TH
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 15:53 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <neum7blc9dkm4f846g55r5mn87seoitt7h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #272204 |
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 05:28:24 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >Hi NG > >What is actually the meaning of 9/11? It means, if you are an American, September (the 9th month), the 11th (11 days since the beginning of the month). Most other parts of the world would write it 11/9. HTH Shill #2 -- Some drink at the fountain of knowledge...others just gargle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 21:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <367cd361-9027-4ed9-af67-36fc0db410cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #272204 |
On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 11:28:30 PM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: > Hi NG > > What is actually the meaning of 9/11? > > I ask my calculator: > > 9/11=0,8181818181818181818181818181818... > > > It is actually 'sacred geometry' and means 'as above so below'. (just > assume you 'are' a 1 at 200th position and have only '81' as neighbours). > > > TH As above so below is a famous mason quote they believe that everything in the sky is mirrored on earth.It's all about sun worship and the obelisk pointing toward the sky and its capstone was the all seeing eye and the twin towers represented the twin gods of war and deception the shorter one being the twin sister
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 00:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3c83043f-413d-4621-bb83-51129b4283eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #272208 |
On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 12:18:55 AM UTC-5, joeturn wrote: > On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 11:28:30 PM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Hi NG > > > > What is actually the meaning of 9/11? > > > > I ask my calculator: > > > > 9/11=0,8181818181818181818181818181818... > > > > > > It is actually 'sacred geometry' and means 'as above so below'. (just > > assume you 'are' a 1 at 200th position and have only '81' as neighbours). > > > > > > TH > > As above so below is a famous mason quote they believe that everything in the sky is mirrored on earth.It's all about sun worship and the obelisk pointing toward the sky and its capstone was the all seeing eye and the twin towers represented the twin gods of war and deception the shorter one being the twin sister. Apate was the spirit (daimona) of deceit, guile, fraud and deception. Her male counterpart was Dolos the daimon of trickery and wiles. She was also a companion of the Pseudologoi (Lies).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 03:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qfgn7b5o1nnet41qrggfssb9gpdtp0806t@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #272208 |
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:18:54 -0800 (PST), joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 11:28:30 PM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Hi NG
>>
>> What is actually the meaning of 9/11?
>>
>> I ask my calculator:
>>
>> 9/11=0,8181818181818181818181818181818...
>>
>>
>> It is actually 'sacred geometry' and means 'as above so below'. (just
>> assume you 'are' a 1 at 200th position and have only '81' as neighbours).
>>
>>
>> TH
>
>As above so below is a famous mason quote they believe that everything in the sky is mirrored on earth.It's all about sun worship and the obelisk pointing toward the sky and its capstone was the all seeing eye and the twin towers represented the twin gods of war and deception the shorter one being the twin sister
PLEASE learn how to use your RETURN/ENTER key. Have a five year
old show you. Several times if needed.
I understand you chose the name "slowjoe" to represent your very
limited intellect, but this is getting beyond stupid.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 03:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <6fgn7bd5ik3b46hptmbr63hjn07t3ugnh1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #272204 |
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 05:28:24 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
>Hi NG
>
>What is actually the meaning of 9/11?
>
>I ask my calculator:
>
>9/11=0,8181818181818181818181818181818...
>
Your calculator can never offer the motivation for the actions of
any terrorists.
>
>It is actually 'sacred geometry' and means 'as above so below'.
"As Above so Below" is a terrible movie.
Well, it is.
>(just
>assume you 'are' a 1 at 200th position and have only '81' as neighbours).
>
Pass. Again, assumptions mean nothing. But you have nothing else
to offer.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 08:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <de4b9uF75joU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #272228 |
Am 24.12.2015 10:59, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3): > >> Hi NG >> >> What is actually the meaning of 9/11? >> >> I ask my calculator: >> >> 9/11=0,8181818181818181818181818181818... >> > > Your calculator can never offer the motivation for the actions of > any terrorists. Where in my story do you find terrorists? I was actually referring to the ring, the Jesuits wear (containing 9/11). >> It is actually 'sacred geometry' and means 'as above so below'. > > "As Above so Below" is a terrible movie. > Well, it is. It is also mysticism. And physics... Let's start with something else: fractals. A fractal is a mathematical construct, that has a feature called 'self-similarity'. This means: large structures look similar to small ones. And the entire fractal is 'one thing'. The size of a structure has a direction: large-> above, small-> below. So: 'self-similarity' could be translated to 'as above so below'. And most likely the mystics are (unknowingly) referring to the fractal behaviour of our world. Physicists also try to describe the same world, only from a different angle. So they would use less mystic terms, even if they want to address the same idea (as the Jesuits). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 14:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <lf8r7b97dc4plnj69h90qb3p46ve70jkfk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #272267 |
On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 08:58:53 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
>Am 24.12.2015 10:59, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>
>>
>>> Hi NG
>>>
>>> What is actually the meaning of 9/11?
>>>
>>> I ask my calculator:
>>>
>>> 9/11=0,8181818181818181818181818181818...
>>>
>>
>> Your calculator can never offer the motivation for the actions of
>> any terrorists.
>
>Where in my story do you find terrorists?
>
You've commented about the terrorist attacks in the past.
>I was actually referring to the ring, the Jesuits wear (containing 9/11).
>
Nothing in your post would suggest you meant anything other than
the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001.
>
>>> It is actually 'sacred geometry' and means 'as above so below'.
>>
>> "As Above so Below" is a terrible movie.
>> Well, it is.
>
>
>It is also mysticism. And physics...
Maybe my joke was a bit too obscure. Granted, it wasn't
particularly funny, so few of my jokes truly are, but if you've never
seen "As Above So Below," and be happy if you haven't, the joke was
assured to fail.
>
>Let's start with something else: fractals.
>
Because fractals connect to a Jesuit ring and/or terrorist
attacks?
