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 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | dmaster <dan.woj@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 09:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <db10300b-1a76-4572-adf1-cbeaafb6b9b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #272612 |
On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 11:52:41 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > 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. ... > >> Reason: the guy had the name: Guy Faux (not Fawkes). ... > >> 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. ... > TH Interesting reasoning, Thomas. You "suspect" Guy Fawkes was not guilty in the plot because his name is "Guy Fawkes". I am wondering how his father new to name his son "Guy" or even to have the family name of "Fawkes", so that this "sick joke", as you call it, could later be perpetrated with his son?! Do you really think these things through, Thomas? Dan (Woj...)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 14:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <c43b8b1a6rjq17f7nrppc14qf4drl9up7u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #272729 |
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 09:32:52 -0800 (PST), dmaster
<dan.woj@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 11:52:41 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> 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.
>...
>> >> Reason: the guy had the name: Guy Faux (not Fawkes).
>...
>> >> 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.
>...
>> TH
>
>Interesting reasoning, Thomas. You "suspect" Guy Fawkes was not guilty
>in the plot because his name is "Guy Fawkes". I am wondering how his
>father new to name his son "Guy" or even to have the family name of
>"Fawkes", so that this "sick joke", as you call it, could later be perpetrated
>with his son?!
>
>Do you really think these things through, Thomas?
He does not. And upon being proved wrong, he either snips out
that which proves him wrong, or refuses to reply. Later he will make
the same claim, if the matter comes up again.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 10:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <demvtpFr1v0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #272729 |
Am 31.12.2015 18:32, schrieb dmaster: > On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 11:52:41 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: >> 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. > ... >>>> Reason: the guy had the name: Guy Faux (not Fawkes). > ... >>>> 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. > ... >> TH > > Interesting reasoning, Thomas. You "suspect" Guy Fawkes was not guilty in the plot because his name is "Guy Fawkes". I am wondering how his father new to name his son "Guy" or even to have the family name of "Fawkes", so that this "sick joke", as you call it, could later be perpetrated with his son?! > > Do you really think these things through, Thomas? > In this case we have the 'government' (here: King James) and the question was, if this government could fake such an event and whether or not it would fit to the political agenda of that time. So: was King James capable of killing totally innocent Catholics? Yes! Sure he was, since he was the one who was behind the burning of 'witches'. These 'witches' were completely innocent of any kind of crime. So then government WAS capable of killing innocent in the most barbaric fashion. Was the reason a fake? Yes, sure, the reason to kill witches was based on evil bullshit, which was created by that king. Had he reason to scare people away from Catholicism? YES!! Sure, that was his main attempt! He wanted to reign over the church and could only do this, by creating an alternative church, since the pope was the head of the Catholics. The 'gun-powder plot' would fit perfectly into this scenario, if we would assume, it was a fake to promote Anti-Catholic propaganda. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 12:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <j6id8b9pqdvs9chqmaas3qfnhia620bd3b@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #272753 |
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 10:41:09 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
>Am 31.12.2015 18:32, schrieb dmaster:
>> On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 11:52:41 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> 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.
>> ...
>>>>> Reason: the guy had the name: Guy Faux (not Fawkes).
>> ...
>>>>> 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.
>> ...
>>> TH
>>
>> Interesting reasoning, Thomas. You "suspect" Guy Fawkes was not guilty in the plot because his name is "Guy Fawkes". I am wondering how his father new to name his son "Guy" or even to have the family name of "Fawkes", so that this "sick joke", as you call it, could later be perpetrated with his son?!
>>
>> Do you really think these things through, Thomas?
>>
>
>In this case we have the 'government' (here: King James) and the
>question was, if this government could fake such an event and whether or
>not it would fit to the political agenda of that time.
>
>So: was King James capable of killing totally innocent Catholics?
>
>Yes! Sure he was, since he was the one who was behind the burning of
>'witches'.
>
That he was capable is not the same as his having done so.
You are *capable* of committing any number of atrocities. This
doesn't mean you've ever done so.
How does the burning of witches in the 1600s connect to Guy
Fawkes and/or the Jesuits?
>These 'witches' were completely innocent of any kind of crime. So then
>government WAS capable of killing innocent in the most barbaric fashion.
>
How can you know they were innocent of any crime? That's a very
bold statement.
Where any guilty of witchcraft? Most probably not. But that's not
the claim you've made about them.
>Was the reason a fake? Yes, sure, the reason to kill witches was based
>on evil bullshit, which was created by that king.
>
And completely irrelevant to Guy Fawkes or the Jesuits.
>Had he reason to scare people away from Catholicism?
>
>YES!! Sure, that was his main attempt!
>
I wait your evidence for this claim. Not that you'll offer any.
>He wanted to reign over the church and could only do this, by creating
>an alternative church, since the pope was the head of the Catholics.
>
He already reigned over the Church of England. History does not
show he had any interest in reigning over the Roman Catholic Church.
He simply wanted the Catholics out of England.
>The 'gun-powder plot' would fit perfectly into this scenario, if we
>would assume, it was a fake to promote Anti-Catholic propaganda.
But assumptions mean nothing. Why are you so UNABLE to understand
this?
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 22:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <deo8v5F74irU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #272795 |
Am 01.01.2016 19:47, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3): .. >> >> In this case we have the 'government' (here: King James) and the >> question was, if this government could fake such an event and whether or >> not it would fit to the political agenda of that time. >> >> So: was King James capable of killing totally innocent Catholics? >> >> Yes! Sure he was, since he was the one who was behind the burning of >> 'witches'. >> > > That he was capable is not the same as his having done so. > You are *capable* of committing any number of atrocities. This > doesn't mean you've ever done so. > How does the burning of witches in the 1600s connect to Guy > Fawkes and/or the Jesuits? > >> These 'witches' were completely innocent of any kind of crime. So then >> government WAS capable of killing innocent in the most barbaric fashion. >> > > How can you know they were innocent of any crime? That's a very > bold statement. > Where any guilty of witchcraft? Most probably not. But that's not > the claim you've made about them. > >> Was the reason a fake? Yes, sure, the reason to kill witches was based >> on evil bullshit, which was created by that king. >> > > And completely irrelevant to Guy Fawkes or the Jesuits. If the guy was a fake, this would be relevant. So: do we know with certainty, a real person named Guy Fawkes had lived in London of that time? >> Had he reason to scare people away from Catholicism? >> >> YES!! Sure, that was his main attempt! >> > > I wait your evidence for this claim. Not that you'll offer any. Well, most of the things I claim I don't know from own experience. But Google knows everything and about almost everything exist a Wikipedia page. So I simply quote Wikipedia about the role of King James in the relation of the people of England to the Catholic Church: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I_and_religious_issues Quote: "After the Gunpowder Plot, the third Catholic conspiracy against his person in three years, James sanctioned stricter measures to suppress them. In May 1606, Parliament passed an act which could require any citizen to take an Oath of Allegiance, entailing a denial of the pope's authority over the king.[10] James believed that the Oath was merely concerned with civil obedience, a secular transaction between king and subject; but it provoked opposition among Catholics, as it did not explicitly restrict itself to political matters.[11] In early 1606, the Venetian ambassador reported James as saying: "I do not know upon what they found this cursed doctrine that they are permitted to plot against the lives of princes".[12] James' policy aimed at punishing a few instead creating bloodshed; Jesuits and seminary priests should simply be asked to leave the country.[13] James proved lenient towards Catholic laymen who took the Oath of Allegiance,[14] and tolerated crypto-Catholicism even at court. Henry Howard, for example, outwardly professed Protestantism but remained a Catholic in private and was received back into the Roman church in his final months." >> He wanted to reign over the church and could only do this, by creating >> an alternative church, since the pope was the head of the Catholics. >> > > He already reigned over the Church of England. History does not > show he had any interest in reigning over the Roman Catholic Church. > He simply wanted the Catholics out of England. Politicians should keep away from religion. They may have a believe, but should not reign over a church. But King James wanted exactly this: a 'theocracy'. That is the unification of political power with spiritual power over the churches. This was a very bad idea, especially in the case of medieval England. Years of hostility followed for no obvious reason and tensions between the Anglican/Protestant Churches and the Catholics. But King James wanted especially 'spiritual control', since the church has influence on the mind. The only way to reign over the people of England as head of their church was to create a new religion and force the English people into it. >> The 'gun-powder plot' would fit perfectly into this scenario, if we >> would assume, it was a fake to promote Anti-Catholic propaganda. > > But assumptions mean nothing. Why are you so UNABLE to understand > this? We do not agree in this subject. I present stories, that I have invented and you have to right to disprove them (if you like). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 06:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <f3ff8b5293llc0jpsp15m3i9um94o0omcp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #272814 |
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 22:21:36 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
>Am 01.01.2016 19:47, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>..
>>> In this case we have the 'government' (here: King James) and the
>>> question was, if this government could fake such an event and whether or
>>> not it would fit to the political agenda of that time.
>>>
>>> So: was King James capable of killing totally innocent Catholics?
>>>
>>> Yes! Sure he was, since he was the one who was behind the burning of
>>> 'witches'.
>>
>> That he was capable is not the same as his having done so.
>> You are *capable* of committing any number of atrocities. This
>> doesn't mean you've ever done so.
