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

Groups > sci.physics > #512510 > unrolled thread

9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

   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

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

#513069

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 1:53:39 PM UTC-7, Rocky wrote:
> 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake
>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEk81AL5qg0

  Reynolds' "no planes" claims thoroughly debunked, point by point:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/review.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/

> And my top reason that the story of the alleged hijackers was bogus was the 
> crash dynamics.
> 
> All four jets were not consistent with real crashes because of missing 
> debris

  The debris crammed into the buildings at 400 mph? That debris?

> BTW if you look close at the crash dynamics of the jets going into the Twin 
> Towers you will see a small flash on impact.  That flash was only used to 
> synchronize the real world with the bogus world so now you know the real 
> reason for that flash.  <G>

  Let me get this straight- you believe that the crash videos are all prefect, state of the art (for the time) CGI prepetrated by professionals at some three-letter agency working from a script; professionals whose job was to produce videos so convincing that nobody would question them, but that what you allege is a "synch flash" was amateurishly left in?

  Seriously?

> FYI for those that do not know about nukes they have a "Vaporization Range" 
> which on modern nukes is adjustable.  So all the 9/11 perpetraitors had to 
> do was make some adjustments to vaporize the Twin Towers right to the bogus 
> impacts so they appeared to be crushed by the top part of the towers.

  Nukes do have a "vaporization range" in that everything immediately surrounding the device is vaporized (actually, turned into plasma, not vapor, due to temperatures in the millions of degrees). That range is *not* tunable to occur several hundred feet away from the device in a specific location in a specific direction, and not at the detonation site. I can't understand why you might imagine that to be possible. Underground nuclear detonations always produce a large cavity with a bulge above it, which then collapses to leave a crater. There are many such craters at the former underground test sites in Nevada. Take a look with Google Earth.


  Mark L. Fergerson

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

#513129

**** gOOgol;
that is a gOOd vacation, and
you can spend the daytime in a casino

> crater. There are many such craters at the former underground test sites in Nevada. Take a look with Google Earth.
> 
> 
>   Mark L. Fergerson

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

#513373

In article <qPWdneJLQInSklTInZ2dnUU7-NmdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>  9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake
>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEk81AL5qg0
> 
> And my top reason that the story of the alleged hijackers was bogus was the 
> crash dynamics.
> 
> All four jets were not consistent with real crashes because of missing 
> debris as in the case of Flights 77 and 93 or the lack of a slow down on 
> impact with Flights 11 or 175 which means Crisis Actors were needed to get 
> you to believe that the CGIs that rammed into the Twin Towers were real.
> 
> BTW if you look close at the crash dynamics of the jets going into the Twin 
> Towers you will see a small flash on impact.  That flash was only used to 
> synchronize the real world with the bogus world so now you know the real 
> reason for that flash.  <G>
> 
> FYI for those that do not know about nukes they have a "Vaporization Range" 
> which on modern nukes is adjustable.  So all the 9/11 perpetraitors had to 
> do was make some adjustments to vaporize the Twin Towers right to the bogus 
> impacts so they appeared to be crushed by the top part of the towers.
> 
> But if the Twin Towers were crushed why did so much survive that was out of 
> easy range for the deep underground nukes that were under WTC3 and WTC4?
> 
>  https://donaldfox.wordpress.com/tag/ground-zero/
> 
> And I've looked at the link above.  While it contains a lot of good 
> information it fails to address that the "Surviving Corners" of the Twin 
> Towers can be used to figure out where the deep underground nukes were 
> detonated.
> 
> Rocky 

Here's a picture you might enjoy.
https://forums.craigslist.org/?ID=263473194
-- 
Karma ; what a concept!

