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

Groups > sci.physics > #519283 > unrolled thread

Strange Features Found in the Naudet Brothers First Strike Footage

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Strange Features Found in the Naudet Brothers First Strike Footage "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 12:02 -0500
    Re: Strange babbling from a delusional kook jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 17:09 +0000
      Re: Strange Features Found in the Naudet Brothers First Strike Footage "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 12:44 -0500
        Re: Rocky looking for fleeting shadows jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 18:15 +0000
          Re: Strange Features Found in the Naudet Brothers First Strike Footage (jimp forgets about freeze frame) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 14:42 -0500
            Re: Rocky blinks jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 21:10 +0000
              Re: Strange Features Found in the Naudet Brothers First Strike Footage (jimp forgets about freeze frame again) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 16:25 -0500
                Re: Rocky still chasing shadows in his delusions jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 21:41 +0000
            Re: Strange Features Found in the Naudet Brothers First Strike Footage (jimp forgets about freeze frame) "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-07 10:25 -0400
      Re: Strange babbling from a delusional kook "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-06 16:26 -0400
        Re: Strange Features Found in the Naudet Brothers First Strike Footage "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 15:46 -0500
          Re: Strange Features Found in the Naudet Brothers First Strike Footage "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 16:23 -0500
            Re: Strange Features Found in the Naudet Brothers First Strike Footage ( K stands for Komplete Idiot ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-07 01:57 -0500
              Re: Strange Features Found in the Naudet Brothers First Strike Footage ( Roger's mental health issue(s) is brought into focus. Again.) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 06:17 -0500
                Re: Strange Features Found in the Naudet Brothers First Strike Footage ( K proves he is one ST00PID ASSHOLE) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-07 08:39 -0500
                  Re: Strange Features Found in the Naudet Brothers First Strike Footage ( K proves he is one ST00PID ASSHOLE, and yet superior to Roger in every way) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 17:43 -0500
          Re: Rocky still crazy jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 21:44 +0000
        Re: Strange babbling from a delusional kook jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 21:12 +0000
          Re: Strange Features Found in the Naudet Brothers First Strike Footage (jimp caught by a big lie) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-06 16:39 -0500
            Re: Rocky still a jobles stalker jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-06 21:54 +0000
        Re: Strange babbling from a delusional kook "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 16:21 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#519283 — Strange Features Found in the Naudet Brothers First Strike Footage

While the following video focuses on the expanding hole in the North tower 
that looks like an video edit take a look at the shadows for another strange 
feature.

Strange Features Found in the Naudet Brothers First Strike Footage
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jx68_HBCzgY

The time is 8am or 9am and the sun should be in the east but the shadows 
from the smoke after the North Tower is struck by Phantom Flight 11 make it 
look like the sun is in the west and even below sea level.

BTW even the kooks with an affinity toward Cartoon Physics are allowed to 
try and explain why the shadows were from the west instead of the east.

Rocky 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#519292 — Re: Strange babbling from a delusional kook

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> While the following video focuses on the expanding hole in the North tower 
> that looks like an video edit take a look at the shadows for another strange 
> feature.

The only thing strange is your delusional mind, kook.

Found a job yet, kook?

The facts are some airliners were hijacked.

Two of them crashed into the World Trade Center towers, starting fires
which weakened the central support columns and the buildings collapesed
almost 2 hours later.

One of them crashed into the Pentagon causing a partial collapse of the
western side and one of them crashed into a field in Pennsylvania.

When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a unique seismic signature
that can be detected anywhere on the planet.

There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 but the 
collapse of the two towers as well as the plane crash at the Pentagon
and the crash in Pennsyvania were detected.

This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.

Everything else is kook babble.

That there were nuclear exposives involved is kook babble.

That there is missing rubble is kook babble.

That there has ever been a nuclear building demolition is kook babble.

That part of the buildings were vaporized is kook babble.

That part of a building was left standing proves there were nuclear
devices is kook babble.

That there was an EMP is kook babble.

That nuclear devices could be detonated underground and yet were not
seen by every seismograph in the world is kook babble.

That a failed US Government project that ended in 1973 has anything
to do with what happened is kook babble.

That the scene was radioactive is kook babble.

That there is any simularity between New York and either Hiroshima
or Nagasaki is kook babble.

That the area was called ground zero proves the event was nuclear
is kook babble.

That a nuclear bomb can be buried for decades without maintenance 
and still be expected to work is kook babble.

That non-government entities can obtain not one, but multiple nuclear
bombs is kook babble.

That there were not thousands of eyewitnesses who heard and saw the
airplanes hit the towers is kook babble.

That all the video was CGI is kook babble.

That the exterior walls were designed to deflect airplanes is kook babble.

That the exterior walls were anything other than supports for the
windows is kook babble.

That two of the aircraft landed somewhere else is kook babble.

That a shotgun works anything like an underground nuclear explosion
is kook babble.

There is nothing in an airplane that transmits the flight number to
ATC and saying the transponder does that is kook babble.

Saying a missile of any kind hit the Pentagon is kook babble.

Rantings about specially treated dirt is kook babble.

Saying people worship their television and capitalizing "television" is
kook babble.

Capitalizing things that shouldn't be capitalized is kook babble.


<snip remaining kook babble>


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#519293

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
news:si8ubc-lh2.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>> While the following video focuses on the expanding hole in the North 
>> tower
>> that looks like an video edit take a look at the shadows for another 
>> strange
>> feature.
>
> The only thing strange is
...
the fact that Phantom Flight 11 did not have any shadow at all but the smoke 
had a great big shadow.  See:

Strange Features Found in the Naudet Brothers First Strike Footage
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jx68_HBCzgY

I have to say it is pretty funny that just in time for another anniversary 
of the Great Disney 9/11 that more and more facts are being uncovered.

9/11 was cheap CGIs and 3 deep underground NUKEs.

Rocky 

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

#519301 — Re: Rocky looking for fleeting shadows

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
> news:si8ubc-lh2.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>> While the following video focuses on the expanding hole in the North 
>>> tower
>>> that looks like an video edit take a look at the shadows for another 
>>> strange
>>> feature.
>>
>> The only thing strange is
> ...
> the fact that Phantom Flight 11 did not have any shadow at all but the smoke 
> had a great big shadow.  See:

"Phantom Flight" is silly kook babble.

Clouds move very slowly as does their shadows while a jet's shadow is small
and very very fleeting, you raving lunatic.

This is just more of your delusional raving, you batshit crazy stalker.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#519338 — Re: Strange Features Found in the Naudet Brothers First Strike Footage (jimp forgets about freeze frame)

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
news:1fcubc-l33.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>
> Clouds move very slowly as does their shadows while a jet's shadow is 
> small
> and very very fleeting,

jimp you are clearly a fcukhead because it doesn't matter how fast or slow 
something is moving when it can still be caught by freeze frame.

Here take a close look at the missing shadow on CGI Flight 175.  BTW the 
following link is indexed to start at 13:34 to the start of the part where 
it shows there was no shadow from the fake Flight 175.

Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE
 https://youtu.be/p1D1C94eE8U?t=13m34s

So, given that the jets in Nuke York City where clearly bogus why not 
falsify the seismic readings too?  <G>

Rocky

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

#519368 — Re: Rocky blinks

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
> news:1fcubc-l33.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>
>> Clouds move very slowly as does their shadows while a jet's shadow is 
>> small
>> and very very fleeting,
> 
> jimp you are clearly a fcukhead because it doesn't matter how fast or slow 
> something is moving when it can still be caught by freeze frame.