>> How does the burning of witches in the 1600s connect to Guy
>> Fawkes and/or the Jesuits?
>>
Thomas?
>>> These 'witches' were completely innocent of any kind of crime. So then
>>> government WAS capable of killing innocent in the most barbaric fashion.
>>
>> How can you know they were innocent of any crime? That's a very
>> bold statement.
>> Where any guilty of witchcraft? Most probably not. But that's not
>> the claim you've made about them.
>>
Thomas?
>>> Was the reason a fake? Yes, sure, the reason to kill witches was based
>>> on evil bullshit, which was created by that king.
>>
>> And completely irrelevant to Guy Fawkes or the Jesuits.
>
>If the guy was a fake, this would be relevant.
>
There is no evidence that he was fake. There is ample historical
documentation that he existed.
Oh that's right. You discount any historical documents. Only your
guesses, assumptions, thoughts and whatnot are valid. At least in your
mind.
>So: do we know with certainty, a real person named Guy Fawkes had lived
>in London of that time?
Yes. There is ample historical evidence.
>
>>> Had he reason to scare people away from Catholicism?
>>>
>>> YES!! Sure, that was his main attempt!
>>
>> I wait your evidence for this claim. Not that you'll offer any.
>Well, most of the things I claim I don't know from own experience. But
>Google knows everything and about almost everything exist a Wikipedia page.
>
>So I simply quote Wikipedia about the role of King James in the relation
>of the people of England to the Catholic Church:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I_and_religious_issues
>
>Quote:
>
>"After the Gunpowder Plot, the third Catholic conspiracy against his
>person in three years, James sanctioned stricter measures to suppress
>them. In May 1606, Parliament passed an act which could require any
>citizen to take an Oath of Allegiance, entailing a denial of the pope's
>authority over the king.[10] James believed that the Oath was merely
>concerned with civil obedience, a secular transaction between king and
>subject; but it provoked opposition among Catholics, as it did not
>explicitly restrict itself to political matters.[11] In early 1606, the
>Venetian ambassador reported James as saying: "I do not know upon what
>they found this cursed doctrine that they are permitted to plot against
>the lives of princes".[12] James' policy aimed at punishing a few
>instead creating bloodshed; Jesuits and seminary priests should simply
>be asked to leave the country.[13] James proved lenient towards Catholic
>laymen who took the Oath of Allegiance,[14] and tolerated
>crypto-Catholicism even at court. Henry Howard, for example, outwardly
>professed Protestantism but remained a Catholic in private and was
>received back into the Roman church in his final months."
>
Thank you for proving my claim, while disproving your own.
>>> He wanted to reign over the church and could only do this, by creating
>>> an alternative church, since the pope was the head of the Catholics.
>>
>> He already reigned over the Church of England. History does not
>> show he had any interest in reigning over the Roman Catholic Church.
>> He simply wanted the Catholics out of England.
>
>
>Politicians should keep away from religion. They may have a believe, but
>should not reign over a church.
>
Perhaps not. But it's a bit late to object to King James' role as
the head of the Church of England.
>But King James wanted exactly this: a 'theocracy'. That is the
>unification of political power with spiritual power over the churches.
>
At the time, he had both. Cromwell didn't cause the separation
until roughly 28 years after King James I had died.
>This was a very bad idea, especially in the case of medieval England.
A bit late to worry about it now.
>Years of hostility followed for no obvious reason and tensions between
>the Anglican/Protestant Churches and the Catholics.
>
>But King James wanted especially 'spiritual control', since the church
>has influence on the mind.
>
>The only way to reign over the people of England as head of their church
>was to create a new religion and force the English people into it.
>
Yet he didn't do either.
>>> The 'gun-powder plot' would fit perfectly into this scenario, if we
>>> would assume, it was a fake to promote Anti-Catholic propaganda.
>>
>> But assumptions mean nothing. Why are you so UNABLE to understand
>> this?
>
>We do not agree in this subject. I present stories, that I have invented
>and you have to right to disprove them (if you like).
As far as can be determined, no one approves of your tales of
fantasy that you present as fact until you are forced to admit they
are just fantasy.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 17:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <det02pFd1fcU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #272845 |
Am 02.01.2016 13:05, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3): .. >> So I simply quote Wikipedia about the role of King James in the relation >> of the people of England to the Catholic Church: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I_and_religious_issues >> >> Quote: >> >> "After the Gunpowder Plot, the third Catholic conspiracy against his >> person in three years, James sanctioned stricter measures to suppress >> them. In May 1606, Parliament passed an act which could require any >> citizen to take an Oath of Allegiance, entailing a denial of the pope's >> authority over the king.[10] James believed that the Oath was merely >> concerned with civil obedience, a secular transaction between king and >> subject; but it provoked opposition among Catholics, as it did not >> explicitly restrict itself to political matters.[11] In early 1606, the >> Venetian ambassador reported James as saying: "I do not know upon what >> they found this cursed doctrine that they are permitted to plot against >> the lives of princes".[12] James' policy aimed at punishing a few >> instead creating bloodshed; Jesuits and seminary priests should simply >> be asked to leave the country.[13] James proved lenient towards Catholic >> laymen who took the Oath of Allegiance,[14] and tolerated >> crypto-Catholicism even at court. Henry Howard, for example, outwardly >> professed Protestantism but remained a Catholic in private and was >> received back into the Roman church in his final months." >> > > Thank you for proving my claim, while disproving your own. > >>>> He wanted to reign over the church and could only do this, by creating >>>> an alternative church, since the pope was the head of the Catholics. >>> >>> He already reigned over the Church of England. History does not >>> show he had any interest in reigning over the Roman Catholic Church. >>> He simply wanted the Catholics out of England. >> >> >> Politicians should keep away from religion. They may have a believe, but >> should not reign over a church. >> > > Perhaps not. But it's a bit late to object to King James' role as > the head of the Church of England. Well, that would not be a big problem and he could have been head of whatever he liked. This wasn't the topic, but '9/11'. I have mentioned the 'gunpowder plot' because there are certain similarities to 9/11/2001 and certain strange connections. One strange connection was Pocahontas and the so called 'First Families of Virginia', to which the family Bush belonged. They have been 'first' in the settlement with the 'London Company', which was implemented by that King James. Also certain features of both stories seem to be similar: explosions large buildings lone terrorists religious motivation of these terrorists speculations about conspiracies (in which the government seemed to be involved) suppression of (innocent) followers of this religion extremely harsh punishment (with public execution) >> But King James wanted exactly this: a 'theocracy'. That is the >> unification of political power with spiritual power over the churches. >> > > At the time, he had both. Cromwell didn't cause the separation > until roughly 28 years after King James I had died. Before he hadn't, since the Catholic Church had the Pope as head of the Church. >> This was a very bad idea, especially in the case of medieval England. > > A bit late to worry about it now. Well, actually I didn't worry about King James. What worries me was the other (much more recent) event. >> Years of hostility followed for no obvious reason and tensions between >> the Anglican/Protestant Churches and the Catholics. >> >> But King James wanted especially 'spiritual control', since the church >> has influence on the mind. >> >> The only way to reign over the people of England as head of their church >> was to create a new religion and force the English people into it. >> > > Yet he didn't do either. As far as I know, he forced the citizens of England to swear an oath of allegiance to the King and his superiority in questions of believe. (see above) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 15:24 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <8b4j8bp131amvj51qb5lmmsfth9aqb4c87@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #272960 |
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 17:20:34 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
>Am 02.01.2016 13:05, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>..
>>> So I simply quote Wikipedia about the role of King James in the relation
>>> of the people of England to the Catholic Church:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I_and_religious_issues
>>>
>>> Quote:
>>>
>>> "After the Gunpowder Plot, the third Catholic conspiracy against his
>>> person in three years, James sanctioned stricter measures to suppress
>>> them. In May 1606, Parliament passed an act which could require any
>>> citizen to take an Oath of Allegiance, entailing a denial of the pope's
>>> authority over the king.[10] James believed that the Oath was merely
>>> concerned with civil obedience, a secular transaction between king and
>>> subject; but it provoked opposition among Catholics, as it did not
>>> explicitly restrict itself to political matters.[11] In early 1606, the
>>> Venetian ambassador reported James as saying: "I do not know upon what
>>> they found this cursed doctrine that they are permitted to plot against
>>> the lives of princes".[12] James' policy aimed at punishing a few
>>> instead creating bloodshed; Jesuits and seminary priests should simply
>>> be asked to leave the country.[13] James proved lenient towards Catholic
>>> laymen who took the Oath of Allegiance,[14] and tolerated
>>> crypto-Catholicism even at court. Henry Howard, for example, outwardly
>>> professed Protestantism but remained a Catholic in private and was
>>> received back into the Roman church in his final months."
>>>
>>
>> Thank you for proving my claim, while disproving your own.
>>
>>>>> He wanted to reign over the church and could only do this, by creating
>>>>> an alternative church, since the pope was the head of the Catholics.
>>>>
>>>> He already reigned over the Church of England. History does not
>>>> show he had any interest in reigning over the Roman Catholic Church.
>>>> He simply wanted the Catholics out of England.