>A fractal is a mathematical construct, that has a feature called
>'self-similarity'.
>
>This means: large structures look similar to small ones. And the entire
>fractal is 'one thing'.
>
>The size of a structure has a direction: large-> above, small-> below.
>
>So: 'self-similarity' could be translated to 'as above so below'. And
>most likely the mystics are (unknowingly) referring to the fractal
>behaviour of our world.
>
>Physicists also try to describe the same world, only from a different
>angle. So they would use less mystic terms, even if they want to address
>the same idea (as the Jesuits).
>
What, like exactly, does this have to do with any ring a Jesuit
wears and/or terrorist attacks?
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-26 19:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <de861jF5invU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #272292 |
Am 25.12.2015 21:07, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3): >>> >>>> Hi NG >>>> >>>> What is actually the meaning of 9/11? >>>> >>>> I ask my calculator: >>>> >>>> 9/11=0,8181818181818181818181818181818... >>>> >>> >>> Your calculator can never offer the motivation for the actions of >>> any terrorists. >> >> Where in my story do you find terrorists? >> > > You've commented about the terrorist attacks in the past. Well, yes. But I also have posted pizza recipes and my ideas about homoeopathy. >> I was actually referring to the ring, the Jesuits wear (containing 9/11). >> > > Nothing in your post would suggest you meant anything other than > the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001. If you would look closer at the title or at my initial text, you will find no year. I found, these numbers (9 and 11) show up in several other strange events: - Hitler's coup - 'Crystal night' and several others. These numbers seem to be attractive for 'bad guys' and I wondered why this would be the case. I have speculated about the actual (positive) content of the mystical use of these numbers. I my eyes it has a certain meaning and that is 'As above so below'. And this could be understood as reference to the fractal behaviour of our world. (my guess) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-27 05:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <lniv7bpdevi1sokjltsml2sifg9nkhqro0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #272370 |
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:53:34 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
>Am 25.12.2015 21:07, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>
>>>>> Hi NG
>>>>>
>>>>> What is actually the meaning of 9/11?
>>>>>
>>>>> I ask my calculator:
>>>>>
>>>>> 9/11=0,8181818181818181818181818181818...
>>>>
>>>> Your calculator can never offer the motivation for the actions of
>>>> any terrorists.
>>>
>>> Where in my story do you find terrorists?
>>
>> You've commented about the terrorist attacks in the past.
>
>
>Well, yes. But I also have posted pizza recipes and my ideas about
>homoeopathy.
>
I've seen no such post. It's possible that you have done so, but
not in this group within the past year and a half.
>>> I was actually referring to the ring, the Jesuits wear (containing 9/11).
>>
>> Nothing in your post would suggest you meant anything other than
>> the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001.
>
>
>If you would look closer at the title or at my initial text, you will
>find no year.
>
9/11 is commonly used to represent the attacks of 9/11/2001.
>I found, these numbers (9 and 11) show up in several other strange events:
>- Hitler's coup
>- 'Crystal night'
>
> and several others.
>
If you want to spend the time, you can find specific number
combinations showing up all over.
>These numbers seem to be attractive for 'bad guys' and I wondered why
>this would be the case.
>
Numbers are not attractive for good or bad guys. They simply
exist. And there is nothing to suggest the Jesuits are evil.
>I have speculated about the actual (positive) content of the mystical
>use of these numbers.
>
>I my eyes it has a certain meaning and that is 'As above so below'.
>
If you have evidence to support this being the case, present it.
If not, you're offering nothing more than a guess. Which is worthless.
>And this could be understood as reference to the fractal behaviour of
>our world. (my guess)
Your guesses, and assumptions (to save time) are meaningless.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-28 07:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dec2s7F3tsuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #272408 |
Am 27.12.2015 12:27, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3): >>>>>> Hi NG >>>>>> >>>>>> What is actually the meaning of 9/11? >>>>>> >>>>>> I ask my calculator: >>>>>> >>>>>> 9/11=0,8181818181818181818181818181818... >>>>> >>>>> Your calculator can never offer the motivation for the actions of >>>>> any terrorists. >>>> >>>> Where in my story do you find terrorists? >>> >>> You've commented about the terrorist attacks in the past. >> >> >> Well, yes. But I also have posted pizza recipes and my ideas about >> homoeopathy. >> > > I've seen no such post. It's possible that you have done so, but > not in this group within the past year and a half. ??? >>>> I was actually referring to the ring, the Jesuits wear (containing 9/11). >>> >>> Nothing in your post would suggest you meant anything other than >>> the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001. >> >> >> If you would look closer at the title or at my initial text, you will >> find no year. >> > > 9/11 is commonly used to represent the attacks of 9/11/2001. > >> I found, these numbers (9 and 11) show up in several other strange events: >> - Hitler's coup >> - 'Crystal night' >> >> and several others. >> > > If you want to spend the time, you can find specific number > combinations showing up all over. In Germany we had several events, that happened on dates with 9 and 11. E.g. the Berlin Wall was opened at 9.11.1989. The Republic was declared on a 9.11. Also these atrocities called 'crystal night' was on a 9.11. (in German notation, of course, what is 11/9 in US-format) So I have collected hints for events, that could possibly be a state-sponsored fake. Most prominent: the so called 'gun-powder plot'. This is somehow similar to 9-11 (2001), since the story contains similar elements (lone bad guys, terrorists, explosion, large building, religious unrest, settlement of unrest). But it was not a 9th of November, but a fifth. >> These numbers seem to be attractive for 'bad guys' and I wondered why >> this would be the case. >> > > Numbers are not attractive for good or bad guys. They simply > exist. And there is nothing to suggest the Jesuits are evil. 'Numerology' is different to mathematics or scientific use of numbers, since it attempts to reveal certain hidden 'secrets'. So we could safely assume, that ocultists of the various fashions practise numerology of some kind. And we have hints, that occultism is the foundation of certain questionable developments - especially Naziism in Germany. And certainly I have NOT blamed the Jesuits for something, even if they have used such a symbol. The problem is: use of a method by a certain group may be a hint, this group is actually involved in something, where such a method is used. But it is not a proof, such a group would be responsible, since anybody with such knowledge can use this method, since the knowledge itself is universal and not restricted to certain groups. And we had also several examples of 'false flag' and of soldiers mimicking soldiers of the opponent. Most famous examples: Lawrence of Arabia and Francis Drake. So you cannot identify insurgents, agents or 'terrorists' by the use of certain symbols. Instead it would be necessary to catch one alive and research the real circumstances of that particular event. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-28 03:58 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <rsp18b51o0ah6gb2kgnqmuqom8v25n92ig@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #272464 |
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 07:24:00 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
>Am 27.12.2015 12:27, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>
>>>>>>> Hi NG
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is actually the meaning of 9/11?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I ask my calculator:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 9/11=0,8181818181818181818181818181818...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your calculator can never offer the motivation for the actions of
>>>>>> any terrorists.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where in my story do you find terrorists?
