Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #514587
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.conspiracy, sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake |
| Date | 2015-08-17 04:20 -0500 |
| Organization | Sooper Sekrit Gov'mint Agency. Shhhhhhhh. |
| Message-ID | <1p93ta95ijf97uomluk1id3mdhloh78bs8@4ax.com> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <d37qk5Fc3fdU1@mid.individual.net> <ac6usadhkpmdhb5umn72l8a03h2tfjq3t9@4ax.com> <d3ajjtF2pfkU1@mid.individual.net> <be31tad84oqi3j8ss7msnm1pgu8h6iaerm@4ax.com> <d3d1itFln1eU1@mid.individual.net> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 05:09:07 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
>Am 16.08.2015 15:25, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>
>>>>>>>> 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEk81AL5qg0
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That video is quite good.
>>>>>
>>>>> I had problems with those phonecalls, too. E.g. why would such a
>>>>> prominent person as Barbara Olson be involved in such an event??
>>>>
>>>> I just re-watched the video. Barbara isn't mentioned. Why are you
>>>> dishonestly presenting that her name was mentioned?
>>>
>>> I assume, that you already know a few facts about 9/11, since this
>>> is/was a mayor subject on this board. And writing here is what you do -
>>> day after day.
>>
>> I find Usenet an enjoyable diversion from reality. I don't take
>> it to the extreme you do with your off-the-wall claims, but I have
>> fun.
>>
>>> So you certainly have heard of the alleged phone calls from Barbara
>>> Olsen to Ted Olsen.
>>
>> I have. What does this have to do with your claim that she was
>> mentioned in the video?
>
>I didn't say, she was mentioned in THAT video (while she was in others).
>
From your post:
"I had problems with those phonecalls, too. E.g. why would such a
prominent person as Barbara Olson be involved in such an event??"
You may lie about your claim as often as you wish, but the truth
will not change.
Anyone with an interest can verify your claim by checking
Message-ID: <d37qk5Fc3fdU1@mid.individual.net>, or look above.
>I was actually responding to the video '9/11 - Ten reasons why the
>hijackers were fake' with my own ideas about a related subject (but not
>from that film).
>
Your own post proves you're lying.
And yes, it is a lie, since you will know what you claimed in
your post.
>This is certainly legitimate style of conversation and nothing to
>complain about.
>
But you mentioned Barbara in the same paragraph as the phone
calls. In fact, you used her as an example.
>What is actually not ok is you insisting that I should defend, what I
>have not written.
It is fortunate I've not done so. I've asked that you defend what
you actually wrote.
>
>>> I have problems with it, since TED Olsen is a 'class 'A' celebrity' and
>>
>> No he isn't.
>
> Ok: In government they are not called 'celebrities'. I don't don't
>know how to call really prominent people correctly.
He may have been viewed as prominent within the halls of
government, but not to the average people. Before 9/11, I doubt many
would have known the name.
>
>But the real 'big shots' in politics should be addressed somehow and
>'solicitor general' is a VERY high rank in US politics. So I stay with
>'celebrities'.
>
The office is just below that of Attorney General. This does not
make the holder of said office a "celebrity" in any sense of the word.
>This letter 'A' stems from something called 'ABC analysis'.
>
>In all sorts of circumstance you have a certain distribution and find a
>few percent of a set belong to class 'A', about 15 to class 'B' and the
>rest to class 'C'.
>
>Celebrities are such a set, hence could be sorted into classes.
>
>The real 'big shots' belong to class 'A' and those are VERY rare.
>
>Rare people are not often found in the victims of a disaster, because
>they are rare (both actually: disasters and class 'A' celebrities).
>
Yet it does happen.
>>> those are extremely rare. His wife was somehow famous, too, but belongs
>>> more to class 'B'.
>>
>> No, she was not.
>Barbara Olson was not only the wife of solicitor general, but also
>prominent by herself (news-writer, host of tv-show).
>She was not such a big-shot as her husband, hence belongs to class 'B'.
>
She was better known to the general public than her husband.
Prior to 9/11/01 I had *heard* of Barbara Olsen. I didn't know who Ted
Olson was.
>>> So we have an historic event (9/11), that connects also a class 'A'
>>> celebrity to a class 'B' celebrity.
>>
>> Please explain this connection in detail.
>
>She had (allegedly) a phone-call to her husband from a high-jacked
>air-plane.
>
It's not alleged. She used a sky phone, available on most
flights, and called.
Here is what one of the models looks like:
http://www.unintentionalgreatness.com/.a/6a0134875a4b8b970c014e88b09aae970d-pi
>This is a connection (9/11 -> Barbara Olson -> Ted Olson).
>
Barbara called Ted on 9/11. Yes.
>The likelihood of such a connection should be figured out by the number
>of all possible phone-calls of all possible people to all other people
>with access to a phone.
Huh?
Are you claiming that the phone system in the U.S. was in such
bad shape her call wouldn't have gotten through?