>>>
>>>
>>> Politicians should keep away from religion. They may have a believe, but
>>> should not reign over a church.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps not. But it's a bit late to object to King James' role as
>> the head of the Church of England.
>
>
>Well, that would not be a big problem and he could have been head of
>whatever he liked.
>
>This wasn't the topic, but '9/11'.
>
You're the one who brought up the Gun Powder Plot and King James
I.
>I have mentioned the 'gunpowder plot' because there are certain
>similarities to 9/11/2001 and certain strange connections.
>
Aside from being acts of terrorism, there are no substantial
similarities. And no connections at all.
Your assumptions do not make real connections.
>One strange connection was Pocahontas and the so called 'First Families
>of Virginia', to which the family Bush belonged.
>
Sigh.
I've already proved your claim regarding the Bush family to be a
lie. Do you NEED me to do so again?
>They have been 'first' in the settlement with the 'London Company',
>which was implemented by that King James.
>
Which is not relevant to anything we've been discussing.
>Also certain features of both stories seem to be similar:
>
>explosions
The GPP didn't have an explosion. The attack was prevented.
No similarity there.
>large buildings
OK, but you're really gasping with this.
>lone terrorists
I don't know if all the participants in the GPP were discovered.
But there were many. There were 19 terrorists directly involved in the
9/11 attacks.
It's more probable than not that more than the 19 plus Osama Bin
Laden were involved.
So much for your claim of lone terrorists.
>religious motivation of these terrorists
OK.
>speculations about conspiracies
There is no speculation. That more than one person was involved
in each act is definitive PROOF that each was a conspiracy.
>(in which the government seemed to be involved)
Yet you've offered no evidence. Since there was and is none, you
couldn't.
>suppression of (innocent) followers of this religion
OK.
>extremely harsh punishment (with public execution)
The 9/11 terrorists all died in the attacks. As such, they
couldn't have been punished.
>
>>> But King James wanted exactly this: a 'theocracy'. That is the
>>> unification of political power with spiritual power over the churches.
>>
>> At the time, he had both. Cromwell didn't cause the separation
>> until roughly 28 years after King James I had died.
>
>Before he hadn't, since the Catholic Church had the Pope as head of the
>Church.
Yes, he had. The Church of England was founded in 1534 under King
Henry VIII. King James was crowned King of England in 1603.
How do you know so little of what you write? Have you done any
research of any sort? Your posts suggest you have not.
>
>>> This was a very bad idea, especially in the case of medieval England.
>>
>> A bit late to worry about it now.
>
>
>Well, actually I didn't worry about King James. What worries me was the
>other (much more recent) event.
The ones you diverted the discussion from by bring up acts from
the 1600's?
>
>>> Years of hostility followed for no obvious reason and tensions between
>>> the Anglican/Protestant Churches and the Catholics.
>>>
>>> But King James wanted especially 'spiritual control', since the church
>>> has influence on the mind.
>>>
>>> The only way to reign over the people of England as head of their church
>>> was to create a new religion and force the English people into it.
>>
>> Yet he didn't do either.
>
>As far as I know, he forced the citizens of England to swear an oath of
>allegiance to the King and his superiority in questions of believe. (see
>above)
>
What you do base your knowledge on?
Guesses and assumptions, in any variation, will be viewed as an
admission that you knowing lied. As will your avoiding the question.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 06:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <df133tFe9m5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #272988 |
Am 03.01.2016 22:24, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3): .. >>> Thank you for proving my claim, while disproving your own. >>> >>>>>> He wanted to reign over the church and could only do this, by creating >>>>>> an alternative church, since the pope was the head of the Catholics. >>>>> >>>>> He already reigned over the Church of England. History does not >>>>> show he had any interest in reigning over the Roman Catholic Church. >>>>> He simply wanted the Catholics out of England. >>>> >>>> >>>> Politicians should keep away from religion. They may have a believe, but >>>> should not reign over a church. >>>> >>> >>> Perhaps not. But it's a bit late to object to King James' role as >>> the head of the Church of England. >> >> >> Well, that would not be a big problem and he could have been head of >> whatever he liked. >> >> This wasn't the topic, but '9/11'. >> > > You're the one who brought up the Gun Powder Plot and King James Well, yes, but my topic was the meaning of '9/11' in mystic/occult circles. These circles I assume to be responsible for certain events, which happened at such dates: Hitler's (attempted) coup 'Crystal Night' and a few others. And the 'gun-powder-plot' would fit into this line, even it was on a fifth. But in terms of a 'plot' (as used in the film-industry'), the '9/11-plot' and the 'gun-powder-plot' bear some similarities. > >> I have mentioned the 'gunpowder plot' because there are certain >> similarities to 9/11/2001 and certain strange connections. >> > > Aside from being acts of terrorism, there are no substantial > similarities. And no connections at all. > Your assumptions do not make real connections. > >> One strange connection was Pocahontas and the so called 'First Families >> of Virginia', to which the family Bush belonged. >> > > Sigh. > I've already proved your claim regarding the Bush family to be a > lie. Do you NEED me to do so again? But I have heard, that George W. Bush had Pocahontas among his ancestors. Since the FFV derive their ancestry from Pocahontas, G.W. Bush should have also belonged to these FFV. >> They have been 'first' in the settlement with the 'London Company', >> which was implemented by that King James. >> > > Which is not relevant to anything we've been discussing. > >> Also certain features of both stories seem to be similar: >> >> explosions > > The GPP didn't have an explosion. The attack was prevented. > No similarity there. Well, yes. Actually I don't think, that explosives have been used on 9/11 neither. But gunpowder is an explosive and many people believe, the twin-towers were actually blown up. I personally think, that Judy Wood's assumptions are correct and an effect called 'Hutchison effect' was used. >> large buildings > > OK, but you're really gasping with this. > >> lone terrorists > > I don't know if all the participants in the GPP were discovered. > But there were many. There were 19 terrorists directly involved in the > 9/11 attacks. > It's more probable than not that more than the 19 plus Osama Bin > Laden were involved. Yes, but this makes in both cases a conspiracy of 'terrorists' (with religious motivation). > So much for your claim of lone terrorists. > >> religious motivation of these terrorists > > OK. > >> speculations about conspiracies > > There is no speculation. That more than one person was involved > in each act is definitive PROOF that each was a conspiracy. 'More than one' is a little too little for a statement. '19 plus Osama bin Laden' is a statement. But it's also a wrong statement, since a few of these 19 people have been reported to be alive after 9/11/2001. >> (in which the government seemed to be involved) > > Yet you've offered no evidence. Since there was and is none, you > couldn't. Yes, this is in fact true. I do not have material proof for anything, but only stuff I have found on the internet (plus own ideas). >> suppression of (innocent) followers of this religion > > OK. > >> extremely harsh punishment (with public execution) > > The 9/11 terrorists all died in the attacks. As such, they > couldn't have been punished. But Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein got killed. >> >>>> But King James wanted exactly this: a 'theocracy'. That is the >>>> unification of political power with spiritual power over the churches. >>> >>> At the time, he had both. Cromwell didn't cause the separation >>> until roughly 28 years after King James I had died. >> >> Before he hadn't, since the Catholic Church had the Pope as head of the >> Church. > > Yes, he had. The Church of England was founded in 1534 under King > Henry VIII. King James was crowned King of England in 1603. Well, yes. But Henry the 8th ??? Wasn't that the guy who killed all of his wifes for not giving birth to sons? > How do you know so little of what you write? Have you done any > research of any sort? Your posts suggest you have not. > Wrong. I know a lot about 9/11 (2001). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 23:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6f69e8fe-7db8-40b5-9a5b-fe419c409c15@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #273098 |
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 12:37:06 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 03.01.2016 22:24, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3): > .. > >>> Thank you for proving my claim, while disproving your own. > >>> > >>>>>> He wanted to reign over the church and could only do this, by creating > >>>>>> an alternative church, since the pope was the head of the Catholics. > >>>>> > >>>>> He already reigned over the Church of England. History does not > >>>>> show he had any interest in reigning over the Roman Catholic Church. > >>>>> He simply wanted the Catholics out of England. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Politicians should keep away from religion. They may have a believe, but > >>>> should not reign over a church. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Perhaps not. But it's a bit late to object to King James' role as > >>> the head of the Church of England. > >> > >> > >> Well, that would not be a big problem and he could have been head of > >> whatever he liked. > >> > >> This wasn't the topic, but '9/11'. > >> > > > > You're the one who brought up the Gun Powder Plot and King James > > > Well, yes, but my topic was the meaning of '9/11' in mystic/occult circles. > > These circles I assume to be responsible for certain events, which > happened at such dates: > > Hitler's (attempted) coup > 'Crystal Night' and a few others. > > And the 'gun-powder-plot' would fit into this line, even it was on a fifth. > > But in terms of a 'plot' (as used in the film-industry'), the > '9/11-plot' and the 'gun-powder-plot' bear some similarities. > > > > > >> I have mentioned the 'gunpowder plot' because there are certain > >> similarities to 9/11/2001 and certain strange connections. > >> > > > > Aside from being acts of terrorism, there are no substantial > > similarities. And no connections at all. > > Your assumptions do not make real connections. > > > >> One strange connection was Pocahontas and the so called 'First Families > >> of Virginia', to which the family Bush belonged. > >> > > > > Sigh. > > I've already proved your claim regarding the Bush family to be a > > lie. Do you NEED me to do so again? > > > But I have heard, that George W. Bush had Pocahontas among his > ancestors. Since the FFV derive their ancestry from Pocahontas, G.W. > Bush should have also belonged to these FFV. > > >> They have been 'first' in the settlement with the 'London Company', > >> which was implemented by that King James. > >> > > > > Which is not relevant to anything we've been discussing. > > > >> Also certain features of both stories seem to be similar: > >> > >> explosions > > > > The GPP didn't have an explosion. The attack was prevented. > > No similarity there. > > > Well, yes. Actually I don't think, that explosives have been used on > 9/11 neither. > > But gunpowder is an explosive and many people believe, the twin-towers > were actually blown up. > > I personally think, that Judy Wood's assumptions are correct and an > effect