>>>>
>>>> You've commented about the terrorist attacks in the past.
>>>
>>> Well, yes. But I also have posted pizza recipes and my ideas about
>>> homoeopathy.
>>
>> I've seen no such post. It's possible that you have done so, but
>> not in this group within the past year and a half.
>
>???
>
You made the claim. It's possible you've sent such posts, but
I've not seen them.
>>>>> I was actually referring to the ring, the Jesuits wear (containing 9/11).
>>>>
>>>> Nothing in your post would suggest you meant anything other than
>>>> the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you would look closer at the title or at my initial text, you will
>>> find no year.
>>
>> 9/11 is commonly used to represent the attacks of 9/11/2001.
>>
>>> I found, these numbers (9 and 11) show up in several other strange events:
>>> - Hitler's coup
>>> - 'Crystal night'
>>>
>>> and several others.
>>
>> If you want to spend the time, you can find specific number
>> combinations showing up all over.
>
>
>In Germany we had several events, that happened on dates with 9 and 11.
>
>E.g. the Berlin Wall was opened at 9.11.1989.
>
>The Republic was declared on a 9.11.
>
>Also these atrocities called 'crystal night' was on a 9.11. (in German
>notation, of course, what is 11/9 in US-format)
November 9th?
>
>So I have collected hints for events, that could possibly be a
>state-sponsored fake.
>
No, you've taken random events and forced a connection that isn't
actually there.
>Most prominent:
>
>the so called 'gun-powder plot'.
>
>This is somehow similar to 9-11 (2001), since the story contains similar
>elements (lone bad guys, terrorists, explosion, large building,
>religious unrest, settlement of unrest).
>
>But it was not a 9th of November, but a fifth.
>
So, like so much of what you post, completely irrelevant to the
discussion.
>>> These numbers seem to be attractive for 'bad guys' and I wondered why
>>> this would be the case.
>>
>> Numbers are not attractive for good or bad guys. They simply
>> exist. And there is nothing to suggest the Jesuits are evil.
>
>'Numerology' is different to mathematics or scientific use of numbers,
>since it attempts to reveal certain hidden 'secrets'.
>
>So we could safely assume,
Assumptions still mean nothing.
[Remainder snipped unread since assumptions are meaningless.]
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-29 04:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <deedujFmb52U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #272482 |
Am 28.12.2015 10:58, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3): >> >> In Germany we had several events, that happened on dates with 9 and 11. >> >> E.g. the Berlin Wall was opened at 9.11.1989. >> >> The Republic was declared on a 9.11. >> >> Also these atrocities called 'crystal night' was on a 9.11. (in German >> notation, of course, what is 11/9 in US-format) > > November 9th? Well, yes: 9.11. in the date-format used in Germany is the 9th of November. >> >> So I have collected hints for events, that could possibly be a >> state-sponsored fake. >> > > No, you've taken random events and forced a connection that isn't > actually there. > >> Most prominent: >> >> the so called 'gun-powder plot'. >> >> This is somehow similar to 9-11 (2001), since the story contains similar >> elements (lone bad guys, terrorists, explosion, large building, >> religious unrest, settlement of unrest). >> >> But it was not a 9th of November, but a fifth. >> > > So, like so much of what you post, completely irrelevant to the > discussion. No, if the 'gun-powder-plot' was in fact an early version of what apparently 9/11 (2001) seems to be : state-sponsored false flag operations, to utilise religious tensions for martial law and other atrocities. Here we have King Jacob I. who could eventually have an interest in the event (to push out Catholic influence from England and to strengthen his own government). From King James to George W. Bush exists a direct personal link, btw. It is a totally amazing story: The king gave two Corporations the right to create a colony in the than New World. This was the 'Virginia Company of London', who founded the settlement in what is now the USA on basis of a corporation, with shareholders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Company This Company held the colonies as private property and brought settlers there as 'temporal slaves'. They got the promise of land and the right to settlement in exchange for seven years of work. The Indians in that regions were initially not hostile, but tried to appease the settlers. To create peace, the daughter of an Indian Chief married an Englishmen: Pocahontas. From this the so called 'First Families of Virginia' derived, including the Bush family. Now we need to investigate, where we have suspicious stories, with little or no evidence from other side, than those involved or those , who profited. In case of Pocahontas we now with certainty, that someone married. But the offspring does not look much like Native Americans. So I would doubt the nationality of Pocahontas, until proven otherwise. Instead I would assume, the entire story is an early form of propaganda and does not contain a grain of truth (despite the fact that a couple married). Similar the 'gun-powder plot'. King Jacob was - in my eyes - an exceptionally questionable person and I would not believe in a single of his words. So is the story at least possible? Well, if you assume, that a few lone 'terrorists' row two and half ton of gunpowder across the River Themse and plant it below the parliament, to blow up the King and this would happen undisturbed and unnoticed. The story 'smells' - to say the least. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-29 04:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <1np48b5hfv9kis8kn5oc77hfrnoefbmouh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #272525 |
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 04:45:17 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
>Am 28.12.2015 10:58, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>
>>>
>>> In Germany we had several events, that happened on dates with 9 and 11.