Assuming a high enough frame rate to capture the fleeting shadow of a
jet moving at around 300 MPH, raving kook boy.

But shadows don't matter as thousands of people saw the airplanes
in flight, you raving lunatic.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#519378 — Re: Strange Features Found in the Naudet Brothers First Strike Footage (jimp forgets about freeze frame again)

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
news:0omubc-k44.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>> news:1fcubc-l33.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>
>>> Clouds move very slowly as does their shadows while a jet's shadow is
>>> small
>>> and very very fleeting,
>>
>> jimp you are clearly a fcukhead because it doesn't matter how fast or 
>> slow
>> something is moving when it can still be caught by freeze frame.
>
> Assuming a high enough frame rate to capture the fleeting shadow of a
> jet moving at around 300 MPH, raving kook boy.

Dude, there are more than enough frames of the bogus Flght 175 to see that 
it did not have a shadow and it also had a disappearing wing which is a 
stunt that only a CGI can perform.  <G>

Better watch more of the following video than just a few seconds if you even 
tried to watch it to start with.

Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE
 https://youtu.be/p1D1C94eE8U?t=13m34s

Rocky 

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

#519385 — Re: Rocky still chasing shadows in his delusions

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
> news:0omubc-k44.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1fcubc-l33.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>
>>>> Clouds move very slowly as does their shadows while a jet's shadow is
>>>> small
>>>> and very very fleeting,
>>>
>>> jimp you are clearly a fcukhead because it doesn't matter how fast or 
>>> slow
>>> something is moving when it can still be caught by freeze frame.
>>
>> Assuming a high enough frame rate to capture the fleeting shadow of a
>> jet moving at around 300 MPH, raving kook boy.
> 
> Dude, there are more than enough frames of the bogus Flght 175 to see that 
> it did not have a shadow and it also had a disappearing wing which is a 
> stunt that only a CGI can perform.  <G>

As there were thousands of eye witnesses that saw the airplanes, whether
or not you can find the fleeting shadow of a jet in some particular 
video at some particular angle is irrelevant, you babbling, jobless,
insane, stalker.

There is no disappearing wing, you babbling, jobless, insane, stalker.

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#519538 — Re: Strange Features Found in the Naudet Brothers First Strike Footage (jimp forgets about freeze frame)

Rocky wrote:
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:1fcubc-l33.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>
>> Clouds move very slowly as does their shadows while a jet's shadow is
>> small
>> and very very fleeting,
>
> jimp you are clearly a fcukhead because it doesn't matter how fast or
> slow something is moving when it can still be caught by freeze frame.
>
> Here take a close look at the missing shadow on CGI Flight 175.  BTW the
> following link is indexed to start at 13:34 to the start of the part
> where it shows there was no shadow from the fake Flight 175.
>
> Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE
> https://youtu.be/p1D1C94eE8U?t=13m34s
>
> So, given that the jets in Nuke York City where clearly bogus why not
> falsify the seismic readings too?  <G>
>
> Rocky





Gimp seems to have watched Peter Pan too many times.
He thinks shadows can detach and fall behind, if you can go fast enough.

Here's more 9/11 shadow fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jx68_HBCzgY


Hmmmm, maybe Jimp is right, it seems that shadows and objects don't have to 
have any connection.

9/11 fairytale road-runner physics strikes again.

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

#519360 — Re: Strange babbling from a delusional kook

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>> While the following video focuses on the expanding hole in the North
>> tower that looks like an video edit take a look at the shadows for
>> another strange feature.
>
> The only thing strange is your delusional mind, kook.
>
> Found a job yet, kook?
>
> The facts are some airliners were hijacked.
>
> Two of them crashed into the World Trade Center towers, starting fires
> which weakened the central support columns and the buildings collapesed
> almost 2 hours later.
>
> One of them crashed into the Pentagon causing a partial collapse of the
> western side and one of them crashed into a field in Pennsylvania.
>
> When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a unique seismic signature
> that can be detected anywhere on the planet.
>
> There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 but the
> collapse of the two towers as well as the plane crash at the Pentagon
> and the crash in Pennsyvania were detected.
>
> This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.
>
> Everything else is kook babble.
>
> That there were nuclear exposives involved is kook babble.
>
> That there is missing rubble is kook babble.
>
> That there has ever been a nuclear building demolition is kook babble.
>
> That part of the buildings were vaporized is kook babble.
>
> That part of a building was left standing proves there were nuclear
> devices is kook babble.
>
> That there was an EMP is kook babble.
>
> That nuclear devices could be detonated underground and yet were not
> seen by every seismograph in the world is kook babble.
>
> That a failed US Government project that ended in 1973 has anything
> to do with what happened is kook babble.
>
> That the scene was radioactive is kook babble.
>
> That there is any simularity between New York and either Hiroshima
> or Nagasaki is kook babble.
>
> That the area was called ground zero proves the event was nuclear
> is kook babble.
>
> That a nuclear bomb can be buried for decades without maintenance
> and still be expected to work is kook babble.
>
> That non-government entities can obtain not one, but multiple nuclear
> bombs is kook babble.
>
> That there were not thousands of eyewitnesses who heard and saw the
> airplanes hit the towers is kook babble.
>
> That all the video was CGI is kook babble.
>
> That the exterior walls were designed to deflect airplanes is kook
> babble.
>
> That the exterior walls were anything other than supports for the
> windows is kook babble.
>
> That two of the aircraft landed somewhere else is kook babble.
>
> That a shotgun works anything like an underground nuclear explosion
> is kook babble.
>
> There is nothing in an airplane that transmits the flight number to
> ATC and saying the transponder does that is kook babble.
>
> Saying a missile of any kind hit the Pentagon is kook babble.
>
> Rantings about specially treated dirt is kook babble.
>
> Saying people worship their television and capitalizing "television" is
> kook babble.
>
> Capitalizing things that shouldn't be capitalized is kook babble.
>
>
> <snip remaining kook babble>






You posting the SAME text hundreds of times ???
And that's NOT crazy ?

At least Rocky is posting new things each time

Only only a moron posts exactly the same thing over and over, and thinks 
that it may have a different outcome.
We ALL are ignoring you.

....And now it's time to just shut off yoour noise permanently.

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

#519364

"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message 
news:msi7f6$afq$1@dont-email.me...
>
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>> While the following video focuses on the expanding hole in the North
>>> tower that looks like an video edit take a look at the shadows for
>>> another strange feature.
>>
< jimp's crap flushed >
>> <snip remaining kook babble>
>
>
> You posting the SAME text hundreds of times ???
> And that's NOT crazy ?
>
> At least Rocky is posting new things each time
>
> Only only a moron posts exactly the same thing over and over, and thinks 
> that it may have a different outcome.
> We ALL are ignoring you.
>
> ....And now it's time to just shut off yoour noise permanently.

:-)

I've already given up completely on the Not Friendly Neighborhood Nut be 
cause it was too hard to find what he was really bitching about in the 
middle of all his bullshit.