called 'Hutchison effect' was used. > > >> large buildings > > > > OK, but you're really gasping with this. > > > >> lone terrorists > > > > I don't know if all the participants in the GPP were discovered. > > But there were many. There were 19 terrorists directly involved in the > > 9/11 attacks. > > It's more probable than not that more than the 19 plus Osama Bin > > Laden were involved. > > Yes, but this makes in both cases a conspiracy of 'terrorists' (with > religious motivation). > > > So much for your claim of lone terrorists. > > > >> religious motivation of these terrorists > > > > OK. > > > >> speculations about conspiracies > > > > There is no speculation. That more than one person was involved > > in each act is definitive PROOF that each was a conspiracy. > > > 'More than one' is a little too little for a statement. '19 plus Osama > bin Laden' is a statement. > > But it's also a wrong statement, since a few of these 19 people have > been reported to be alive after 9/11/2001. > > >> (in which the government seemed to be involved) > > > > Yet you've offered no evidence. Since there was and is none, you > > couldn't. > > > Yes, this is in fact true. I do not have material proof for anything, > but only stuff I have found on the internet (plus own ideas). > > >> suppression of (innocent) followers of this religion > > > > OK. > > > >> extremely harsh punishment (with public execution) > > > > The 9/11 terrorists all died in the attacks. As such, they > > couldn't have been punished. > > > But Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein got killed. > >> > >>>> But King James wanted exactly this: a 'theocracy'. That is the > >>>> unification of political power with spiritual power over the churches. > >>> > >>> At the time, he had both. Cromwell didn't cause the separation > >>> until roughly 28 years after King James I had died. > >> > >> Before he hadn't, since the Catholic Church had the Pope as head of the > >> Church. > > > > Yes, he had. The Church of England was founded in 1534 under King > > Henry VIII. King James was crowned King of England in 1603. > > Well, yes. But Henry the 8th ??? > > Wasn't that the guy who killed all of his wifes for not giving birth to > sons? > > > How do you know so little of what you write? Have you done any > > research of any sort? Your posts suggest you have not. > > > > Wrong. I know a lot about 9/11 (2001). > > TH Did you know that Rupert Murdock gave them the plot? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=384CCzUKHtA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 03:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <6q4n8bhcc7ct15krnnnc4dma8dv2b212eq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #273098 |
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 06:36:57 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
>Am 03.01.2016 22:24, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>..
I see you've chosen to run away and hide from your deceptions being
exposed. I'm not the least bit surprised.
>>>> Thank you for proving my claim, while disproving your own.
>>>>
>>>>>>> He wanted to reign over the church and could only do this, by creating
>>>>>>> an alternative church, since the pope was the head of the Catholics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He already reigned over the Church of England. History does not
>>>>>> show he had any interest in reigning over the Roman Catholic Church.
>>>>>> He simply wanted the Catholics out of England.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Politicians should keep away from religion. They may have a believe, but
>>>>> should not reign over a church.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps not. But it's a bit late to object to King James' role as
>>>> the head of the Church of England.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, that would not be a big problem and he could have been head of
>>> whatever he liked.
>>>
>>> This wasn't the topic, but '9/11'.
>>
>> You're the one who brought up the Gun Powder Plot and King James
>
>
>Well, yes, but my topic was the meaning of '9/11' in mystic/occult circles.
>
If so, how does Guy Fawkes, King James I or the Gun Powder Plot
factor in?
>These circles I assume
[Remainder snipped unread as assumption mean nothing]
I realize you have no facts to support your claims. Why not just
dispose of them rather than trying to use your assumptions, made
without any foundation, to continue your deceptions?
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 01:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dd69c5bf-b35f-430a-92f2-e030b35859c1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #272960 |
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 11:20:44 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 02.01.2016 13:05, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3): > .. > >> So I simply quote Wikipedia about the role of King James in the relation > >> of the people of England to the Catholic Church: > >> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I_and_religious_issues > >> > >> Quote: > >> > >> "After the Gunpowder Plot, the third Catholic conspiracy against his > >> person in three years, James sanctioned stricter measures to suppress > >> them. In May 1606, Parliament passed an act which could require any > >> citizen to take an Oath of Allegiance, entailing a denial of the pope's > >> authority over the king.[10] James believed that the Oath was merely > >> concerned with civil obedience, a secular transaction between king and > >> subject; but it provoked opposition among Catholics, as it did not > >> explicitly restrict itself to political matters.[11] In early 1606, the > >> Venetian ambassador reported James as saying: "I do not know upon what > >> they found this cursed doctrine that they are permitted to plot against > >> the lives of princes".[12] James' policy aimed at punishing a few > >> instead creating bloodshed; Jesuits and seminary priests should simply > >> be asked to leave the country.[13] James proved lenient towards Catholic > >> laymen who took the Oath of Allegiance,[14] and tolerated > >> crypto-Catholicism even at court. Henry Howard, for example, outwardly > >> professed Protestantism but remained a Catholic in private and was > >> received back into the Roman church in his final months." > >> > > > > Thank you for proving my claim, while disproving your own. > > > >>>> He wanted to reign over the church and could only do this, by creating > >>>> an alternative church, since the pope was the head of the Catholics. > >>> > >>> He already reigned over the Church of England. History does not > >>> show he had any interest in reigning over the Roman Catholic Church. > >>> He simply wanted the Catholics out of England. > >> > >> > >> Politicians should keep away from religion. They may have a believe, but > >> should not reign over a church. > >> > > > > Perhaps not. But it's a bit late to object to King James' role as > > the head of the Church of England. > > > Well, that would not be a big problem and he could have been head of > whatever he liked. > > This wasn't the topic, but '9/11'. > > I have mentioned the 'gunpowder plot' because there are certain > similarities to 9/11/2001 and certain strange connections. > > One strange connection was Pocahontas and the so called 'First Families > of Virginia', to which the family Bush belonged. > > They have been 'first' in the settlement with the 'London Company', > which was implemented by that King James. > > Also certain features of both stories seem to be similar: > > explosions > large buildings > lone terrorists > religious motivation of these terrorists > speculations about conspiracies > (in which the government seemed to be involved) > suppression of (innocent) followers of this religion > extremely harsh punishment (with public execution) > > >> But King James wanted exactly this: a 'theocracy'. That is the > >> unification of political power with spiritual power over the churches. > >> > > > > At the time, he had both. Cromwell didn't cause the separation > > until roughly 28 years after King James I had died. > > Before he hadn't, since the Catholic Church had the Pope as head of the > Church. > > > >> This was a very bad idea, especially in the case of medieval England. > > > > A bit late to worry about it now. > > > Well, actually I didn't worry about King James. What worries me was the > other (much more recent) event. > > >> Years of hostility followed for no obvious reason and tensions between > >> the Anglican/Protestant Churches and the Catholics. > >> > >> But King James wanted especially 'spiritual control', since the church > >> has influence on the mind. > >> > >> The only way to reign over the people of England as head of their church > >> was to create a new religion and force the English people into it. > >> > > > > Yet he didn't do either. > > As far as I know, he forced the citizens of England to swear an oath of > allegiance to the King and his superiority in questions of believe. (see > above) > > > TH Ask your computer why they named the two fictional flights 11 and 77 There is no record of them existing at all on 911 yet 175 was still airborne after it supposedly crashed and 93 was in a hanger in Cleveland getting its numbers changed back.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 20:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6h8cr$fiu$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #273102 |
On 05/01/2016 09:14, joeturn wrote: > On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 11:20:44 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 02.01.2016 13:05, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3): >> .. >>>> So I simply quote Wikipedia about the role of King James in the relation >>>> of the people of England to the Catholic Church: >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I_and_religious_issues >>>> >>>> Quote: >>>> >>>> "After the Gunpowder Plot, the third Catholic conspiracy against his >>>> person in three years, James sanctioned stricter measures to suppress >>>> them. In May 1606, Parliament passed an act which could require any >>>> citizen to take an Oath of Allegiance, entailing a denial of the pope's >>>> authority over the king.[10] James believed that the Oath was merely >>>> concerned with civil obedience, a secular transaction between king and >>>> subject; but it provoked opposition among Catholics, as it did not >>>> explicitly restrict itself to political matters.[11] In early 1606, the >>>> Venetian ambassador reported James as saying: "I do not know upon what >>>> they found this cursed doctrine that they are permitted to plot against >>>> the lives of princes".[12] James' policy aimed at punishing a few >>>> instead creating bloodshed; Jesuits and seminary priests should simply >>>> be asked to leave the country.