>>>
>>> E.g. the Berlin Wall was opened at 9.11.1989.
>>>
>>> The Republic was declared on a 9.11.
>>>
>>> Also these atrocities called 'crystal night' was on a 9.11. (in German
>>> notation, of course, what is 11/9 in US-format)
>>
>> November 9th?
>Well, yes: 9.11. in the date-format used in Germany is the 9th of November.
>
Above you claim in the US it's 11/9. That would be November 9th.
What does November 9th have to do with anything we're discussing?
I don't see the connection.
>>> So I have collected hints for events, that could possibly be a
>>> state-sponsored fake.
>>
>> No, you've taken random events and forced a connection that isn't
>> actually there.
>>
>>> Most prominent:
>>>
>>> the so called 'gun-powder plot'.
>>>
>>> This is somehow similar to 9-11 (2001), since the story contains similar
>>> elements (lone bad guys, terrorists, explosion, large building,
>>> religious unrest, settlement of unrest).
>>>
>>> But it was not a 9th of November, but a fifth.
>>
>> So, like so much of what you post, completely irrelevant to the
>> discussion.
>
>No, if the 'gun-powder-plot' was in fact an early version of what
>apparently 9/11 (2001) seems to be : state-sponsored false flag
>operations, to utilise religious tensions for martial law and other
>atrocities.
>
There is no evidence that the actions of Guy Fawkes, or his
associates, were the result of a state-sponsored false flag operation.
You are, of course, free to provide any and all evidence you have. But
you won't. You'll simply offer guesses and assumptions that are not
based in reality.
>Here we have King Jacob I.
James was King at the time.
>who could eventually have an interest in the
>event (to push out Catholic influence from England and to strengthen his
>own government).
>
> From King James to George W. Bush exists a direct personal link, btw.
>
They may be distantly related. Go back far enough, and everyone
will have a common ancestor.
[snip items discussed and proved wrong before.]
You must be quite desperate to post that which has already been
PROVED wrong.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-29 22:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <degc04F75v9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #272538 |
Am 29.12.2015 11:56, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3): >> No, if the 'gun-powder-plot' was in fact an early version of what >> apparently 9/11 (2001) seems to be : state-sponsored false flag >> operations, to utilise religious tensions for martial law and other >> atrocities. >> > > There is no evidence that the actions of Guy Fawkes, or his > associates, were the result of a state-sponsored false flag operation. > You are, of course, free to provide any and all evidence you have. But > you won't. You'll simply offer guesses and assumptions that are not > based in reality. I didn't say, that the actions of Guy Fawkes were state-sponsored, but I doubt, that he had done anything at all. Reason: the guy had the name: Guy Faux (not Fawkes). And that is French and means 'wrong'. Also 'Fawkes' sounds similar to Fake'. So: was there actually any powder in the basement of the parliament? We know about this powder from actually where? Is the story at least somehow plausible? No! We have no other evidence, but only that from 'government' (and associated agencies). So: the 'gun-powder-plot' smells and tastes like '9/11'. >> Here we have King Jacob I. > > James was King at the time. > >> who could eventually have an interest in the >> event (to push out Catholic influence from England and to strengthen his >> own government). >> >> From King James to George W. Bush exists a direct personal link, btw. >> > > They may be distantly related. Go back far enough, and everyone > will have a common ancestor. Well, no. The so called First Families of Virginia had married only among each other and derived their ancestry from Pocahontas (and King James). Among them we have then president George W. Bush. So there is good reason to pay attention to this particular aspect of American history. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-29 17:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <am668bdd7bcspj518966683dhdhdtvsius@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #272573 |
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:24:12 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
>Am 29.12.2015 11:56, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>
>>>>> In Germany we had several events, that happened on dates with 9 and 11.
>>>>>
>>>>> E.g. the Berlin Wall was opened at 9.11.1989.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Republic was declared on a 9.11.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also these atrocities called 'crystal night' was on a 9.11. (in German
>>>>> notation, of course, what is 11/9 in US-format)
>>>>
>>>> November 9th?
>>>Well, yes: 9.11. in the date-format used in Germany is the 9th of November.
>>
>> Above you claim in the US it's 11/9. That would be November 9th.
>> What does November 9th have to do with anything we're discussing?
>>I don't see the connection.
>>
Thomas?
>>>>> So I have collected hints for events, that could possibly be a
>>>>> state-sponsored fake.
>>>>
>>>> No, you've taken random events and forced a connection that isn't
>>>> actually there.
>>>>
>>>>> Most prominent:
>>>>>
>>>>> the so called 'gun-powder plot'.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is somehow similar to 9-11 (2001), since the story contains similar
>>>>> elements (lone bad guys, terrorists, explosion, large building,
>>>>> religious unrest, settlement of unrest).
>>>>>
>>>>> But it was not a 9th of November, but a fifth.
>>>>
>>>> So, like so much of what you post, completely irrelevant to the
>>>> discussion.
>>>
>>> No, if the 'gun-powder-plot' was in fact an early version of what
>>> apparently 9/11 (2001) seems to be : state-sponsored false flag
>>> operations, to utilise religious tensions for martial law and other
>>> atrocities.
>>
>> There is no evidence that the actions of Guy Fawkes, or his
>> associates, were the result of a state-sponsored false flag operation.