The only way I'll reply to jimp is if I delete most of his bullshit and then 
re-edit his screwy subject.

jimp is such a fcuking liar because if I were anything like he tries to make 
me look I wouldn't have won my jury trial 12 to 0.

And on the subject of eye-witnesses.  I still think it is funny that at the 
time the South Tower was rammed by a CGI both ABC and FOX were interviewing 
witnesses that didn't see or hear a jet.  <G>

Rocky 

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

#519377

On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 15:46:28 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:msi7f6$afq$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>> While the following video focuses on the expanding hole in the North
>>>> tower that looks like an video edit take a look at the shadows for
>>>> another strange feature.
>>>
>< jimp's crap flushed >
>>> <snip remaining kook babble>
>>
>>
>> You posting the SAME text hundreds of times ???
>> And that's NOT crazy ?
>>
>> At least Rocky is posting new things each time
>>
>> Only only a moron posts exactly the same thing over and over, and thinks 
>> that it may have a different outcome.
>> We ALL are ignoring you.
>>
>> ....And now it's time to just shut off yoour noise permanently.
>
>:-)
>
>I've already given up completely on the Not Friendly Neighborhood Nut be 
>cause it was too hard to find what he was really bitching about in the 
>middle of all his bullshit.
>

     There is no love lost between FNVW and me, but I have to admit
his posts proved your every claim wrong. And this is why you've taken
to ignoring him. I only hope your ignoring of him is better than your
ignoring of me.

>The only way I'll reply to jimp is if I delete most of his bullshit and then 
>re-edit his screwy subject.

     You mean you have to post edit to remove the truth. I would be
surprised if anyone reading isn't aware that you do this.

>
>jimp is such a fcuking liar because if I were anything like he tries to make 
>me look I wouldn't have won my jury trial 12 to 0.
>

     Sigh.
     You raised reasonable doubt when you proved mom lied. And I do
believe she lied. I can understand, and even sympathize, with her
motivation. She wanted you to stay away from her daughter. But when
she lied, she allowed the jury to find reasonable doubt. This is why
you were found not guilty.
     This in no way means you were actually innocent. Based on what
you've provided, I would say you were harassing the daughter. Even
stalking her to the degree possible. But if I were a member of the
jury, being allowed only what they saw and heard, mom's lying would
surely have made me vote not guilty as well.

>And on the subject of eye-witnesses.  I still think it is funny that at the 
>time the South Tower was rammed by a CGI both ABC and FOX were interviewing 
>witnesses that didn't see or hear a jet.  <G>
>

     And yet, despite MANY requests, you've never provided a cite for
that claim. How very odd.
     Maybe you'll offer a cite for the claim now?

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

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

#519490 — Re: Strange Features Found in the Naudet Brothers First Strike Footage ( K stands for Komplete Idiot )

alt.astronomy restored
"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ikbpualnht771jllhh3p9l78opvit36jku@4ax.com...
>
>     Sigh.
>     You raised reasonable doubt when you proved mom lied. And I do
> believe she lied. I can understand, and even sympathize, with her
> motivation. She wanted you to stay away from her daughter.

ROTFLMAO because I was staying far far far away from her daughter.  So far 
that my only contact with her daughter was by phone and that still pissed 
Beverly off to the point that she had to tell her own daughter a lie have 
her daughter quit talking to me.  <G>

And don't forget how Cheryl testified in the first jury trial and that was 
she had nothing to do with the letter that Beverly had Frank Fuhr write me. 
<G>

And again what the fcuk is wrong with having an interest in someone that 
showed an interest in me?

Here, let me repeat myself because I think this is on one of my websites. 
On the phone call right after Beverly told her daughter I harassed her at 
work, which was a lie because Beverly told me her boss would understand 
right after I said I would leave.

Anyway I stated to Cheryl that my main interest in her was because she 
showed such an interest in me.  Cheryl replied with "I never gave you a 
sign."  I replied with "yeah you did" and then proceeded to tell her some of 
the things she had done.

And when Cheryl was on the stand in the second jury trial she was trying to 
poke fun at that part but under cross examination I asked her to continue 
listing the things I noticed and she couldn't think of a second item even 
though I had a long list prepared for the jury.

Again, Beverly had no valid reason to prevent me from answering her 
daughter's questions and to think it was ever anything other than that means 
you were only kidding yourself you idiot.  <G>

But that goes to show, you can have all the exhibits I used to win my jury 
trial 12 to 0 and still overlook the fact that Beverly Rusk's outright lies 
were unjustified.  <G>

You are basically beyond help just like jimp, you are an asshole like jimp 
and if you ever get to the point of deleting my post like jimp or FNN then 
expect to be treated like jimp or FNN.

Rocky 

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

#519521 — Re: Strange Features Found in the Naudet Brothers First Strike Footage ( Roger's mental health issue(s) is brought into focus. Again.)

On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 01:57:56 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>alt.astronomy restored



     Seek professional mental health care for your OBSESSION with
alt.astronomy. I'm being very serious here. 
     Your OBSESSION has now permitted anyone in that group that is
reading to see how your mental illness forces you to delete anything
you can't counter. Of course, such people likely already know you do
this.



>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:ikbpualnht771jllhh3p9l78opvit36jku@4ax.com...
>>
>>     Sigh.
>>     You raised reasonable doubt when you proved mom lied. And I do
>> believe she lied. I can understand, and even sympathize, with her
>> motivation. She wanted you to stay away from her daughter.
>
>ROTFLMAO because I was staying far far far away from her daughter.  So far 
>that my only contact with her daughter was by phone and that still pissed 
>Beverly off to the point that she had to tell her own daughter a lie have 
>her daughter quit talking to me.  <G>
>

     Your constant calling AND, according to your claims on your k00k
sites, having another relay messages from you, could be seen as
harassment. Especially when the daughter stated she had no interest in
you.

>And don't forget how Cheryl testified in the first jury trial and that was 
>she had nothing to do with the letter that Beverly had Frank Fuhr write me. 
><G>
>

     Mom wanted you to stay away from her daughter. This didn't just
mean physically.

>And again what the fcuk is wrong with having an interest in someone that 
>showed an interest in me?
>

     It is possible the daughter had an interest in you in High
School. I wasn't there, so I can't know. However, given the lack of
mental health you display in this group, I can envision that none of
what you claim actually happened.
     You saw what wasn't actually there. You took her being kind and
polite as an expression of interest when it was most probably an
aspect of her personality. She likely acted the same to everyone.

>Here, let me repeat myself because I think this is on one of my websites. 
>On the phone call right after Beverly told her daughter I harassed her at 
>work, which was a lie because Beverly told me her boss would understand 
>right after I said I would leave.
>

     Could you write that in a coherent way? If it were a phone call,
how could you leave? You could only leave if you were physically at
the location.

>Anyway I stated to Cheryl that my main interest in her was because she 
>showed such an interest in me.  Cheryl replied with "I never gave you a 
>sign."  I replied with "yeah you did" and then proceeded to tell her some of 
>the things she had done.
>

     I wasn't there, so I can't actually know, but I suspect you read
into the situation far more than was there. 
     But even if she had an interest in you in High School, it was
clear she lost interest. You should have accepted this and moved on
with your life. But you couldn't. The poor state of your mental health
would not allow it.