[13] James proved lenient towards Catholic >>>> laymen who took the Oath of Allegiance,[14] and tolerated >>>> crypto-Catholicism even at court. Henry Howard, for example, outwardly >>>> professed Protestantism but remained a Catholic in private and was >>>> received back into the Roman church in his final months." >>>> >>> >>> Thank you for proving my claim, while disproving your own. >>> >>>>>> He wanted to reign over the church and could only do this, by creating >>>>>> an alternative church, since the pope was the head of the Catholics. >>>>> >>>>> He already reigned over the Church of England. History does not >>>>> show he had any interest in reigning over the Roman Catholic Church. >>>>> He simply wanted the Catholics out of England. >>>> >>>> >>>> Politicians should keep away from religion. They may have a believe, but >>>> should not reign over a church. >>>> >>> >>> Perhaps not. But it's a bit late to object to King James' role as >>> the head of the Church of England. >> >> >> Well, that would not be a big problem and he could have been head of >> whatever he liked. >> >> This wasn't the topic, but '9/11'. >> >> I have mentioned the 'gunpowder plot' because there are certain >> similarities to 9/11/2001 and certain strange connections. >> >> One strange connection was Pocahontas and the so called 'First Families >> of Virginia', to which the family Bush belonged. >> >> They have been 'first' in the settlement with the 'London Company', >> which was implemented by that King James. >> >> Also certain features of both stories seem to be similar: >> >> explosions >> large buildings >> lone terrorists >> religious motivation of these terrorists >> speculations about conspiracies >> (in which the government seemed to be involved) >> suppression of (innocent) followers of this religion >> extremely harsh punishment (with public execution) >> >>>> But King James wanted exactly this: a 'theocracy'. That is the >>>> unification of political power with spiritual power over the churches. >>>> >>> >>> At the time, he had both. Cromwell didn't cause the separation >>> until roughly 28 years after King James I had died. >> >> Before he hadn't, since the Catholic Church had the Pope as head of the >> Church. >> >> >>>> This was a very bad idea, especially in the case of medieval England. >>> >>> A bit late to worry about it now. >> >> >> Well, actually I didn't worry about King James. What worries me was the >> other (much more recent) event. >> >>>> Years of hostility followed for no obvious reason and tensions between >>>> the Anglican/Protestant Churches and the Catholics. >>>> >>>> But King James wanted especially 'spiritual control', since the church >>>> has influence on the mind. >>>> >>>> The only way to reign over the people of England as head of their church >>>> was to create a new religion and force the English people into it. >>>> >>> >>> Yet he didn't do either. >> >> As far as I know, he forced the citizens of England to swear an oath of >> allegiance to the King and his superiority in questions of believe. (see >> above) >> >> >> TH > > Ask your computer why they named the two fictional flights 11 and 77 There is no record of them existing at all on 911 yet 175 was still airborne after it supposedly crashed and 93 was in a hanger in Cleveland getting its numbers changed back. > I'll ask this slowly so you will understand . What evidence do you have that flights 11 and 77 did not exist? What evidence do you have about you claim for flight 175? What evidence do you have about your claim for flight 93? Do not reference to you tube videos, but post links to verifiable facts. Also tell us in your own words about these claims. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 21:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aec05be5-0828-41d9-be3f-45d6af3ef28a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #273134 |
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 3:20:12 PM UTC-5, Tony Dragon wrote: > On 05/01/2016 09:14, joeturn wrote: > > On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 11:20:44 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 02.01.2016 13:05, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3): > >> .. > >>>> So I simply quote Wikipedia about the role of King James in the relation > >>>> of the people of England to the Catholic Church: > >>>> > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I_and_religious_issues > >>>> > >>>> Quote: > >>>> > >>>> "After the Gunpowder Plot, the third Catholic conspiracy against his > >>>> person in three years, James sanctioned stricter measures to suppress > >>>> them. In May 1606, Parliament passed an act which could require any > >>>> citizen to take an Oath of Allegiance, entailing a denial of the pope's > >>>> authority over the king.[10] James believed that the Oath was merely > >>>> concerned with civil obedience, a secular transaction between king and > >>>> subject; but it provoked opposition among Catholics, as it did not > >>>> explicitly restrict itself to political matters.[11] In early 1606, the > >>>> Venetian ambassador reported James as saying: "I do not know upon what > >>>> they found this cursed doctrine that they are permitted to plot against > >>>> the lives of princes".[12] James' policy aimed at punishing a few > >>>> instead creating bloodshed; Jesuits and seminary priests should simply > >>>> be asked to leave the country.[13] James proved lenient towards Catholic > >>>> laymen who took the Oath of Allegiance,[14] and tolerated > >>>> crypto-Catholicism even at court. Henry Howard, for example, outwardly > >>>> professed Protestantism but remained a Catholic in private and was > >>>> received back into the Roman church in his final months." > >>>> > >>> > >>> Thank you for proving my claim, while disproving your own. > >>> > >>>>>> He wanted to reign over the church and could only do this, by creating > >>>>>> an alternative church, since the pope was the head of the Catholics. > >>>>> > >>>>> He already reigned over the Church of England. History does not > >>>>> show he had any interest in reigning over the Roman Catholic Church. > >>>>> He simply wanted the Catholics out of England. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Politicians should keep away from religion. They may have a believe, but > >>>> should not reign over a church. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Perhaps not. But it's a bit late to object to King James' role as > >>> the head of the Church of England. > >> > >> > >> Well, that would not be a big problem and he could have been head of > >> whatever he liked. > >> > >> This wasn't the topic, but '9/11'. > >> > >> I have mentioned the 'gunpowder plot' because there are certain > >> similarities to 9/11/2001 and certain strange connections. > >> > >> One strange connection was Pocahontas and the so called 'First Families > >> of Virginia', to which the family Bush belonged. > >> > >> They have been 'first' in the settlement with the 'London Company', > >> which was implemented by that King James. > >> > >> Also certain features of both stories seem to be similar: > >> > >> explosions > >> large buildings > >> lone terrorists > >> religious motivation of these terrorists > >> speculations about conspiracies > >> (in which the government seemed to be involved) > >> suppression of (innocent) followers of this religion > >> extremely harsh punishment (with public execution) > >> > >>>> But King James wanted exactly this: a 'theocracy'. That is the > >>>> unification of political power with spiritual power over the churches. > >>>> > >>> > >>> At the time, he had both. Cromwell didn't cause the separation > >>> until roughly 28 years after King James I had died. > >> > >> Before he hadn't, since the Catholic Church had the Pope as head of the > >> Church. > >> > >> > >>>> This was a very bad idea, especially in the case of medieval England. > >>> > >>> A bit late to worry about it now. > >> > >> > >> Well, actually I didn't worry about King James. What worries me was the > >> other (much more recent) event. > >> > >>>> Years of hostility followed for no obvious reason and tensions between > >>>> the Anglican/Protestant Churches and the Catholics. > >>>> > >>>> But King James wanted especially 'spiritual control', since the church > >>>> has influence on the mind. > >>>> > >>>> The only way to reign over the people of England as head of their church > >>>> was to create a new religion and force the English people into it. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Yet he didn't do either. > >> > >> As far as I know, he forced the citizens of England to swear an oath of > >> allegiance to the King and his superiority in questions of believe. (see > >> above) > >> > >> > >> TH > > > > Ask your computer why they named the two fictional flights 11 and 77 There is no record of them existing at all on 911 yet 175 was still airborne after it supposedly crashed and 93 was in a hanger in Cleveland getting its numbers changed back. > > > > I'll ask this slowly so you will understand . > > > What evidence do you have that flights 11 and 77 > did not exist? > > > What evidence do you have about you claim for flight > 175? > > What evidence do you have about your claim for flight > 93? > > Do not reference to you tube videos, but post links to verifiable facts. > > Also tell us in your own words about these claims. > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus Tummi your a failure. This is a Government ran site to gather information and then destroy it,But there's a wealth on information there click on the link and pick a plane and buckle your seat belt it's a very bumpy ride. http://letsrollforums.com//mystery-flights-11-77-f21.html?f=21
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 00:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30f6723c6f5887e098c44f@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #273149 |
In article <aec05be5-0828-41d9-be3f-45d6af3ef28a@googlegroups.com>, joeturn2@yahoo.com says... > > On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 3:20:12 PM UTC-5, Tony Dragon wrote: > > On 05/01/2016 09:14, joeturn wrote: > > > On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 11:20:44 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: > > >> Am 02.01.2016 13:05, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3): > > >> .. > > >>>> So I simply quote Wikipedia about the role of King James in the relation > > >>>> of the people of England to the Catholic Church: > > >>>> > > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I_and_religious_issues > > >>>> > > >>>> Quote: > > >>>> > > >>>> "After the Gunpowder Plot, the third Catholic conspiracy against his > > >>>> person in three years, James sanctioned stricter measures to suppress > > >>>> them. In May 1606, Parliament passed an act which could require any > > >>>> citizen to take an Oath of Allegiance, entailing a denial of the pope's > > >>>> authority over the king.[10] James believed that the Oath was merely > > >>>> concerned with civil obedience, a secular transaction between king and > > >>>> subject; but it provoked opposition among Catholics, as it did not > > >>>> explicitly restrict itself to political matters.[11] In early 1606, the > > >>>> Venetian ambassador reported James as saying: "I do not know upon what > > >>>> they found this cursed doctrine that they are permitted to plot against > > >>>> the lives of princes".[12] James' policy aimed at punishing a few > > >>>> instead creating bloodshed; Jesuits and seminary priests should simply > > >>>> be asked to leave the country.[13] James proved lenient towards Catholic > > >>>> laymen who took the Oath of Allegiance,[14] and tolerated > > >>>> crypto-Catholicism even at court. Henry Howard, for example, outwardly > > >>>> professed Protestantism but remained a Catholic in private and was > > >>>> received back into the Roman church in his final months." > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> Thank you for proving my claim, while disproving your own. > > >>> > > >>>>>> He wanted to reign over the church and could only do this, by creating > > >>>>>> an alternative church, since the pope was the head of the Catholics. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> He already reigned over the Church of England. History does not > > >>>>> show he had any interest in reigning over the Roman Catholic Church. > > >>>>> He simply wanted the Catholics out of England. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Politicians should keep away from religion. They may have a believe, but > > >>>> should not reign over a church. > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> Perhaps not. But it's a bit late to object to King James' role as > > >>> the head of the Church of England. > > >> > > >> > > >> Well, that would not be a big problem and he could have been head of > > >> whatever he liked. > > >> > > >> This wasn't the topic, but '9/11'. > > >> > > >> I have mentioned the 'gunpowder plot' because there are certain > > >> similarities to 9/11/2001 and certain strange connections. > > >> > > >> One strange connection was Pocahontas and the so called 'First Families > > >> of Virginia', to which the family Bush belonged. > > >> > > >> They have been 'first' in the settlement with the 'London Company', > > >> which was implemented by that King James. > > >> > > >> Also certain features of both stories seem to be similar: > > >> > > >> explosions > > >> large buildings > > >> lone terrorists > > >> religious motivation of these terrorists > > >> speculations about conspiracies > > >> (in which the government seemed to be involved) > > >> suppression of (innocent) followers of this religion > > >> extremely harsh punishment (with public execution) > > >> > > >>>> But King James wanted exactly this: a 'theocracy'. That is the > > >>>> unification of political power with spiritual power over the churches. > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> At the time, he had both. Cromwell didn't cause the separation > > >>> until roughly 28 years after King James I had died. > > >> > > >> Before he hadn't, since the Catholic Church had the Pope as head of the > > >> Church. > > >> > > >> > > >>>> This was a very bad idea, especially in the case of medieval England. > > >>> > > >>> A bit late to worry about it now. > > >> > > >> > > >> Well, actually I didn't worry about King James. What worries me was the > > >> other (much more recent) event. > > >> > > >>>> Years of hostility followed for no obvious reason and tensions between > > >>>> the Anglican/Protestant Churches and the Catholics. > > >>>> > > >>>> But King James wanted especially 'spiritual control', since the church > > >>>> has influence on the mind. > > >>>> > > >>>> The only way to reign over the people of England as head of their church > > >>>> was to create a new religion and force the English people into it. > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> Yet he didn't do either. > > >> > > >> As far as I know, he forced the citizens of England to swear an oath of > > >> allegiance to the King and his superiority in questions of believe. (see > > >> above) > > >> > > >> > > >> TH > > > > > > Ask your computer why they named the two fictional flights 11 and 77 There is no record of them existing at all on 911 yet 175 was still airborne after it supposedly crashed and 93 was in a hanger in Cleveland getting its numbers changed back. > > > > > > > I'll ask this slowly so you will understand . > > > > > > What evidence do you have that flights 11 and 77 > > did not exist? > > > > > > What evidence do you have about you claim for flight > > 175? > > > > What evidence do you have about your claim for flight > > 93? > > > > Do not reference to you tube videos, but post links to verifiable facts. > > > > Also tell us in your own words about these claims. > > > > --- > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > Tummi your a failure. > > This is a Government ran site to gather information and then destroy it,But there's a wealth on information there click on the link and pick a plane and buckle your seat belt it's a very bumpy ride. > http://letsrollforums.com//mystery-flights-11-77-f21.html?f=21 Sorry, I don't want to visit Trooferville, where everyone is stupid. -- BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies. Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former Black Helicopter color consultant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 22:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <943f682b-aa8f-46fc-bb23-81b94831d103@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #273150 |
On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 12:37:58 AM UTC-5, BDK wrote: > In article <aec05be5-0828-41d9-be3f-45d6af3ef28a@googlegroups.com>, > joeturn2@yahoo.com says... > > > > On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 3:20:12 PM UTC-5, Tony Dragon wrote: > > > On 05/01/2016 09:14, joeturn wrote: > > > > On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 11:20:44 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > >> Am 02.01.2016 13:05, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3): > > > >> .. > > > >>>> So I simply quote Wikipedia about the role of King James in the relation > > > >>>> of the people of England to the Catholic Church: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I_and_religious_issues > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Quote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> "After the Gunpowder Plot, the third Catholic conspiracy against his > > > >>>> person in three years, James sanctioned stricter measures to suppress > > > >>>> them. In May 1606, Parliament passed an act which could require any > > > >>>> citizen to take an Oath of Allegiance, entailing a denial of the pope's > > > >>>> authority over the king.[10] James believed that the Oath was merely > > > >>>> concerned with civil obedience, a secular transaction between king and > > > >>>> subject; but it provoked opposition among Catholics, as it did not > > > >>>> explicitly restrict itself to political matters.[11] In early 1606, the > > > >>>> Venetian ambassador reported James as saying: "I do not know upon what > > > >>>> they found this cursed doctrine that they are permitted to plot against > > > >>>> the lives of princes".[12] James' policy aimed at punishing a few > > > >>>> instead creating bloodshed; Jesuits and seminary priests should simply > > > >>>> be asked to leave the country.[13] James proved lenient towards Catholic > > > >>>> laymen who took the Oath of Allegiance,[14] and tolerated > > > >>>> crypto-Catholicism even at court. Henry Howard, for example, outwardly > > > >>>> professed Protestantism but remained a Catholic in private and was > > > >>>> received back into the Roman church in his final months." > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Thank you for proving my claim, while disproving your own. > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> He wanted to reign over the church and could only do this, by creating > > > >>>>>> an alternative church, since the pope was the head of the Catholics. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> He already reigned over the Church of England. History does not > > > >>>>> show he had any interest in reigning over the Roman Catholic Church. > > > >>>>> He simply wanted the Catholics out of England. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Politicians should keep away from religion. They may have a believe, but > > > >>>> should not reign over a church. > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Perhaps not. But it's a bit late to object to King James' role as > > > >>> the head of the Church of England. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Well, that would not be a big problem and he could have been head of > > > >> whatever he liked. > > > >> > > > >> This wasn't the topic, but '9/11'. > > > >> > > > >> I have mentioned the 'gunpowder plot' because there are certain > > > >> similarities to 9/11/2001 and certain strange connections. > > > >> > > > >> One strange connection was Pocahontas and the so called 'First Families > > > >> of Virginia', to which the family Bush belonged. > > > >> > > > >> They have been 'first' in the settlement with the 'London Company', > > > >> which was implemented by that King James. > > > >> > > > >> Also certain features of both stories seem to be similar: > > > >> > > > >> explosions > > > >> large buildings > > > >> lone terrorists > > > >> religious motivation of these terrorists > > > >> speculations about conspiracies > > > >> (in which the government seemed to be involved) > > > >> suppression of (innocent) followers of this religion > > > >> extremely harsh punishment (with public execution) > > > >> > > > >>>> But King James wanted exactly this: a 'theocracy'. That is the > > > >>>> unification of political power with spiritual power over the churches. > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> At the time, he had both. Cromwell didn't cause the separation > > > >>> until roughly 28 years after King James I had died. > > > >> > > > >> Before he hadn't, since the Catholic Church had the Pope as head of the > > > >> Church. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>> This was a very bad idea, especially in the case of medieval England. > > > >>> > > > >>> A bit late to worry about it now. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Well, actually I didn't worry about King James. What worries me was the > > > >> other (much more recent) event. > > > >> > > > >>>> Years of hostility followed for no obvious reason and tensions between > > > >>>> the Anglican/Protestant Churches and the Catholics. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> But King James wanted especially 'spiritual control', since the church > > > >>>> has influence on the mind. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> The only way to reign over the people of England as head of their church > > > >>>> was to create a new religion and force the English people into it. > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Yet he didn't do either. > > > >> > > > >> As far as I know, he forced the citizens of England to swear an oath of > > > >> allegiance to the King and his superiority in questions of believe. (see > > > >> above) > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> TH > > > > > > > > Ask your computer why they named the two fictional flights 11 and 77 There is no record of them existing at all on 911 yet 175 was still airborne after it supposedly crashed and 93 was in a hanger in Cleveland getting its numbers changed back. > > > > > > > > > > I'll ask this slowly so you will understand . > > > > > > > > > What evidence do you have that flights 11 and 77 > > > did not exist? > > > > > > > > > What evidence do you have about you claim for flight > > > 175? > > > > > > What evidence do you have about your claim for flight > > > 93? > > > > > > Do not reference to you tube videos, but post links to verifiable facts. > > > > > > Also tell us in your own words about these claims. > > > > > > --- > > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > > > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > > Tummi your a failure. > > > > This is a Government ran site to gather information and then destroy it,But there's a wealth on information there click on the link and pick a plane and buckle your seat belt it's a very bumpy ride. > > http://letsrollforums.com//mystery-flights-11-77-f21.html?f=21 > > Sorry, I don't want to visit Trooferville, where everyone is stupid. > > -- > BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of > Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies. > Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former > Black Helicopter color consultant. You need to get out of your shell BDK
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 06:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6ic63$ssu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #273149 |