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

#513374

"Shoe-Chucker 2" <georgewk10@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:georgewk10-F35517.14274213082015@news.toast.net...
> In article <qPWdneJLQInSklTInZ2dnUU7-NmdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>  9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake
>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEk81AL5qg0
>>
>> And my top reason that the story of the alleged hijackers was bogus was 
>> the
>> crash dynamics.
>>
>> All four jets were not consistent with real crashes because of missing
>> debris as in the case of Flights 77 and 93 or the lack of a slow down on
>> impact with Flights 11 or 175 which means Crisis Actors were needed to 
>> get
>> you to believe that the CGIs that rammed into the Twin Towers were real.
>>
>> BTW if you look close at the crash dynamics of the jets going into the 
>> Twin
>> Towers you will see a small flash on impact.  That flash was only used to
>> synchronize the real world with the bogus world so now you know the real
>> reason for that flash.  <G>
>>
>> FYI for those that do not know about nukes they have a "Vaporization 
>> Range"
>> which on modern nukes is adjustable.  So all the 9/11 perpetraitors had 
>> to
>> do was make some adjustments to vaporize the Twin Towers right to the 
>> bogus
>> impacts so they appeared to be crushed by the top part of the towers.
>>
>> But if the Twin Towers were crushed why did so much survive that was out 
>> of
>> easy range for the deep underground nukes that were under WTC3 and WTC4?
>>
>>  https://donaldfox.wordpress.com/tag/ground-zero/
>>
>> And I've looked at the link above.  While it contains a lot of good
>> information it fails to address that the "Surviving Corners" of the Twin
>> Towers can be used to figure out where the deep underground nukes were
>> detonated.
>>
>> Rocky
>
> Here's a picture you might enjoy.
> https://forums.craigslist.org/?ID=263473194

They used all sorts of things at the Great 9/11 Hoax to lead  you astray but 
what Survived of the Twin Towers could only be left by a deep underground 
nuke.

Rocky 

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

#513407

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> They used all sorts of things at the Great 9/11 Hoax to lead  you astray but 
> what Survived of the Twin Towers could only be left by a deep underground 
> nuke.
> 
> Rocky 
 
Why do you keep capitalizing "Survived", kook?
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#513478

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:30:45 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

[...]

>>> FYI for those that do not know about nukes they have a "Vaporization 
>>> Range" which on modern nukes is adjustable.  So all the 9/11 perpetraitors had 
>>> to do was make some adjustments to vaporize the Twin Towers right to the 
>>> bogus impacts so they appeared to be crushed by the top part of the towers.
>>>
>>> But if the Twin Towers were crushed why did so much survive that was out 
>>> of easy range for the deep underground nukes that were under WTC3 and WTC4?
>>>
>>>  https://donaldfox.wordpress.com/tag/ground-zero/
>>>
>>> And I've looked at the link above.  While it contains a lot of good
>>> information it fails to address that the "Surviving Corners" of the Twin
>>> Towers can be used to figure out where the deep underground nukes were
>>> detonated.
>>>
>>> Rocky
>>
>> Here's a picture you might enjoy.
>> https://forums.craigslist.org/?ID=263473194
>
>They used all sorts of things at the Great 9/11 Hoax to lead  you astray but 
>what Survived of the Twin Towers could only be left by a deep underground 
>nuke.

     What is at the root of your *need* to post this same lie after
it's been proved a lie so many times?
     Serious question.

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

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

#513779

Am 13.08.2015 23:30, schrieb Rocky:
> "Shoe-Chucker 2"<georgewk10@yahoo.com>  wrote in message
> news:georgewk10-F35517.14274213082015@news.toast.net...
>> In article<qPWdneJLQInSklTInZ2dnUU7-NmdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> "Rocky"<wookiee@att.net>  wrote:
>>
>>>   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??

This is against the laws of probability:
accidents and disasters are assumed to strike 'blind', hence we would 
not expect more prominent people involved as is the percentage of 
prominent people in the set of possible victims times the number of victims.

Since the solicitor general is an extremely high rank in 
US-constitution, his wife is EXTREMELY unlikely to be part of any random 
set.

But non-randomness is a hit for a fake.

Second: if those people supposed to have committed such a suicide attack 
are still alive, then WHO has done it then?

This is actually an important question, since the US fought wars because 
of these people.



..
>>
>> Here's a picture you might enjoy.
>> https://forums.craigslist.org/?ID=263473194
>
> They used all sorts of things at the Great 9/11 Hoax to lead  you astray but
> what Survived of the Twin Towers could only be left by a deep underground
> nuke.


Nukes are most likely the wrong idea. The main reason: nukes cause a 
HUGE pressure wave and that was not observed.

What in fact was observed is stranger than nukes: jellyfication and 
dustification of steel and concrete in midair, burning cars blocks away, 
wast amounts of unburned paper (coming from that 'melted' towers), ponds 
of molten steel.

Also: the first massive destruction was not on one of the  towers, but 
on WTC 6. There was a huge hole vertically through this building and the 
material was simply missing.