>And when Cheryl was on the stand in the second jury trial she was trying to 
>poke fun at that part but under cross examination I asked her to continue 
>listing the things I noticed and she couldn't think of a second item even 
>though I had a long list prepared for the jury.
>

     This is why I suspect you read more into the situation than was
there. Had she actually been expressing an interest, she would
remember more than one item.
     If, however, she did give you such signs, and remembered, then
chose to commit perjury, it's clear she was willing to risk a
conviction for perjury to get you out of her life. This is a very
strong signal that she no longer wanted anything to do with you.

>Again, Beverly had no valid reason to prevent me from answering her 
>daughter's questions and to think it was ever anything other than that means 
>you were only kidding yourself you idiot.  <G>
>

     I don't know the specific behind why mom wanted you to leave her
daughter alone. I can guess she realized you were, as you are now,
mentally unstable. The daughter apparently had some issues as well,
and mom probably felt that you would do more harm than good.
     Pure speculation on my part, but it does make sense.

>But that goes to show, you can have all the exhibits I used to win my jury 
>trial 12 to 0 and still overlook the fact that Beverly Rusk's outright lies 
>were unjustified.  <G>

     While I can understand her motivation for lying, it was a very
stupid thing for her to do. It allowed for the jury to find reasonable
doubt.

>
>You are basically beyond help just like jimp, you are an asshole like jimp 
>and if you ever get to the point of deleting my post like jimp or FNN then 
>expect to be treated like jimp or FNN.

     That's almost funny. You consistently delete items you can't
counter, yet try to take the high road when someone adopts your
standard and applies it to you. 
     Is this hypocrisy of yours a part of your mental defect(s)?
Serious question.
     By way of evidence, here is the post you replied to, with the
parts you deleted included.


[BEGIN C&P]

>"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:msi7f6$afq$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>> While the following video focuses on the expanding hole in the North
>>>> tower that looks like an video edit take a look at the shadows for
>>>> another strange feature.
>>>
>< jimp's crap flushed >
>>> <snip remaining kook babble>
>>
>>
>> You posting the SAME text hundreds of times ???
>> And that's NOT crazy ?
>>
>> At least Rocky is posting new things each time
>>
>> Only only a moron posts exactly the same thing over and over, and thinks 
>> that it may have a different outcome.
>> We ALL are ignoring you.
>>
>> ....And now it's time to just shut off yoour noise permanently.
>
>:-)
>
>I've already given up completely on the Not Friendly Neighborhood Nut be 
>cause it was too hard to find what he was really bitching about in the 
>middle of all his bullshit.
>

     There is no love lost between FNVW and me, but I have to admit
his posts proved your every claim wrong. And this is why you've taken
to ignoring him. I only hope your ignoring of him is better than your
ignoring of me.

>The only way I'll reply to jimp is if I delete most of his bullshit and then 
>re-edit his screwy subject.

     You mean you have to post edit to remove the truth. I would be
surprised if anyone reading isn't aware that you do this.

>
>jimp is such a fcuking liar because if I were anything like he tries to make 
>me look I wouldn't have won my jury trial 12 to 0.
>

     Sigh.
     You raised reasonable doubt when you proved mom lied. And I do
believe she lied. I can understand, and even sympathize, with her
motivation. She wanted you to stay away from her daughter. But when
she lied, she allowed the jury to find reasonable doubt. This is why
you were found not guilty.
     This in no way means you were actually innocent. Based on what
you've provided, I would say you were harassing the daughter. Even
stalking her to the degree possible. But if I were a member of the
jury, being allowed only what they saw and heard, mom's lying would
surely have made me vote not guilty as well.

>And on the subject of eye-witnesses.  I still think it is funny that at the 
>time the South Tower was rammed by a CGI both ABC and FOX were interviewing 
>witnesses that didn't see or hear a jet.  <G>
>

     And yet, despite MANY requests, you've never provided a cite for
that claim. How very odd.
     Maybe you'll offer a cite for the claim now?

[END C&P]

     Will you address the points I raised, or continue to PROVE your
mental defect(s) will not allow it? Time will tell.

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

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

#519533 — Re: Strange Features Found in the Naudet Brothers First Strike Footage ( K proves he is one ST00PID ASSHOLE)

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:7esquah2irdp6k2505ikqc287j66drar2c@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 01:57:56 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>alt.astronomy restored
>
>     Seek professional mental health care for your OBSESSION with
> alt.astronomy. I'm being very serious here.

You are the idiot that thinks Bast is a he so you are the one that is fcuked 
up.


>     Your OBSESSION has now permitted anyone in that group that is
> reading to see how your mental illness forces you to delete anything
> you can't counter. Of course, such people likely already know you do
> this.

You are the one that is fcuked up and your lack of knowing what exhibits I 
used to win my jury trial proves that too.  You think you can figure out 
everything just by guessing just like you do with 9/11.  <G>


>>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:ikbpualnht771jllhh3p9l78opvit36jku@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>     Sigh.
>>>     You raised reasonable doubt when you proved mom lied. And I do
>>> believe she lied. I can understand, and even sympathize, with her
>>> motivation. She wanted you to stay away from her daughter.
>>
>>ROTFLMAO because I was staying far far far away from her daughter.  So far
>>that my only contact with her daughter was by phone and that still pissed
>>Beverly off to the point that she had to tell her own daughter a lie have
>>her daughter quit talking to me.  <G>
>>
>
>     Your constant calling AND, according to your claims on your k00k
> sites, having another relay messages from you, could be seen as
> harassment. Especially when the daughter stated she had no interest in
> you.

You are such a fcuking bullshitter.  You obviously haven't looked at the 
exhibits I used to win my jury trial you asshole.

BTW Cheryl also showed no interest in her own daughter when her mother had a 
Sheriff's deputy take Cheryl's daughter away but that broke Cheryl to pieces 
and I'm sure Beverly had second thoughts about what she put her own daughter 
through after that.

And what made that even funnier was Cheryl's daughter helped make the state 
look stupid by contradicting her grandmother and her grandmother's hubby 
during a motion hearing.  <G>  I have a page on the Internet about that too 
but why give it to you since you missed all my other exhibits.


>>And don't forget how Cheryl testified in the first jury trial and that was
>>she had nothing to do with the letter that Beverly had Frank Fuhr write 
>>me.
>><G>
>>
>
>     Mom wanted you to stay away from her daughter. This didn't just
> mean physically.

But the reason her mother wanted me to stay away from her daughter was 
inconsistant with the facts you asshole.

Let me relate another phone call to Cheryl.  I had to fight and fight and 
fight with her mother before I finally stated  "Cheryl is a big girl she can 
make up her own mind" before Beverly let me talk to Cheryl.  Beverly Rusk is 
an idiot just like you who can't see things right in front of their own 
eyes.

>>And again what the fcuk is wrong with having an interest in someone that
>>showed an interest in me?
>>
>
>     It is possible the daughter had an interest in you in High
> School. I wasn't there, so I can't know. However, given the lack of
> mental health you display in this group, I can envision that none of
> what you claim actually happened.
>     You saw what wasn't actually there. You took her being kind and
> polite as an expression of interest when it was most probably an
> aspect of her personality. She likely acted the same to everyone.

GAUD DAMN YOU ARE SUCH A FCUKING ASSHOLE.  All you had to do to see what I 
saw was look at the exhibits I used to win my jury trial you asshole.  I was 
ready to win that jury trial 12 to 0 even without Beverly's help.  As a 
matter of fact I had enough evidence to go for two days but I put a lot of 
my evidence aside when Beverly screwed herself up.