>> You are, of course, free to provide any and all evidence you have. But
>> you won't. You'll simply offer guesses and assumptions that are not
>> based in reality.
>
>
>I didn't say, that the actions of Guy Fawkes were state-sponsored,
Yes, you did. As seen above (yes I replaced the part you
dishonestly snipped away, again), you did claim it was a
"state-sponsored false flag operations, to utilise [sic] religious
tensions for martial law and other atrocities."
Feel free to try and avoid the truth by dishonestly snipping once
more, if you NEED to. I'll simply bring back that which proves you the
liar you are.
>but I doubt, that he had done anything at all.
>
You doubt much that is true. It's almost amusing how often you do
so.
>Reason: the guy had the name: Guy Faux (not Fawkes).
Wrong. It was Fawkes. It's well established.
>And that is French and means 'wrong'.
While yours is not really a wrong translation of faux, a better
one would be "false."
An example of it used in a sentence:
Je dois encore voir une demande de vous qui est pas faux.
Yes, I am fluent in French. Though I doubt my spell checker will
like it :)
>Also 'Fawkes' sounds similar to Fake'.
>
The man in the Gun Powder Plot we are referencing was named
Fawkes. This isn't a secret. There is ample historical data to confirm
this. I'll present some cites, if you wish.
>So: was there actually any powder in the basement of the parliament?
>
According to the historical documents, yes.
If you have anything to counter the documents, present it. Note:
guesses, feelings, hopes, and assumptions will be disregarded.
>We know about this powder from actually where?
>
From the documents of the time. If you have anything to counter
them, present it.
>Is the story at least somehow plausible?
>
Yes. Very plausible.
>No! We have no other evidence, but only that from 'government' (and
>associated agencies).
>
>So: the 'gun-powder-plot' smells and tastes like '9/11'.
>
So you agree it was NOT a false flag operation. Good.
>>> Here we have King Jacob I.
>>
>> James was King at the time.
>>
>>> who could eventually have an interest in the
>>> event (to push out Catholic influence from England and to strengthen his
>>> own government).
>>>
>>> From King James to George W. Bush exists a direct personal link, btw.
>>
>> They may be distantly related. Go back far enough, and everyone
>> will have a common ancestor.
>
>Well, no.
>
Well, yes.
>The so called First Families of Virginia had married only among each
>other and derived their ancestry from Pocahontas (and King James).
>
What?
Please present your evidence for the "first Families" of Virginia
having Pocahontas and King James as ancestors.
>Among them we have then president George W. Bush.
Bush wasn't, and isn't, from Virginia.
As most fourth graders will already know, Bush Sr. was born in
Milton, Massachusetts. Bush Jr., the one you reference, was born in
New Haven, Connecticut.
What has me most puzzled about you is your constantly making
claims that are so easy to prove wrong. Given how easy it is, you have
to know the truth, but opt to present that which you KNOW is wrong
with intent. In other words, I'm wondering why you consistently LIE
about most everything.
Is the motivation something you can put into words?
>
>So there is good reason to pay attention to this particular aspect of
>American history.
>
Maybe you should start paying attention.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 06:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <deh9p6Fdq4tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #272592 |
Am 30.12.2015 00:44, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3): > >>>>>> So I have collected hints for events, that could possibly be a >>>>>> state-sponsored fake. >>>>> >>>>> No, you've taken random events and forced a connection that isn't >>>>> actually there. >>>>> >>>>>> Most prominent: >>>>>> >>>>>> the so called 'gun-powder plot'. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is somehow similar to 9-11 (2001), since the story contains similar >>>>>> elements (lone bad guys, terrorists, explosion, large building, >>>>>> religious unrest, settlement of unrest). >>>>>> >>>>>> But it was not a 9th of November, but a fifth. >>>>> >>>>> So, like so much of what you post, completely irrelevant to the >>>>> discussion. >>>> >>>> No, if the 'gun-powder-plot' was in fact an early version of what >>>> apparently 9/11 (2001) seems to be : state-sponsored false flag >>>> operations, to utilise religious tensions for martial law and other >>>> atrocities. >>> >>> There is no evidence that the actions of Guy Fawkes, or his >>> associates, were the result of a state-sponsored false flag operation. >>> You are, of course, free to provide any and all evidence you have. But >>> you won't. You'll simply offer guesses and assumptions that are not >>> based in reality. >> >> >> I didn't say, that the actions of Guy Fawkes were state-sponsored, > > Yes, you did. As seen above (yes I replaced the part you > dishonestly snipped away, again), you did claim it was a > "state-sponsored false flag operations, to utilise [sic] religious > tensions for martial law and other atrocities." > Feel free to try and avoid the truth by dishonestly snipping once > more, if you NEED to. I'll simply bring back that which proves you the > liar you are. > >> but I doubt, that he had done anything at all. >> > > You doubt much that is true. It's almost amusing how often you do > so. > >> Reason: the guy had the name: Guy Faux (not Fawkes). > > Wrong. It was Fawkes. It's well established. > >> And that is French and means 'wrong'. > > While yours is not really a wrong translation of faux, a better > one would be "false." So his name translates to: false guy! That is actually what I meant: it's a sick joke! So we have a pattern: bad guys fake evidence, kill the innocent and laugh about the public. Would got killed? Actually the 'terrorists' were executed. In those days these 'terrorists' have been defined by their religion (Catholicism than, Islam today). The aim of King James/Jacob was apparently to force people into the Anglican Church, which was under his rule. So killing Catholics would fit into such an agenda, but would need some sort of justification (the gun-powder plot). .. >> Also 'Fawkes' sounds similar to Fake'. >> > > The man in the Gun Powder Plot we are referencing was named > Fawkes. This isn't a secret. There is ample historical data to confirm > this. I'll present some cites, if you wish. > >> So: was there actually any powder in the basement of the parliament? >> > > According to the historical documents, yes. > If you have anything to counter the documents, present it. Note: > guesses, feelings, hopes, and assumptions will be disregarded. Brits always declared, they are, who writes history. So we would need evidence from independent sources (other than British). >> We know about this powder from actually where? >> > > From the documents of the time. If you have anything to counter > them, present it. Yes, but that is just paper from suspicious sources. Is there any other evidence? ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 03:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1a78b9mbp0mirf96hj6etl3crejuqeqpb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #272612 |
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 06:52:31 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
>Am 30.12.2015 00:44, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>
>>>>>>>> In Germany we had several events, that happened on dates with 9 and 11.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> E.g. the Berlin Wall was opened at 9.11.1989.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Republic was declared on a 9.11.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also these atrocities called 'crystal night' was on a 9.11. (in German
>>>>>>> notation, of course, what is 11/9 in US-format)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> November 9th?