On 06/01/2016 05:02, joeturn wrote: > On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 3:20:12 PM UTC-5, Tony Dragon wrote: >> On 05/01/2016 09:14, joeturn wrote: >>> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 11:20:44 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 02.01.2016 13:05, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3): >>>> .. >>>>>> So I simply quote Wikipedia about the role of King James in the relation >>>>>> of the people of England to the Catholic Church: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I_and_religious_issues >>>>>> >>>>>> Quote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "After the Gunpowder Plot, the third Catholic conspiracy against his >>>>>> person in three years, James sanctioned stricter measures to suppress >>>>>> them. In May 1606, Parliament passed an act which could require any >>>>>> citizen to take an Oath of Allegiance, entailing a denial of the pope's >>>>>> authority over the king.[10] James believed that the Oath was merely >>>>>> concerned with civil obedience, a secular transaction between king and >>>>>> subject; but it provoked opposition among Catholics, as it did not >>>>>> explicitly restrict itself to political matters.[11] In early 1606, the >>>>>> Venetian ambassador reported James as saying: "I do not know upon what >>>>>> they found this cursed doctrine that they are permitted to plot against >>>>>> the lives of princes".[12] James' policy aimed at punishing a few >>>>>> instead creating bloodshed; Jesuits and seminary priests should simply >>>>>> be asked to leave the country.[13] James proved lenient towards Catholic >>>>>> laymen who took the Oath of Allegiance,[14] and tolerated >>>>>> crypto-Catholicism even at court. Henry Howard, for example, outwardly >>>>>> professed Protestantism but remained a Catholic in private and was >>>>>> received back into the Roman church in his final months." >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for proving my claim, while disproving your own. >>>>> >>>>>>>> He wanted to reign over the church and could only do this, by creating >>>>>>>> an alternative church, since the pope was the head of the Catholics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He already reigned over the Church of England. History does not >>>>>>> show he had any interest in reigning over the Roman Catholic Church. >>>>>>> He simply wanted the Catholics out of England. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Politicians should keep away from religion. They may have a believe, but >>>>>> should not reign over a church. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps not. But it's a bit late to object to King James' role as >>>>> the head of the Church of England. >>>> >>>> >>>> Well, that would not be a big problem and he could have been head of >>>> whatever he liked. >>>> >>>> This wasn't the topic, but '9/11'. >>>> >>>> I have mentioned the 'gunpowder plot' because there are certain >>>> similarities to 9/11/2001 and certain strange connections. >>>> >>>> One strange connection was Pocahontas and the so called 'First Families >>>> of Virginia', to which the family Bush belonged. >>>> >>>> They have been 'first' in the settlement with the 'London Company', >>>> which was implemented by that King James. >>>> >>>> Also certain features of both stories seem to be similar: >>>> >>>> explosions >>>> large buildings >>>> lone terrorists >>>> religious motivation of these terrorists >>>> speculations about conspiracies >>>> (in which the government seemed to be involved) >>>> suppression of (innocent) followers of this religion >>>> extremely harsh punishment (with public execution) >>>> >>>>>> But King James wanted exactly this: a 'theocracy'. That is the >>>>>> unification of political power with spiritual power over the churches. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> At the time, he had both. Cromwell didn't cause the separation >>>>> until roughly 28 years after King James I had died. >>>> >>>> Before he hadn't, since the Catholic Church had the Pope as head of the >>>> Church. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> This was a very bad idea, especially in the case of medieval England. >>>>> >>>>> A bit late to worry about it now. >>>> >>>> >>>> Well, actually I didn't worry about King James. What worries me was the >>>> other (much more recent) event. >>>> >>>>>> Years of hostility followed for no obvious reason and tensions between >>>>>> the Anglican/Protestant Churches and the Catholics. >>>>>> >>>>>> But King James wanted especially 'spiritual control', since the church >>>>>> has influence on the mind. >>>>>> >>>>>> The only way to reign over the people of England as head of their church >>>>>> was to create a new religion and force the English people into it. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yet he didn't do either. >>>> >>>> As far as I know, he forced the citizens of England to swear an oath of >>>> allegiance to the King and his superiority in questions of believe. (see >>>> above) >>>> >>>> >>>> TH >>> >>> Ask your computer why they named the two fictional flights 11 and 77 There is no record of them existing at all on 911 yet 175 was still airborne after it supposedly crashed and 93 was in a hanger in Cleveland getting its numbers changed back. >>> >> >> I'll ask this slowly so you will understand . >> >> >> What evidence do you have that flights 11 and 77 >> did not exist? >> >> >> What evidence do you have about you claim for flight >> 175? >> >> What evidence do you have about your claim for flight >> 93? >> >> Do not reference to you tube videos, but post links to verifiable facts. >> >> Also tell us in your own words about these claims. >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > Tummi your a failure. > > This is a Government ran site to gather information and then destroy it,But there's a wealth on information there click on the link and pick a plane and buckle your seat belt it's a very bumpy ride. > http://letsrollforums.com//mystery-flights-11-77-f21.html?f=21 > OK, so you can't do it, glad that's cleared up. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 22:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <49d2f8ec-ad8c-400d-a41c-d9e1c7a2f816@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #273153 |
On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 1:31:00 AM UTC-5, Tony Dragon wrote: > On 06/01/2016 05:02, joeturn wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 3:20:12 PM UTC-5, Tony Dragon wrote: > >> On 05/01/2016 09:14, joeturn wrote: > >>> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 11:20:44 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>> Am 02.01.2016 13:05, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3): > >>>> .. > >>>>>> So I simply quote Wikipedia about the role of King James in the relation > >>>>>> of the people of England to the Catholic Church: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I_and_religious_issues > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Quote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "After the Gunpowder Plot, the third Catholic conspiracy against his > >>>>>> person in three years, James sanctioned stricter measures to suppress > >>>>>> them. In May 1606, Parliament passed an act which could require any > >>>>>> citizen to take an Oath of Allegiance, entailing a denial of the pope's > >>>>>> authority over the king.[10] James believed that the Oath was merely > >>>>>> concerned with civil obedience, a secular transaction between king and > >>>>>> subject; but it provoked opposition among Catholics, as it did not > >>>>>> explicitly restrict itself to political matters.[11] In early 1606, the > >>>>>> Venetian ambassador reported James as saying: "I do not know upon what > >>>>>> they found this cursed doctrine that they are permitted to plot against > >>>>>> the lives of princes".[12] James' policy aimed at punishing a few > >>>>>> instead creating bloodshed; Jesuits and seminary priests should simply > >>>>>> be asked to leave the country.[13] James proved lenient towards Catholic > >>>>>> laymen who took the Oath of Allegiance,[14] and tolerated > >>>>>> crypto-Catholicism even at court. Henry Howard, for example, outwardly > >>>>>> professed Protestantism but remained a Catholic in private and was > >>>>>> received back into the Roman church in his final months." > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you for proving my claim, while disproving your own. > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> He wanted to reign over the church and could only do this, by creating > >>>>>>>> an alternative church, since the pope was the head of the Catholics. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> He already reigned over the Church of England. History does not > >>>>>>> show he had any interest in reigning over the Roman Catholic Church. > >>>>>>> He simply wanted the Catholics out of England. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Politicians should keep away from religion. They may have a believe, but > >>>>>> should not reign over a church. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps not. But it's a bit late to object to King James' role as > >>>>> the head of the Church of England. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Well, that would not be a big problem and he could have been head of > >>>> whatever he liked. > >>>> > >>>> This wasn't the topic, but '9/11'. > >>>> > >>>> I have mentioned the 'gunpowder plot' because there are certain > >>>> similarities to 9/11/2001 and certain strange connections. > >>>> > >>>> One strange connection was Pocahontas and the so called 'First Families > >>>> of Virginia', to which the family Bush belonged. > >>>> > >>>> They have been 'first' in the settlement with the 'London Company', > >>>> which was implemented by that King James. > >>>> > >>>> Also certain features of both stories seem to be similar: > >>>> > >>>> explosions > >>>> large buildings > >>>> lone terrorists > >>>> religious motivation of these terrorists > >>>> speculations about conspiracies > >>>> (in which the government seemed to be involved) > >>>> suppression of (innocent) followers of this religion > >>>> extremely harsh punishment (with public execution) > >>>> > >>>>>> But King James wanted exactly this: a 'theocracy'. That is the > >>>>>> unification of political power with spiritual power over the churches. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> At the time, he had both. Cromwell didn't cause the separation > >>>>> until roughly 28 years after King James I had died. > >>>> > >>>> Before he hadn't, since the Catholic Church had the Pope as head of the > >>>> Church. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> This was a very bad idea, especially in the case of medieval England. > >>>>> > >>>>> A bit late to worry about it now. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Well, actually I didn't worry about King James. What worries me was the > >>>> other (much more recent) event. > >>>> > >>>>>> Years of hostility followed for no obvious reason and tensions between > >>>>>> the Anglican/Protestant Churches and the Catholics. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But King James wanted especially 'spiritual control', since the church > >>>>>> has influence on the mind. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The only way to reign over the people of England as head of their church > >>>>>> was to create a new religion and force the English people into it. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Yet he didn't do either. > >>>> > >>>> As far as I know, he forced the citizens of England to swear an oath of > >>>> allegiance to the King and his superiority in questions of believe. (see > >>>> above) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> TH > >>> > >>> Ask your computer why they named the two fictional flights 11 and 77 There is no record of them existing at all on 911 yet 175 was still airborne after it supposedly crashed and 93 was in a hanger in Cleveland getting its numbers changed back. > >>> > >> > >> I'll ask this slowly so you will understand . > >> > >> > >> What evidence do you have that flights 11 and 77 > >> did not exist? > >> > >> > >> What evidence do you have about you claim for flight > >> 175? > >> > >> What evidence do you have about your claim for flight > >> 93? > >> > >> Do not reference to you tube videos, but post links to verifiable facts. > >> > >> Also tell us in your own words about these claims. > >> > >> --- > >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > > Tummi your a failure. > > > > This is a Government ran site to gather information and then destroy it,But there's a wealth on information there click on the link and pick a plane and buckle your seat belt it's a very bumpy ride. > > http://letsrollforums.com//mystery-flights-11-77-f21.html?f=21 > > > > > OK, so you can't do it, glad that's cleared up. > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus you asked your same old question and I gave you not a youtube but a Federal ran site and you refuse to accept the truth.Why sweep it under the rug tumi dragin.Your Government is screwing you and you like it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 04:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <2mqp8bhln1f10ni1j84tc4s80vbk86lvqr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #273155 |
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 22:41:12 -0800 (PST), joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[...]