>>Here, let me repeat myself because I think this is on one of my websites.
>>On the phone call right after Beverly told her daughter I harassed her at
>>work, which was a lie because Beverly told me her boss would understand
>>right after I said I would leave.
>>
>
>     Could you write that in a coherent way? If it were a phone call,
> how could you leave? You could only leave if you were physically at
> the location.

I can clear that up a bit.  I was having so much trouble with Beverly and 
her husband just trying to talk to Cheryl that I decided to get my own phone 
and give Cheryl the number to it.

Because I didn't want to risk being yelled at by Ed Rusk again I saw Beverly 
Rusk at work and told her to give that number to Cheryl.  I also informed 
Beverly that Cheryl had never told me herself to quit calling.  That is when 
I saw Beverly's eyes light up and then she claimed I harassed her at work. 
I stated I'd leave and then Beverly stated her boss would understand.  And 
it just so happens at that time I worked with a woman who's sister was 
married to Beverly's boss and she knew for a fact Beverly would not have 
been fired.

But then that night I received a phone call from Cheryl and after all those 
years her only reason for me to quit calling her was because I harassed her 
mother at work.  BTW that was also on one of my exhibits and it was self 
evident that it was Beverly keeping us apart and I pointed out Beverly has 
been doing that since high school.


>>Anyway I stated to Cheryl that my main interest in her was because she
>>showed such an interest in me.  Cheryl replied with "I never gave you a
>>sign."  I replied with "yeah you did" and then proceeded to tell her some 
>>of
>>the things she had done.
>>
>
>     I wasn't there, so I can't actually know, but I suspect you read
> into the situation far more than was there.

Again, all you do is prove how ignorant you are because I presented the jury 
with a list and the list is on the Internet.  DUH.


>     But even if she had an interest in you in High School, it was
> clear she lost interest.

Wow, for once you are right because there is no doubt that Cheryl lost 
interest in me.  But something happened years after high school and next 
thing I knew Cheryl would grin from ear to ear when she would see me.

I tracked Cheryl down at where she worked at night because where she worked 
during the day was off limits to visitors.  That happened to be a bar that 
her and a guy almost twice her age that she was living with owned.  He 
kicked me out but in the process I let Cheryl know I was through trying to 
talk to her.  And not only did I quit trying to talk to Cheryl I made no 
attempt to even track her down either.  But the story continues so hang on.

Over a year after that I was with my neighbor/middle man and we were bar 
hopping on our motorcycles.  He recognized the girl that Cheryl hung out 
with and started talking to her.  I ended up sitting down and found out all 
sorts of things about Cheryl and that her mother had her put away but nobody 
was supposed to know about that.  And it was so fcuking stupid because all I 
ever wanted to do was answer the exact same questions that Cheryl asked my 
neighbor the "middle man."


>>And when Cheryl was on the stand in the second jury trial she was trying 
>>to
>>poke fun at that part but under cross examination I asked her to continue
>>listing the things I noticed and she couldn't think of a second item even
>>though I had a long list prepared for the jury.
>>
>
>     This is why I suspect you read more into the situation than was
> there. Had she actually been expressing an interest, she would
> remember more than one item.

Not quite.  I think at that time she didn't know what she wanted especially 
since she didn't want to move back with her mother and yet that was the only 
way her mother would let her be close to her daughter.


>     If, however, she did give you such signs, and remembered, then
> chose to commit perjury, it's clear she was willing to risk a
> conviction for perjury to get you out of her life. This is a very
> strong signal that she no longer wanted anything to do with you.

Our courthose does not charge people with perjury or they would have done 
that with Beverly and Ed because of what they stated in the first jury 
trial.  And he fact remains it was just questions and answers but I had to 
wait until Cheryl asked the right questions again you asshole.


>>Again, Beverly had no valid reason to prevent me from answering her
>>daughter's questions and to think it was ever anything other than that 
>>means
>>you were only kidding yourself you idiot.  <G>
>>
>
>     I don't know the specific behind why mom wanted you to leave her
> daughter alone. I can guess she realized you were, as you are now,
> mentally unstable.

YOU ARE A FCUKING ASSHOLE.  I tell you what, why don't you look up the term 
"love triangle" and see what you can learn about them.

But I'll give you the basics.  It is when a middle man decides to move in on 
the woman himself and in the process he starts all sorts of lies against his 
opposition and that is what I was dealing with and you would have known that 
if you looked at the sites that you yourself listed.  <G>



> The daughter apparently had some issues as well,
> and mom probably felt that you would do more harm than good.
>     Pure speculation on my part, but it does make sense.

I do not want to go into that part but I had addressed it in the jury trial 
I won and won and won and 9 more wons.


>>But that goes to show, you can have all the exhibits I used to win my jury
>>trial 12 to 0 and still overlook the fact that Beverly Rusk's outright 
>>lies
>>were unjustified.  <G>
>
>     While I can understand her motivation for lying, it was a very
> stupid thing for her to do. It allowed for the jury to find reasonable
> doubt.

You are one stupid fcuker.  There was no way Beverly Rusk could keep from 
lying because everything she thought about me was based on the lies of my 
neighbor/middle man.  Why you force me to repeat myself proves you are an 
asshole.  Not only did Beverly Rusk lie on the witness stand but her 
outright lies were not justified.

And you yourself have proven you have no idea what a love triangle can do to 
people.  And yet some people can instantly spot troubles caused by a love 
triangle.


>>You are basically beyond help just like jimp, you are an asshole like jimp
>>and if you ever get to the point of deleting my post like jimp or FNN then
>>expect to be treated like jimp or FNN.
>
>     That's almost funny. You consistently delete items you can't
> counter, yet try to take the high road when someone adopts your
> standard and applies it to you.
>     Is this hypocrisy of yours a part of your mental defect(s)?
> Serious question.
>     By way of evidence, here is the post you replied to, with the
> parts you deleted included.

So, the fact remains you won't even consider the evidence I used to win my 
jury trial because you stop at the part where Beverly was caught lying on 
the witness stand and fail to see that Beverly was living lies started by a 
love triangle.

Me, I've heard that you can't change people after you get married but I go 
one step further.  I say you can change people after you start seeing them 
so that is another reason I wanted to set the record straight before 
anything else.  DUH.

But now I just don't care.  BTW I have seen Cheryl's daughter and I'm glad 
she turned out so well considering the crap that Beverly Rusk put both her 
and Cheryl through.

Rocky 

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

#519641 — Re: Strange Features Found in the Naudet Brothers First Strike Footage ( K proves he is one ST00PID ASSHOLE, and yet superior to Roger in every way)

On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 08:39:24 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:7esquah2irdp6k2505ikqc287j66drar2c@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 01:57:56 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>alt.astronomy restored
>>
>>     Seek professional mental health care for your OBSESSION with
>> alt.astronomy. I'm being very serious here.
>
>You are the idiot that thinks Bast is a he so you are the one that is fcuked 
>up.
>

     I don't know Bast's gender. I presume male, but freely admit I
could be wrong. If I am, Bast is certainly free to correct me.
     How does my possibly being wrong about Bast's gender cause your
unhealthy OBSESSION with alt.astronomy? In what way does your mental
defect(s) cause you to believe my possible error is responsible for
your OBSESSION?
     These are serious questions, and I would like serious answers to
them.