>>>>>Well, yes: 9.11. in the date-format used in Germany is the 9th of November.
>>>>
>>>> Above you claim in the US it's 11/9. That would be November 9th.
>>>> What does November 9th have to do with anything we're discussing?
>>>>I don't see the connection.
>>
>>
>>Thomas?
>>
Still trying to run away from your claim? You must know I won't allow
your dishonesty to go unexposed.
>>>>>>> So I have collected hints for events, that could possibly be a
>>>>>>> state-sponsored fake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you've taken random events and forced a connection that isn't
>>>>>> actually there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most prominent:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the so called 'gun-powder plot'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is somehow similar to 9-11 (2001), since the story contains similar
>>>>>>> elements (lone bad guys, terrorists, explosion, large building,
>>>>>>> religious unrest, settlement of unrest).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it was not a 9th of November, but a fifth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, like so much of what you post, completely irrelevant to the
>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, if the 'gun-powder-plot' was in fact an early version of what
>>>>> apparently 9/11 (2001) seems to be : state-sponsored false flag
>>>>> operations, to utilise religious tensions for martial law and other
>>>>> atrocities.
>>>>
>>>> There is no evidence that the actions of Guy Fawkes, or his
>>>> associates, were the result of a state-sponsored false flag operation.
>>>> You are, of course, free to provide any and all evidence you have. But
>>>> you won't. You'll simply offer guesses and assumptions that are not
>>>> based in reality.
>>>
>>> I didn't say, that the actions of Guy Fawkes were state-sponsored,
>>
>> Yes, you did. As seen above (yes I replaced the part you
>> dishonestly snipped away, again), you did claim it was a
>> "state-sponsored false flag operations, to utilise [sic] religious
>> tensions for martial law and other atrocities."
>> Feel free to try and avoid the truth by dishonestly snipping once
>> more, if you NEED to. I'll simply bring back that which proves you the
>> liar you are.
>>
>>> but I doubt, that he had done anything at all.
>>
>> You doubt much that is true. It's almost amusing how often you do
>> so.
>>
>>> Reason: the guy had the name: Guy Faux (not Fawkes).
>>
>> Wrong. It was Fawkes. It's well established.
>>
>>> And that is French and means 'wrong'.
>>
>> While yours is not really a wrong translation of faux, a better
>> one would be "false."
Your dishonest snipping has been restored.
>> An example of it used in a sentence:
>>
>>Je dois encore voir une demande de vous qui est pas faux.
>>
>> Yes, I am fluent in French. Though I doubt my spell checker will
>>like it :)
Do you honestly think your dishonesty will go unexposed? Really?
>
>So his name translates to: false guy!
>
No. Since his name is Guy Fawkes, it can't translate to false
guy.
>That is actually what I meant: it's a sick joke!
>
No, you have LIED about his name. It is not now, nor has it ever
been Guy Faux.
You may present your lie as often as you believe you need, but
the truth will not be changed.
>So we have a pattern: bad guys fake evidence, kill the innocent and
>laugh about the public.
>
You have yet to offer anything to support a claim that any fake
evidence was presented. Since your claim is not true, you can't.
>Would got killed? Actually the 'terrorists' were executed.
>
>In those days these 'terrorists' have been defined by their religion
>(Catholicism than, Islam today).
>
Actually, the terrorist have been defined by their actions, not
their religion.
What, specifically, do you have against being honest?
This is a serious question.
> The aim of King James/Jacob
There was no King Jacob in England. There was a King Jacob in
Sweden. But he died around AD 1050. The Gun Powder Plot was in 1605,
making a connection impossible.
Or do you mean the fiction character from "The League of
Extraordinary Gentlemen?"
>was apparently to force people into the
>Anglican Church, which was under his rule.
>
Actually, in England, it's called The Church of England. In the
U.S. the church denomination is called Episcopal. It's possible the
denomination is called Anglican in Germany, but that would be kind of
odd. I would expect a more German name for it. But I'm not an expert
on Germany.
>So killing Catholics would fit into such an agenda, but would need some
>sort of justification (the gun-powder plot).
>
You will need to provide evidence that this was King James'
intended goal. But you won't. You can't.
>
>..
>>> Also 'Fawkes' sounds similar to Fake'.
>>
>> The man in the Gun Powder Plot we are referencing was named
>> Fawkes. This isn't a secret. There is ample historical data to confirm
>> this. I'll present some cites, if you wish.
>>
Thomas? Is your avoidance of this you way of admitting I am correct?
>>> So: was there actually any powder in the basement of the parliament?
>>
>> According to the historical documents, yes.
>> If you have anything to counter the documents, present it. Note:
>> guesses, feelings, hopes, and assumptions will be disregarded.
>
>
>Brits always declared, they are, who writes history. So we would need
>evidence from independent sources (other than British).
So you have no evidence and are simply presenting yet more lies.
Got it.
>
>>> We know about this powder from actually where?
>>
>> From the documents of the time. If you have anything to counter
>> them, present it.