>> >> I'll ask this slowly so you will understand .
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What evidence do you have that flights 11 and 77
>> >> did not exist?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What evidence do you have about you claim for flight
>> >> 175?
>> >>
>> >> What evidence do you have about your claim for flight
>> >> 93?
>> >>
>> >> Do not reference to you tube videos, but post links to verifiable facts.
>> >>
>> >> Also tell us in your own words about these claims.
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>> >
>> > Tummi your a failure.
>> >
>> > This is a Government ran site to gather information and then destroy it,But there's a wealth on information there click on the link and pick a plane and buckle your seat belt it's a very bumpy ride.
>> > http://letsrollforums.com//mystery-flights-11-77-f21.html?f=21
>> >
>>
>>
>> OK, so you can't do it, glad that's cleared up.
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>you asked your same old question and I gave you not a youtube but a Federal ran site
It's not a federal site, dullard.
>and you refuse to accept the truth.
How would you know? You've never offered any truth for anyone to
accept or reject.
>Why sweep it under the rug tumi dragin.
What evidence do you have that Tony and Tumi are the same person?
Other than the voices in your head?
>Your Government is screwing you and you like it.
Yet you provide no evidence of this. How odd.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 20:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6jtgl$cqa$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #273155 |
On 06/01/2016 06:41, joeturn wrote: > On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 1:31:00 AM UTC-5, Tony Dragon wrote: >> On 06/01/2016 05:02, joeturn wrote: >>> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 3:20:12 PM UTC-5, Tony Dragon wrote: >>>> On 05/01/2016 09:14, joeturn wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 11:20:44 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>> Am 02.01.2016 13:05, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3): >>>>>> .. >>>>>>>> So I simply quote Wikipedia about the role of King James in the relation >>>>>>>> of the people of England to the Catholic Church: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I_and_religious_issues >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Quote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "After the Gunpowder Plot, the third Catholic conspiracy against his >>>>>>>> person in three years, James sanctioned stricter measures to suppress >>>>>>>> them. In May 1606, Parliament passed an act which could require any >>>>>>>> citizen to take an Oath of Allegiance, entailing a denial of the pope's >>>>>>>> authority over the king.[10] James believed that the Oath was merely >>>>>>>> concerned with civil obedience, a secular transaction between king and >>>>>>>> subject; but it provoked opposition among Catholics, as it did not >>>>>>>> explicitly restrict itself to political matters.[11] In early 1606, the >>>>>>>> Venetian ambassador reported James as saying: "I do not know upon what >>>>>>>> they found this cursed doctrine that they are permitted to plot against >>>>>>>> the lives of princes".[12] James' policy aimed at punishing a few >>>>>>>> instead creating bloodshed; Jesuits and seminary priests should simply >>>>>>>> be asked to leave the country.[13] James proved lenient towards Catholic >>>>>>>> laymen who took the Oath of Allegiance,[14] and tolerated >>>>>>>> crypto-Catholicism even at court. Henry Howard, for example, outwardly >>>>>>>> professed Protestantism but remained a Catholic in private and was >>>>>>>> received back into the Roman church in his final months." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you for proving my claim, while disproving your own. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> He wanted to reign over the church and could only do this, by creating >>>>>>>>>> an alternative church, since the pope was the head of the Catholics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> He already reigned over the Church of England. History does not >>>>>>>>> show he had any interest in reigning over the Roman Catholic Church. >>>>>>>>> He simply wanted the Catholics out of England. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Politicians should keep away from religion. They may have a believe, but >>>>>>>> should not reign over a church. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps not. But it's a bit late to object to King James' role as >>>>>>> the head of the Church of England. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, that would not be a big problem and he could have been head of >>>>>> whatever he liked. >>>>>> >>>>>> This wasn't the topic, but '9/11'. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have mentioned the 'gunpowder plot' because there are certain >>>>>> similarities to 9/11/2001 and certain strange connections. >>>>>> >>>>>> One strange connection was Pocahontas and the so called 'First Families >>>>>> of Virginia', to which the family Bush belonged. >>>>>> >>>>>> They have been 'first' in the settlement with the 'London Company', >>>>>> which was implemented by that King James. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also certain features of both stories seem to be similar: >>>>>> >>>>>> explosions >>>>>> large buildings >>>>>> lone terrorists >>>>>> religious motivation of these terrorists >>>>>> speculations about conspiracies >>>>>> (in which the government seemed to be involved) >>>>>> suppression of (innocent) followers of this religion >>>>>> extremely harsh punishment (with public execution) >>>>>> >>>>>>>> But King James wanted exactly this: a 'theocracy'. That is the >>>>>>>> unification of political power with spiritual power over the churches. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At the time, he had both. Cromwell didn't cause the separation >>>>>>> until roughly 28 years after King James I had died. >>>>>> >>>>>> Before he hadn't, since the Catholic Church had the Pope as head of the >>>>>> Church. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> This was a very bad idea, especially in the case of medieval England. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A bit late to worry about it now. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, actually I didn't worry about King James. What worries me was the >>>>>> other (much more recent) event. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Years of hostility followed for no obvious reason and tensions between >>>>>>>> the Anglican/Protestant Churches and the Catholics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But King James wanted especially 'spiritual control', since the church >>>>>>>> has influence on the mind. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The only way to reign over the people of England as head of their church >>>>>>>> was to create a new religion and force the English people into it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yet he didn't do either. >>>>>> >>>>>> As far as I know, he forced the citizens of England to swear an oath of >>>>>> allegiance to the King and his superiority in questions of believe. (see >>>>>> above) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> TH >>>>> >>>>> Ask your computer why they named the two fictional flights 11 and 77 There is no record of them existing at all on 911 yet 175 was still airborne after it supposedly crashed and 93 was in a hanger in Cleveland getting its numbers changed back. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'll ask this slowly so you will understand . >>>> >>>> >>>> What evidence do you have that flights 11 and 77 >>>> did not exist? >>>> >>>> >>>> What evidence do you have about you claim for flight >>>> 175? >>>> >>>> What evidence do you have about your claim for flight >>>> 93? >>>> >>>> Do not reference to you tube videos, but post links to verifiable facts. >>>> >>>> Also tell us in your own words about these claims. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>> >>> Tummi your a failure. >>> >>> This is a Government ran site to gather information and then destroy it,But there's a wealth on information there click on the link and pick a plane and buckle your seat belt it's a very bumpy ride. >>> http://letsrollforums.com//mystery-flights-11-77-f21.html?f=21 >>> >> >> >> OK, so you can't do it, glad that's cleared up. >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > you asked your same old question And it has still not been answered. > and I gave you not a youtube but a Federal ran site Does not look like a federal address to me, but feel free to offer evidence that it is. > and you refuse to accept the truth. I await the truth from you, but I wont hold my breath. >Why sweep it under the rug tumi dragin. Who? > Your Government is screwing you and you like it. > You don't even know who my government is. BTW you did not reply to this part of the post :_ Do not reference to you tube videos, but post links to verifiable facts. Also tell us in your own words about these claims. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.conspiracy
csiph-web