>
>>     Your OBSESSION has now permitted anyone in that group that is
>> reading to see how your mental illness forces you to delete anything
>> you can't counter. Of course, such people likely already know you do
>> this.
>
>You are the one that is fcuked up and your lack of knowing what exhibits I 
>used to win my jury trial proves that too.  You think you can figure out 
>everything just by guessing just like you do with 9/11.  <G>
>

     I use the evidence you provide in regards to your case. If the
evidence you provide is faulty, there is nothing I can do about that.

>
>>>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ikbpualnht771jllhh3p9l78opvit36jku@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>     Sigh.
>>>>     You raised reasonable doubt when you proved mom lied. And I do
>>>> believe she lied. I can understand, and even sympathize, with her
>>>> motivation. She wanted you to stay away from her daughter.
>>>
>>>ROTFLMAO because I was staying far far far away from her daughter.  So far
>>>that my only contact with her daughter was by phone and that still pissed
>>>Beverly off to the point that she had to tell her own daughter a lie have
>>>her daughter quit talking to me.  <G>
>>
>>     Your constant calling AND, according to your claims on your k00k
>> sites, having another relay messages from you, could be seen as
>> harassment. Especially when the daughter stated she had no interest in
>> you.
>
>You are such a fcuking bullshitter.  You obviously haven't looked at the 
>exhibits I used to win my jury trial you asshole.

     I did. No amount of your lying about this will ever alter the
truth.
     Check your IP logs for today (Sunday 9/7/2015). You'll note an IP
that resolves to central Iowa was at two of your sites around 10:00
AM. That will be me.

>
>BTW Cheryl also showed no interest in her own daughter when her mother had a 
>Sheriff's deputy take Cheryl's daughter away but that broke Cheryl to pieces 

     So she lacked interest AND was broken to pieces?
     That makes no sense.

>and I'm sure Beverly had second thoughts about what she put her own daughter 
>through after that.
>

     Assumes facts not in evidence.

>And what made that even funnier was Cheryl's daughter helped make the state 
>look stupid by contradicting her grandmother and her grandmother's hubby 
>during a motion hearing.  <G>  I have a page on the Internet about that too 
>but why give it to you since you missed all my other exhibits.

     You mean you're flat out lying. I've come to expect it of you.
Your mental illness makes honesty very difficult for you.
     Check the IP logs for your sites. Start with 10:00AM-ish today.
Note the IP from central Iowa. Check the logs for your cites over the
past few weeks. You'll note that same IP showing up from time to time.
     I doubt there will be more than the one IP for central Iowa, so
it should be easy for you.
     Of course, you already know about this. And it's very likely
you've checked the logs to see who has visited. As such, it's more
likely than not you already know I've been to your sites and examined
the evidence you've offered.

>
>>>And don't forget how Cheryl testified in the first jury trial and that was
>>>she had nothing to do with the letter that Beverly had Frank Fuhr write 
>>>me.
>>><G>
>>
>>     Mom wanted you to stay away from her daughter. This didn't just
>> mean physically.
>
>But the reason her mother wanted me to stay away from her daughter was 
>inconsistant with the facts you asshole.
>

     How so? In reality, please. Your feeling, suppositions, guesses
and the like will not be acceptable. You will need to provide facts
with valid cites.

>Let me relate another phone call to Cheryl.  I had to fight and fight and 
>fight with her mother before I finally stated  "Cheryl is a big girl she can 
>make up her own mind" before Beverly let me talk to Cheryl.  Beverly Rusk is 
>an idiot just like you who can't see things right in front of their own 
>eyes.
>

     Assumes facts not in evidence.
     Without a transcript of the conversation being made available,
there is no way for me to know what you claim is accurate. Add that
your mental defect(s) make honesty very difficult for you, and I'm
even less willing to accept what you claim on a de facto basis.

>>>And again what the fcuk is wrong with having an interest in someone that
>>>showed an interest in me?
>>
>>     It is possible the daughter had an interest in you in High
>> School. I wasn't there, so I can't know. However, given the lack of
>> mental health you display in this group, I can envision that none of
>> what you claim actually happened.
>>     You saw what wasn't actually there. You took her being kind and
>> polite as an expression of interest when it was most probably an
>> aspect of her personality. She likely acted the same to everyone.
>
>GAUD DAMN YOU ARE SUCH A FCUKING ASSHOLE.  

     You consistently get angry when forced to deal with the truth.
This is not a healthy reaction.

>All you had to do to see what I 
>saw was look at the exhibits I used to win my jury trial you asshole.  

     I did, as you know. How many people from Iowa do you think have
visited your sites in the past few weeks? How many are from the
greater Des Moines, Iowa area?
     I would be amazed if anyone other than me visited from the Des
Moines area. Heck, I'd be most surprised if anyone, other than me,
visited from anywhere in Iowa.

>I was 
>ready to win that jury trial 12 to 0 even without Beverly's help.  As a 
>matter of fact I had enough evidence to go for two days but I put a lot of 
>my evidence aside when Beverly screwed herself up.

     Her lying was all that was needed to raise reasonable doubt. And
reasonable doubt was all the jury needed to reach a verdict of not
guilty.

>
>>>Here, let me repeat myself because I think this is on one of my websites.
>>>On the phone call right after Beverly told her daughter I harassed her at
>>>work, which was a lie because Beverly told me her boss would understand
>>>right after I said I would leave.
>>
>>     Could you write that in a coherent way? If it were a phone call,
>> how could you leave? You could only leave if you were physically at
>> the location.
>
>I can clear that up a bit.  I was having so much trouble with Beverly and 
>her husband just trying to talk to Cheryl that I decided to get my own phone 
>and give Cheryl the number to it.
>

     OK.

>Because I didn't want to risk being yelled at by Ed Rusk again I saw Beverly 
>Rusk at work and told her to give that number to Cheryl.  I also informed 
>Beverly that Cheryl had never told me herself to quit calling.  That is when 
>I saw Beverly's eyes light up and then she claimed I harassed her at work. 

     A one time visit wouldn't typically constitute harassment. She
would have had a very hard time getting the prosecutor's office to
charge you and try such a case.
     The only way I can see it becoming an issue is if you had been
harassing her before you showed up. She could make the claim that your
showing up at her place of employment was a continuation of that
harassment.
     I'm not aware of such a claim being made.

>I stated I'd leave and then Beverly stated her boss would understand.  And 
>it just so happens at that time I worked with a woman who's sister was 
>married to Beverly's boss and she knew for a fact Beverly would not have 
>been fired.
>

     Someone visiting one time, even for personal reasons, shouldn't
be enough to get anyone fired. I doubt mom was concerned about losing
her job over one visit. If she were worried about it, there is more to
the story.
     What are you leaving out of the story?

>But then that night I received a phone call from Cheryl and after all those 
>years her only reason for me to quit calling her was because I harassed her 
>mother at work.  

     Faulty reasoning, but when she told you to quit, you should have
done so. It was very clear she wanted nothing to do with you.

>BTW that was also on one of my exhibits and it was self 
>evident that it was Beverly keeping us apart and I pointed out Beverly has 
>been doing that since high school.