The pile of debris from all of the buildings was WAY too small and only 
about 20% of the material made its way to the ground. This strange fact 
could not even explained by a nuke.

So, what has caused all of this????

Actually I don't know, but my assumptions are similar to those of Judy 
Wood. She thinks, that some sort of advanced weapons have been used, 
that utilize a so called 'Hutchison effect'.

The other question is: who's done it?

Answer: no idea, but most likely it was NOT George W. Bush.


TH

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

#513831

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 05:39:41 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 13.08.2015 23:30, schrieb Rocky:
>> "Shoe-Chucker 2"<georgewk10@yahoo.com>  wrote in message
>> news:georgewk10-F35517.14274213082015@news.toast.net...
>>> In article<qPWdneJLQInSklTInZ2dnUU7-NmdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>> "Rocky"<wookiee@att.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>   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. 

     The problem is that only one call was made with a cell phone. The
rest were made with the air phones available at every seat.
     I have to wonder why the man in the video would LIE about cell
phones when it's well know and documented that only one call was made
with a cell phone.
     At cruising altitude, making and receiving calls on a cell phone
is not possible. But the call wasn't made at cruising altitude, so
this doesn't factor in.
     The man also LIED about the recording of the men discussing how
they would break down the door to the cabin. No one claims it was the
cockpit voice recorder. It was, in fact, the cabin voice recorder.
     I could go on exposing each of his lies, but two is enough to
make any rational person question all the claims he made.

>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?

>This is against the laws of probability:
>accidents and disasters are assumed to strike 'blind', hence we would 
>not expect more prominent people involved as is the percentage of 
>prominent people in the set of possible victims times the number of victims.
>

     The hijackings were not an accident. One could use the term
disaster, though not in the context you use it.

>Since the solicitor general is an extremely high rank in 
>US-constitution, his wife is EXTREMELY unlikely to be part of any random 
>set.
>

     She has as much a chance as anyone else who flew that day.

>But non-randomness is a hit for a fake.
>

     The hijackings were not a random event. I doubt the hijackers
knew, or cared, who was on each flight, but to claim the hijackings
were random is dishonest.

>Second: if those people supposed to have committed such a suicide attack 
>are still alive, then WHO has done it then?
>

     Those who committed the acts are dead. They died when the jets
hit the towers, the Pentagon, and the one that crashed in
Pennsylvania.

>This is actually an important question, since the US fought wars because 
>of these people.

     And it has been answered, though you will probably reject it.

>
>..
>>>
>>> Here's a picture you might enjoy.
>>> https://forums.craigslist.org/?ID=263473194
>>
>> They used all sorts of things at the Great 9/11 Hoax to lead  you astray but
>> what Survived of the Twin Towers could only be left by a deep underground
>> nuke.
>
>
>Nukes are most likely the wrong idea. The main reason: nukes cause a 
>HUGE pressure wave and that was not observed.
>

     Among other facts that Rocky is unable to understand.

>What in fact was observed is stranger than nukes: jellyfication and 
>dustification of steel and concrete in midair, burning cars blocks away, 
>wast amounts of unburned paper (coming from that 'melted' towers), ponds 
>of molten steel.

     A lot of paper did not burn. A lot did. This isn't anything
surprising.

>
>Also: the first massive destruction was not on one of the  towers, but 
>on WTC 6. There was a huge hole vertically through this building and the 
>material was simply missing.
>

     Caused by debris from the impact of the north tower. This is not
a mystery. It's well known and documented.
     Oh, it wasn't missing. It was scattered throughout the building
and in the building's sub-levels. This is also well known and
documented.

>The pile of debris from all of the buildings was WAY too small and only 
>about 20% of the material made its way to the ground. This strange fact 
>could not even explained by a nuke.
>

     Almost 100% made it to the ground, a portion ending up in the
basements and "bath tub." A small percentage of the dust did float
away. It settled in the harbor and Atlantic.

>So, what has caused all of this????
>

     Jets flying into towers one and two.

>Actually I don't know, but my assumptions are similar to those of Judy 

     Your assumptions continue to mean nothing.

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

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

#514125

Am 15.08.2015 12:50, 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.
>
>       The problem is that only one call was made with a cell phone. The
> rest were made with the air phones available at every seat.
>       I have to wonder why the man in the video would LIE about cell
> phones when it's well know and documented that only one call was made
> with a cell phone.
>       At cruising altitude, making and receiving calls on a cell phone
> is not possible. But the call wasn't made at cruising altitude, so
> this doesn't factor in.
>       The man also LIED about the recording of the men discussing how
> they would break down the door to the cabin. No one claims it was the
> cockpit voice recorder. It was, in fact, the cabin voice recorder.
>       I could go on exposing each of his lies, but two is enough to
> make any rational person question all the claims he made.
>
>> 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.