>
>
>Yes, but that is just paper from suspicious sources.
There is nothing suspicious about them. Since you prove above you
have nothing to counter the historical documents, you may as well give
up on your deception.
>
>Is there any other evidence?
Your failure to counter the available evidence, then shifting the
burden of proof onto me is noted.
Clearly you are simply lying, as you so often do. And you don't
even make it a challenge to prove this.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 22:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dej00nFrhvcU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #272622 |
Am 30.12.2015 10:48, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3): .. >>>>>> No, if the 'gun-powder-plot' was in fact an early version of what >>>>>> apparently 9/11 (2001) seems to be : state-sponsored false flag >>>>>> operations, to utilise religious tensions for martial law and other >>>>>> atrocities. >>>>> >>>>> There is no evidence that the actions of Guy Fawkes, or his >>>>> associates, were the result of a state-sponsored false flag operation. >>>>> You are, of course, free to provide any and all evidence you have. But >>>>> you won't. You'll simply offer guesses and assumptions that are not >>>>> based in reality. >>>> >>>> I didn't say, that the actions of Guy Fawkes were state-sponsored, >>> >>> Yes, you did. As seen above (yes I replaced the part you >>> dishonestly snipped away, again), you did claim it was a >>> "state-sponsored false flag operations, to utilise [sic] religious >>> tensions for martial law and other atrocities." >>> Feel free to try and avoid the truth by dishonestly snipping once >>> more, if you NEED to. I'll simply bring back that which proves you the >>> liar you are. >>> >>>> but I doubt, that he had done anything at all. >>> >>> You doubt much that is true. It's almost amusing how often you do >>> so. >>> >>>> Reason: the guy had the name: Guy Faux (not Fawkes). >>> >>> Wrong. It was Fawkes. It's well established. >>> >>>> And that is French and means 'wrong'. >>> >>> While yours is not really a wrong translation of faux, a better >>> one would be "false." > > > Your dishonest snipping has been restored. It is my right to quote what I want to quote. You may call non quotes 'snipping', if you like, but I'm not obliged to write a reply to anything that you would like to have an answer to. ... >> >> So his name translates to: false guy! >> > > No. Since his name is Guy Fawkes, it can't translate to false > guy. Actually you are correct, in a way. But jokes do not function according to your laws. A joke usually uses unexpected relations and subconcious analogies. Here we had 'Guy' as name and 'guy' as synonym for - e.g.- 'bloke'. And 'Faux' could be understood in French as 'false' (as you stated above). So: 'false guy' or 'wrong bloke' could be associated (subconsciously). > >> That is actually what I meant: it's a sick joke! >> > > No, you have LIED about his name. It is not now, nor has it ever > been Guy Faux. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes Quote: "Guy Fawkes [gaɪ fɔːks] (* 13. April 1570 in York; † 31. Januar 1606 in London, auch geschrieben Guido sowie Faux oder Faukes)..." So, Wikipedia says, his real names was 'Faux'. .. >> So we have a pattern: bad guys fake evidence, kill the innocent and >> laugh about the public. >> > > You have yet to offer anything to support a claim that any fake > evidence was presented. Since your claim is not true, you can't. My statement was meant as 'hypothesis'. This is indicated by the term 'we have a pattern'. A hypothesis will not be proven, but withstands attempts to disprove it. (see: Scientific method). So, feel free to disprove my hypothesis. >> Would got killed? Actually the 'terrorists' were executed. >> >> In those days these 'terrorists' have been defined by their religion >> (Catholicism than, Islam today). >> > > Actually, the terrorist have been defined by their actions, not > their religion. My statement was: there have been no terrorists. These actions have been a fake by the government of that time (King Jacob), to force more people into the Church of England (under his command) and to discredit the Catholic Church. > What, specifically, do you have against being honest? > This is a serious question. Do you really think, King Jacob was honest? He was famous for burning 'witches'. >> The aim of King James/Jacob > > There was no King Jacob in England. King James became later King Jacob the first. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakob_I._%28England%29 .. > You will need to provide evidence that this was King James' > intended goal. But you won't. You can't. ?? We can guess, what motives a certain individual has for his activities, but we cannot be certain. You cannot possibly prove impressions, since this also caused by internal mental processes and is not base on 'hard facts'. So you may take my assumptions as what they are: assumptions or interpretations of my impression about this person. .. > >>>> So: was there actually any powder in the basement of the parliament? >>> >>> According to the historical documents, yes. >>> If you have anything to counter the documents, present it. Note: >>> guesses, feelings, hopes, and assumptions will be disregarded. >> >> >> Brits always declared, they are, who writes history. So we would need >> evidence from independent sources (other than British). > > So you have no evidence and are simply presenting yet more lies. > Got it. 'In dubio pro reo'. So the evidence has to be presented by the prosecution and not by the defending side. In this case this could be done by witness from other that British people and/or people related to the British government. >> >>>> We know about this powder from actually where? >>> >>> From the documents of the time. If you have anything to counter >>> them, present it. >> >> >> Yes, but that is just paper from suspicious sources. > > There is nothing suspicious about them. If King James faked the event, then certainly also these papers. So: where is independent evidence? .. >> Is there any other evidence? > > Your failure to counter the available evidence, then shifting the > burden of proof onto me is noted. > Clearly you are simply lying, as you so often do. And you don't > even make it a challenge to prove this. > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 20:54 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <s5698b10kgtf7t6t04vbn20u7u2c6c8n5j@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #272661 |
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:18:06 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
>Am 30.12.2015 10:48, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>..
>>>>>>> No, if the 'gun-powder-plot' was in fact an early version of what
>>>>>>> apparently 9/11 (2001) seems to be : state-sponsored false flag
>>>>>>> operations, to utilise religious tensions for martial law and other
>>>>>>> atrocities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no evidence that the actions of Guy Fawkes, or his
>>>>>> associates, were the result of a state-sponsored false flag operation.