     And it proves you were harassing the daughter. But your mental
defect(s) will not permit you to understand this.

>
>>>Anyway I stated to Cheryl that my main interest in her was because she
>>>showed such an interest in me.  Cheryl replied with "I never gave you a
>>>sign."  I replied with "yeah you did" and then proceeded to tell her some 
>>>of the things she had done.
>>
>>     I wasn't there, so I can't actually know, but I suspect you read
>> into the situation far more than was there.
>
>Again, all you do is prove how ignorant you are because I presented the jury 
>with a list and the list is on the Internet.  DUH.
>

     When someone is overtly nice, as appears to be the case with the
daughter based on the evidence you provided, they will be nice to
everyone. This doesn't mean she was flirting with others in an attempt
to earn your attention.
     People in High School tend to wear similar attire. When I was in
High School, parachute pants were the rage. I didn't presume that
because I wore a pair on Tuesday and someone else wore a pair on
Wednesday, it meant anything. That the daughter may have had attire
similar to yours, and wore it, doesn't mean any desire was present.
     I could go on, but I'm confident I proved my point.

>>     But even if she had an interest in you in High School, it was
>> clear she lost interest.
>
>Wow, for once you are right because there is no doubt that Cheryl lost 
>interest in me.  

     It's a pity it took you almost 20 years to catch on to that,
presuming she had any interest to begin with.

>But something happened years after high school and next 
>thing I knew Cheryl would grin from ear to ear when she would see me.

     As she likely did when she saw anyone she knew.
     I don't know her, of course, but based on what you've provided,
it's clear she was a very nice and polite person. She would likely
attempt to be nice and polite to everyone she saw. More so when it was
someone she knew.

>
>I tracked Cheryl down at where she worked at night because where she worked 

     Be honest. You did it because you were stalking her. You were
very lucking stalking laws weren't yet on the books. While no
conviction is ever truly guaranteed, it would have been more likely
than not that you would have been convicted of stalking, based on the
evidence you've offered.

>during the day was off limits to visitors.  That happened to be a bar that 
>her and a guy almost twice her age that she was living with owned.  He 
>kicked me out but in the process I let Cheryl know I was through trying to 
>talk to her.  And not only did I quit trying to talk to Cheryl I made no 
>attempt to even track her down either.  But the story continues so hang on.
>

     So you tracked her down while making no attempt to track her
down?
     Do you even think about what you're posting?

>Over a year after that I was with my neighbor/middle man and we were bar 
>hopping on our motorcycles.  He recognized the girl that Cheryl hung out 
>with and started talking to her.  I ended up sitting down and found out all 
>sorts of things about Cheryl and that her mother had her put away but nobody 
>was supposed to know about that.  

     Having to have someone committed is never pleasant. Having to
commit a family member is even harder. Add the stigma that was, and
is, associated with an illness that requires in patient treatment, and
I'm confident mom did not want it wildly known.

>And it was so fcuking stupid because all I 

     Learn to spell. You're not fooling anyone. Everyone reading will
know you mean fucking. 
     It's an actual word. You can use it.

>ever wanted to do was answer the exact same questions that Cheryl asked my 
>neighbor the "middle man."
>

     Somehow I don't believe you.

>>>And when Cheryl was on the stand in the second jury trial she was trying 
>>>to
>>>poke fun at that part but under cross examination I asked her to continue
>>>listing the things I noticed and she couldn't think of a second item even
>>>though I had a long list prepared for the jury.
>>
>>     This is why I suspect you read more into the situation than was
>> there. Had she actually been expressing an interest, she would
>> remember more than one item.
>
>Not quite.  

     Unless you can produce evidence of amnesia, yes quite.

>I think at that time she didn't know what she wanted especially 
>since she didn't want to move back with her mother and yet that was the only 
>way her mother would let her be close to her daughter.

     Which has what, exactly, to do with your reading more into her
personality during High School than was likely there?

>
>>     If, however, she did give you such signs, and remembered, then
>> chose to commit perjury, it's clear she was willing to risk a
>> conviction for perjury to get you out of her life. This is a very
>> strong signal that she no longer wanted anything to do with you.
>
>Our courthose does not charge people with perjury 

     No courthouse charges anyone with anything in the U.S. with any
crime. The prosecutor does that. DUH.

>or they would have done 
>that with Beverly and Ed because of what they stated in the first jury 
>trial.  And he fact remains it was just questions and answers but I had to 
>wait until Cheryl asked the right questions again you asshole.
>

     It seems, if your claims are accurate, several people were
willing to face charges of perjury to keep you away from the daughter.
Has this never clued you in?

>>>Again, Beverly had no valid reason to prevent me from answering her
>>>daughter's questions and to think it was ever anything other than that 
>>>means you were only kidding yourself you idiot.  <G>
>>
>>     I don't know the specific behind why mom wanted you to leave her
>> daughter alone. I can guess she realized you were, as you are now,
>> mentally unstable.
>
>YOU ARE A FCUKING ASSHOLE.  

     Once again you lash out at the truth.

>I tell you what, why don't you look up the term 
>"love triangle" 


A love triangle (also called a romantic love triangle or a romance
triangle) is usually a romantic relationship involving three people.
While it can refer to two people independently romantically linked
with a third, it usually implies that each of the three people has
some kind of relationship to the other two.

     Since you were not romantically linked to the daughter, despite
your desire to be, there was no love triangle where you were
concerned.

>and see what you can learn about them.

     I've learned there was no such situation involving you.

>
>But I'll give you the basics.  It is when a middle man decides to move in on 
>the woman himself and in the process he starts all sorts of lies against his 
>opposition and that is what I was dealing with and you would have known that 
>if you looked at the sites that you yourself listed.  <G>

     I've looked at them, as you know.
     What does you LIE about my not examining the evidence you
presented gain you? I honestly want to know your motivation for this
lie.

>
>> The daughter apparently had some issues as well,
>> and mom probably felt that you would do more harm than good.
>>     Pure speculation on my part, but it does make sense.
>
>I do not want to go into that part but I had addressed it in the jury trial 
>I won and won and won and 9 more wons.
>

     According to the evidence you provided, there was a criminal
trial in which you were convicted. And appeal that you won which
remanded the matter for re-trial, and a re-trial where you won. 
    This was followed by your attempt to sue the mom, which resulted
in your being sanctioned and required to re-pay the mom's legal
expenses.
     This is far less than 12 cases, and you won only one of those.
     I understand your mental illness make honesty very difficult for
you, but do try to lie about that which you've not already proved.

>>>But that goes to show, you can have all the exhibits I used to win my jury
>>>trial 12 to 0 and still overlook the fact that Beverly Rusk's outright 
>>>lies were unjustified.  <G>
>>
>>     While I can understand her motivation for lying, it was a very
>> stupid thing for her to do. It allowed for the jury to find reasonable
>> doubt.
>
>You are one stupid fcuker.  

     And yet, I am your intellectual superior. A truth you have
consistently proved.

>There was no way Beverly Rusk could keep from 
>lying because everything she thought about me was based on the lies of my 
>neighbor/middle man.  

     So then she didn't lie. In order to be a lie, the intent to
deceive must be present. If she believed, as you are now claiming,
lies from another, she had no intent to deceive on her own. As such,
she didn't lie.
     Of course, she did lie about stating she inviting you over for
dinner. She knew she had done so. But any claims she made based on
your middle man's comments can't be viewed as lies, based on your
claim above.