>
>So: a phone-call between two celebrities is not per se less likely then
>between Joe and Branda Nobody, only the status of a celebrity makes it
>much less likely, since prominent people are MUCH rarer than nobodies.
A wife calling her husband, regardless as to social standing, is
fairly common. Add that the flight she was on had been hijacked and
her calling makes even more sense.
>
>Now we have this conversation recorded and it belongs to another
>unlikely event: a high-jacked plane.
While hijackings are a rare event, they do occur.
>
>Since now it's getting VERY unlikely, we need compelling evidence, this
>phone-call was real.
It's not getting at all unlikely. She was on the flight from
which the sky phone call originated. This is not a mystery.
>
>But people claim, this was not the case, since:
>it was technical impossible
How was it impossible? I've made calls with sky phones. Not a
lot, but I've done it. After the second flight, the novelty of calling
people to say, "I'm calling you while in flight." wore off and I've
not bothered to make a call with one since.
Does claiming the call was not possible, when it was, benefit you
in some way?
>the alleged victim is allegedly alive.
>
There is zero evidence that she is.
Nothing you've offered supports a claim that Barbara survived.
Your claim that her making the call was technically impossible is pure
bunk.
I'm wondering if you're able to get anything right. You probably
have at some point, but I can't recall anything as I write this.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-10 15:54 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 16:12 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-10 16:34 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-10 21:59 +0000
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-10 17:24 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-10 22:41 +0000
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 09:09 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-11 14:07 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 15:30 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-11 20:36 +0000
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 16:02 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-11 22:28 +0000
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 17:35 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-11 23:29 +0000
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-12 05:27 -0400
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-12 16:58 +0000
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-12 15:49 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-12 21:09 +0000
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-12 19:02 -0400
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-15 11:03 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-15 16:44 +0000
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-12 18:56 -0400
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 04:20 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-12 17:00 +0000
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 04:36 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 04:20 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 16:29 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-10 16:40 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 04:30 -0500
Caught K the Kook in a farce (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-10 16:51 -0500
Re: Caught K the Kook in a farce (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 04:30 -0500
Re: Caught K the Kook in a farce (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 09:31 -0500
Re: Caught K the Kook in a farce (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 14:52 -0500
Re: Caught K the Kook in aBIG FARCE (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 15:46 -0500
Re: Caught K the Kook in aBIG FARCE (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 04:23 -0500
Re: Caught K the Kook in aBIG FARCE (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-12 16:39 +0000
Re: Caught K the Kook in aBIG FARCE (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-12 16:24 -0500
Re: Caught K the Kook in aBIG FARCE (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-13 04:06 +0000
Re: Caught K the Kook in aBIG FARCE (was: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 08:59 -0700
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-10 21:21 +0000
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-10 16:42 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-10 22:02 +0000
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-10 17:30 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-10 22:56 +0000
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 09:10 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-11 18:50 +0000
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 15:00 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-11 20:37 +0000
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 16:04 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-11 22:30 +0000
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 17:39 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-11 23:31 +0000
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 04:21 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-14 16:47 +0100
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 10:23 -0700
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 20:09 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-16 09:25 +0100
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 04:21 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 04:20 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-12 17:11 +0000
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 04:36 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-11 14:10 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-12 09:19 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-10 23:27 +0000
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 09:15 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-11 18:54 +0000
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake (#1 the planes were CGIs) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 15:25 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake (#1 the planes were CGIs) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-11 20:42 +0000
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake (#1 the planes were CGIs) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 16:15 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake (#1 the planes were CGIs) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-11 22:33 +0000
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-11 09:41 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-11 15:28 +0000
tOOtOOt noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 12:26 -0700
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-12 09:06 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-12 18:30 +0000
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-12 16:13 -0500
fake argumentarium noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 16:50 -0700
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-13 03:32 +0000
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-18 06:45 +0200
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 04:18 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 14:10 -0700
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 16:53 -0700
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake Shoe-Chucker 2 <georgewk10@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-13 14:27 -0700
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-13 16:30 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-13 22:56 +0000
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 04:35 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-15 05:39 +0200
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 05:50 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-16 06:58 +0200
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 08:25 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-17 05:09 +0200
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 04:20 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 11:49 -0700
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-20 01:58 +0200
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 03:53 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-22 05:45 +0200
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 05:06 -0500
Re: Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-23 03:59 -0500
2 Topaz stop right there (was: Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 06:17 -0500
Re: 2 Topaz stop right there (was: Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 07:23 -0500
Re: 2 Topaz stop right there (was: Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-23 10:06 -0500
Re: 2 Topaz stop right there (was: Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 10:26 -0500
Re: 2 Topaz stop right there jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 16:57 +0000
Re: 2 Topaz stop right there jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 16:56 +0000
Re: 2 Topaz stop right there Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 18:03 +0100
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake ( fake phone call too ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-20 09:33 -0500
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 16:24 -0700
Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 19:04 -0700
csiph-web