So you certainly have heard of the alleged phone calls from Barbara 
Olsen to Ted Olsen.

I have problems with it, since TED Olsen is a 'class 'A' celebrity' and 
those are extremely rare. His wife was somehow famous, too, but belongs 
more to class 'B'.

So we have an historic event (9/11), that connects also a class 'A' 
celebrity to a class 'B' celebrity.

Now the rules of independent events are, that probabilities are 
multiplied, to get the probability of this is happening altogether.

Since air-suicides in Pennsylvania are rare events and Ted Olsons are 
also rare, the product of such rareness is an inconceivable small number.


>> This is against the laws of probability:
>> accidents and disasters are assumed to strike 'blind', hence we would
>> not expect more prominent people involved as is the percentage of
>> prominent people in the set of possible victims times the number of victims.
>>
>
>       The hijackings were not an accident. One could use the term
> disaster, though not in the context you use it.


Well, if you like.

But at least the victims should be 'random pick'. This means, they are 
not selected by any kind of characteristic, but the victims represent in 
their composition the general public (of flight passengers in the USA) - 
more or less.

If there would have been - say- Michael Jackson on this flight, this 
would have raised a few questions.

>> Since the solicitor general is an extremely high rank in
>> US-constitution, his wife is EXTREMELY unlikely to be part of any random
>> set.
>>
>
>       She has as much a chance as anyone else who flew that day.

Yes, but how many people fly on an average day in the USA with a 
passenger jet.

And how many class 'A' or 'B' celebrities fly American Airline?


TH

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

#514238

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:58:27 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 15.08.2015 12:50, 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.
>>
>>       The problem is that only one call was made with a cell phone. The
>> rest were made with the air phones available at every seat.
>>       I have to wonder why the man in the video would LIE about cell
>> phones when it's well know and documented that only one call was made
>> with a cell phone.
>>       At cruising altitude, making and receiving calls on a cell phone
>> is not possible. But the call wasn't made at cruising altitude, so
>> this doesn't factor in.
>>       The man also LIED about the recording of the men discussing how
>> they would break down the door to the cabin. No one claims it was the
>> cockpit voice recorder. It was, in fact, the cabin voice recorder.
>>       I could go on exposing each of his lies, but two is enough to
>> make any rational person question all the claims he made.
>>
>>> 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 have problems with it, since TED Olsen is a 'class 'A' celebrity' and 

     No he isn't.

>those are extremely rare. His wife was somehow famous, too, but belongs 
>more to class 'B'.

    No, she was not.

>
>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.

>
>Now the rules of independent events are, that probabilities are 
>multiplied, to get the probability of this is happening altogether.
>
>Since air-suicides in Pennsylvania are rare events and Ted Olsons are 
>also rare, the product of such rareness is an inconceivable small number.
>

     It's unlikely the men who ruined the terrorists plans did so with
the intent to take their own lives. They surely knew it was a
possibility, and accepted it, but to claim they were suicidal is, at
best, inaccurate.

>>> This is against the laws of probability:
>>> accidents and disasters are assumed to strike 'blind', hence we would
>>> not expect more prominent people involved as is the percentage of
>>> prominent people in the set of possible victims times the number of victims.
>>
>>       The hijackings were not an accident. One could use the term
>> disaster, though not in the context you use it.
>
>
>Well, if you like.
>
>But at least the victims should be 'random pick'. This means, they are 
>not selected by any kind of characteristic, but the victims represent in 
>their composition the general public (of flight passengers in the USA) - 
>more or less.
>
>If there would have been - say- Michael Jackson on this flight, this 
>would have raised a few questions.

     Other than questioning why he would have flown commercially, no
there wouldn't. The terrorists likely didn't know who else would be on
each flight. Had they been granted access to the flight's passenger
manifest, it's very unlikely they would have cared.
     The victims of the hijackings were by pure chance.

>
>>> Since the solicitor general is an extremely high rank in
>>> US-constitution, his wife is EXTREMELY unlikely to be part of any random
>>> set.
>>
>>       She has as much a chance as anyone else who flew that day.
>
>Yes, but how many people fly on an average day in the USA with a 
>passenger jet.
>
>And how many class 'A' or 'B' celebrities fly American Airline?