>Why you force me to repeat myself proves you are an 
>asshole.  

     I do no such thing. Your lashing out at the truth is not a good
sign. You may benefit from speaking to a mental health care
professional about this.

>Not only did Beverly Rusk lie on the witness stand but her 
>outright lies were not justified.
>

     I don't take the position her lying about claiming she didn't
invited you to dinner was justified. I've not claimed it was or is. I
have claimed I can understand her lying. She wanted you to cease
harassing her daughter.
     To the mentally sound, this isn't claiming it's justified. Only
understood.

>And you yourself have proven you have no idea what a love triangle can do to 
>people.  And yet some people can instantly spot troubles caused by a love 
>triangle.

     I've never had a personal involvement in a love triangle. You've
allowed it to be PROVED you've not either.
     You will need to come up with a new deception to rationalize your
delusions.

>
>>>You are basically beyond help just like jimp, you are an asshole like jimp
>>>and if you ever get to the point of deleting my post like jimp or FNN then
>>>expect to be treated like jimp or FNN.
>>
>>     That's almost funny. You consistently delete items you can't
>> counter, yet try to take the high road when someone adopts your
>> standard and applies it to you.
>>     Is this hypocrisy of yours a part of your mental defect(s)?
>> Serious question.
>>     By way of evidence, here is the post you replied to, with the
>> parts you deleted included.
>
>So, the fact remains you won't even consider the evidence I used to win my 
>jury trial because you stop at the part where Beverly was caught lying on 
>the witness stand and fail to see that Beverly was living lies started by a 
>love triangle.

     She lied. I firmly believe she lied. Your lying now about what
I've examined doesn't alter this.

>
>Me, I've heard that you can't change people after you get married but I go 
>one step further.  I say you can change people after you start seeing them 
>so that is another reason I wanted to set the record straight before 
>anything else.  DUH.

     You were obsessed with the daughter. You took her politesse and
kindness as indications that she had an interest in you when she
likely did not.
     When she made it clear she wanted nothing to do with you, you
were psychologically UNABLE to do as she wished.

>
>But now I just don't care.  

     But you do. Why lie about it?

>BTW I have seen Cheryl's daughter and I'm glad 
>she turned out so well considering the crap that Beverly Rusk put both her 
>and Cheryl through.

     Great. Will you now address the points you keep deleting in your
replies? Here they are again so that you can address them. Of course,
I fully expect you to "pull a Rocky" and delete them again.


[BEGIN C&P]

>"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:msi7f6$afq$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>> While the following video focuses on the expanding hole in the North
>>>> tower that looks like an video edit take a look at the shadows for
>>>> another strange feature.
>>>
>< jimp's crap flushed >
>>> <snip remaining kook babble>
>>
>>
>> You posting the SAME text hundreds of times ???
>> And that's NOT crazy ?
>>
>> At least Rocky is posting new things each time
>>
>> Only only a moron posts exactly the same thing over and over, and thinks 
>> that it may have a different outcome.
>> We ALL are ignoring you.
>>
>> ....And now it's time to just shut off yoour noise permanently.
>
>:-)
>
>I've already given up completely on the Not Friendly Neighborhood Nut be 
>cause it was too hard to find what he was really bitching about in the 
>middle of all his bullshit.
>

     There is no love lost between FNVW and me, but I have to admit
his posts proved your every claim wrong. And this is why you've taken
to ignoring him. I only hope your ignoring of him is better than your
ignoring of me.

>The only way I'll reply to jimp is if I delete most of his bullshit and then 
>re-edit his screwy subject.

     You mean you have to post edit to remove the truth. I would be
surprised if anyone reading isn't aware that you do this.

>
>jimp is such a fcuking liar because if I were anything like he tries to make 
>me look I wouldn't have won my jury trial 12 to 0.
>

     Sigh.
     You raised reasonable doubt when you proved mom lied. And I do
believe she lied. I can understand, and even sympathize, with her
motivation. She wanted you to stay away from her daughter. But when
she lied, she allowed the jury to find reasonable doubt. This is why
you were found not guilty.
     This in no way means you were actually innocent. Based on what
you've provided, I would say you were harassing the daughter. Even
stalking her to the degree possible. But if I were a member of the
jury, being allowed only what they saw and heard, mom's lying would
surely have made me vote not guilty as well.

>And on the subject of eye-witnesses.  I still think it is funny that at the 
>time the South Tower was rammed by a CGI both ABC and FOX were interviewing 
>witnesses that didn't see or hear a jet.  <G>
>

     And yet, despite MANY requests, you've never provided a cite for
that claim. How very odd.
     Maybe you'll offer a cite for the claim now?

[END C&P]

     Will you address the points I raised, or continue to PROVE your
mental defect(s) will not allow it? Time will tell.

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

#519386 — Re: Rocky still crazy

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> jimp is such a fcuking liar because if I were anything like he tries to make 
> me look I wouldn't have won my jury trial 12 to 0.

If you were not such a bat shit crazy, delusional nut case you would not
have had your delusional ass hauled into court in the first place,
you raving lunatic stalker.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#519369 — Re: Strange babbling from a delusional kook

In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
 
> You posting the SAME text hundreds of times ???

The only was the very stupid can learn is by constant repetition.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#519381 — Re: Strange Features Found in the Naudet Brothers First Strike Footage (jimp caught by a big lie)

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
news:gqmubc-k44.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> You posting the SAME text hundreds of times ???
>
> The only was the very stupid can learn is by constant repetition.

And the media knows that if they want you to believe them all they have to 
tell you a big lie and a very big lie on top of that.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

So we have CGIs ramming the Twin Towers.

Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U

We have nukes that left very little on the ground from the Twin Towers and 
what was left from the Twin Towers was left standing strong as if the top of 
the Twin Towers were nuked but the bottom part wasn't completely nuked.

Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I

And we have seismic records that were bought and paid for because the 
readings given to the public are inconsistent with the fact the North Tower 
shook like a tuning fork when the nuke went off and then nothing while the 
nuke created a cavity in rock and then the North Tower fell because the 
lower floors were vaporized but not the floors that were out of reach for a 
small nuke.

It is all very simple and everything fit together like a glove once you 
realize the sudden shaking of the North Tower itself gives us the seismic 
signature of a nuke.  <G>

Rocky 

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

#519393 — Re: Rocky still a jobles stalker

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> And we have seismic records that were bought and paid for because the 
> readings given to the public are inconsistent with the fact the North Tower 
> shook like a tuning fork when the nuke went off and then nothing while the 
> nuke created a cavity in rock and then the North Tower fell because the 
> lower floors were vaporized but not the floors that were out of reach for a 
> small nuke.

How do you explain the fact that seismographs all over the East Coast
recorded the tiny (about 2) signatures of the two towers collapsing
and the miniscule (about 1.5) signatures of the airplanes crashing in
the Pentagon and the woods, but no seismograph anyhwere on the planet
recorded the huge (about 6) signatures that EACH nuclear device would
have created?

Either every government, academic instutution, seismic research
organization, seismologist and amateur seismologist on the planet
is part of a world wide conspiracy or there were no nuclear bombs
involved on 9/11.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web