>>>>>> You are, of course, free to provide any and all evidence you have. But
>>>>>> you won't. You'll simply offer guesses and assumptions that are not
>>>>>> based in reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't say, that the actions of Guy Fawkes were state-sponsored,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you did. As seen above (yes I replaced the part you
>>>> dishonestly snipped away, again), you did claim it was a
>>>> "state-sponsored false flag operations, to utilise [sic] religious
>>>> tensions for martial law and other atrocities."
>>>> Feel free to try and avoid the truth by dishonestly snipping once
>>>> more, if you NEED to. I'll simply bring back that which proves you the
>>>> liar you are.
>>>>
>>>>> but I doubt, that he had done anything at all.
>>>>
>>>> You doubt much that is true. It's almost amusing how often you do
>>>> so.
>>>>
>>>>> Reason: the guy had the name: Guy Faux (not Fawkes).
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. It was Fawkes. It's well established.
>>>>
>>>>> And that is French and means 'wrong'.
>>>>
>>>> While yours is not really a wrong translation of faux, a better
>>>> one would be "false."
>>
>>
>> Your dishonest snipping has been restored.
>
>It is my right to quote what I want to quote. You may call non quotes
>'snipping', if you like, but I'm not obliged to write a reply to
>anything that you would like to have an answer to.
If you want your stern avoidance of honesty to be exposed, who am
I to stop you?
>...
>>>
>>> So his name translates to: false guy!
>>
>> No. Since his name is Guy Fawkes, it can't translate to false
>> guy.
>
>Actually you are correct, in a way. But jokes do not function according
>to your laws.
>
Not in a way. His name is Guy Fawkes. There is no joke.
>A joke usually uses unexpected relations and subconcious analogies.
>
>Here we had 'Guy' as name and 'guy' as synonym for - e.g.- 'bloke'.
>
>And 'Faux' could be understood in French as 'false' (as you stated above).
>
But his name was never faux. You simply made that claim as a
means of lying.
>So: 'false guy' or 'wrong bloke' could be associated (subconsciously).
>
If his name had been faux, yes. But it wasn't. And no amount of
your lying about his name will alter this.
>>> That is actually what I meant: it's a sick joke!
>>
>> No, you have LIED about his name. It is not now, nor has it ever
>> been Guy Faux.
>
>https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes
>
>Quote:
>
>"Guy Fawkes [ga? f??ks] (* 13. April 1570 in York; † 31. Januar 1606 in
>London, auch geschrieben Guido sowie Faux oder Faukes)..."
>
>So, Wikipedia says, his real names was 'Faux'.
>
No, it does not. It's an alternate spelling, but this spelling
was not used by the man we're discussing.
>..
>>> So we have a pattern: bad guys fake evidence, kill the innocent and
>>> laugh about the public.
>>
>> You have yet to offer anything to support a claim that any fake
>> evidence was presented. Since your claim is not true, you can't.
>
>My statement was meant as 'hypothesis'. This is indicated by the term
>'we have a pattern'.
>
Not to any educated person.
>A hypothesis will not be proven, but withstands attempts to disprove it.
>(see: Scientific method).
>
>So, feel free to disprove my hypothesis.
>
You may lie about the scientific method if you need to. The truth
remains that it befalls you to prove your claim. It does not befall me
to disprove it.
If your claim is true, you will produce the evidence that proves
it. If it's nothing more than an example of your pathological lying,
you'll only offer more avoidance. If you offer anything at all.
>
>>> Would got killed? Actually the 'terrorists' were executed.
>>>
>>> In those days these 'terrorists' have been defined by their religion
>>> (Catholicism than, Islam today).
>>
>> Actually, the terrorist have been defined by their actions, not
>> their religion.
>
>My statement was: there have been no terrorists.
Yet above you claim there were.
>These actions have been
>a fake by the government of that time (King Jacob),
Outside of "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" there is no
such king.
>to force more people
>into the Church of England (under his command) and to discredit the
>Catholic Church.
>
I await your evidence for this claim. But you'll not offer any.
You'll either dishonestly snip it away or offer more avoidance.
>
>> What, specifically, do you have against being honest?
>> This is a serious question.
>
>
>Do you really think, King Jacob was honest?
>
Whereas my question was directed at you, your attempt to divert
has only succeeded in further proving you lack honesty.
>He was famous for burning 'witches'.
>
Since he never existed, he couldn't have.
What do you believe you gain from your LIE about the name of King
James?
>
>>> The aim of King James/Jacob
>>
>> There was no King Jacob in England.
>
>King James became later King Jacob the first.
>
>https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakob_I._%28England%29
>
>
Uh, no. King James I was king of England at the time of the
Gunpowder Plot. He was also King of Scotland, where he was known as
James VI.
I am aware that in German the name is Jakob, but it is not now,
nor has it ever been Jacob.
How sad that you had to lie about this while surely knowing I
would expose the lie. Or did the school(s) you attended as a child not
teach Western Civilization?
As an aside (and you may snip this without objection from me
since it's not relevant to the discussion):
The period when James ruled was called The Jacobean era. It comes
from the Latin, Jacobaeus.
>..
>> You will need to provide evidence that this was King James'
>> intended goal. But you won't. You can't.
>
>
>??
>
Had your dishonesty not forced you to snip out that to which I
replied, in an attempt to distort the context, you wouldn't be
confused.
Snipping is acceptable, but NOT when it is done for dishonest
purposes.
>We can guess, what motives a certain individual has for his activities,
>but we cannot be certain.
>
Yet you've made the definitive claim that it was a
state-sponsored false flag operation. Now you want to rely on guesses.
[Snip the remainder unread since your guesses are not evidence.]
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.conspiracy
csiph-web