     Since neither person was any class of celebrity, the question you
ask is without foundation.
     
-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

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

#514540

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).

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).

This is certainly legitimate style of conversation and nothing to 
complain about.

What is actually not ok is you insisting that I should defend, what I 
have not written.

>> 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.

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'.

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).

>> 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'.

>>
>> 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.

This is a connection (9/11 -> Barbara Olson -> Ted Olson).

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.

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.

Now we have this conversation recorded and it belongs to another 
unlikely event: a high-jacked plane.

Since now it's getting VERY unlikely, we need compelling evidence, this 
phone-call was real.

But people claim, this was not the case, since:
it was technical impossible
the alleged victim is allegedly alive.


..


TH

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

#514587

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

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

#514767

Barbara was the hostess of the "get Clinton salon,
which you can read about on http://larouchepub.com;
I think mister Olson was the solicitor general, or some thing

> >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

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

#515332

Am 17.08.2015 11:20, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
> 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 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).
>>
>
..
>>
>>>> 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.

???

Ok, you still insist on correct English. So: 'Solicitor General' si not 
a 'celebrity, bit 'only' a high position in government.

Well, ok, he was not a celebrity, but 'class A politician'.

Like that better?

>>
..
>> 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.


This was the question.

A random pick would produce random result. This would gain likelihood of 
prominence at the rate those prominent people are distributed among the 
general public.

That general public is the people of the USA and the office of the 
solicitor general is unique.

There are a few other offices in government of similar hight, but not 
that many.

To estimate the likelihood lets assume, there are a hundred offices 
similar or higher in position within the US government.

Then we have 100 divided by 200 million as likelihood (supposed 200 
million are the number of citizens, who could possibly fly).

This number we need to multiply by a similar likelihood in connection to 
Barbara Olson, since she had own prominence.

The phone-call connects two prominent people at both ends, hence the 
probabilities are multiplied. This is the likelihood of a random pick of 
phone conversations to being held by two prominent people.

This event also happened at another event with a certain (small) 
likelihood ('air-suicide'). Since this is an independent event, we need 
to multiply its probability to that of the phone-call.

This gives a fantastically small likelihood of this phonecall (one 
prominent person talking to another prominent person within an ongoing 
attack of high-jackers).


...


TH

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

#515378

On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 01:58:18 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 17.08.2015 11:20, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>> 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 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).
>>
>..
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
>???
>
>Ok, you still insist on correct English. So: 'Solicitor General' si not 
>a 'celebrity, bit 'only' a high position in government.
>
>Well, ok, he was not a celebrity, but 'class A politician'.
>
>Like that better?
>

     It is certainly more accurate.

>>>
>..
>>> 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.
>
>
>This was the question.
>
>A random pick would produce random result. This would gain likelihood of 
>prominence at the rate those prominent people are distributed among the 
>general public.
>
>That general public is the people of the USA and the office of the 
>solicitor general is unique.
>
>There are a few other offices in government of similar hight, but not 
>that many.
>
>To estimate the likelihood lets assume, 


     Let's not assume. 
     You always depend on your assumptions and guesses. Stick with the
facts.
     Oh wait. You can't. They don't allow you the k00k rants you
enjoy.


[remainder snipped because assumptions are not relevant.]

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

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

#515704

Am 20.08.2015 10:53, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
.
>>>        Yet it does happen.
>>
>>
>> This was the question.
>>
>> A random pick would produce random result. This would gain likelihood of
>> prominence at the rate those prominent people are distributed among the
>> general public.
>>
>> That general public is the people of the USA and the office of the
>> solicitor general is unique.
>>
>> There are a few other offices in government of similar hight, but not
>> that many.
>>
>> To estimate the likelihood lets assume,
>
>
>       Let's not assume.
>       You always depend on your assumptions and guesses. Stick with the
> facts.

Do you remember the movie 'Terminator II' with Arnold Schwarzenegger?

Certainly you do. And there was a scene, where the bad guy talked to the 
hero in the voice of his parents (whom killed actually).

Now lets assume, the film wants people to know, that there are devices, 
that would people (falsely) believe, they had their mother/son on the 
phone, but actually talk to a machine.

This machine would (possibly) make certain mistakes. E.g. they would say 
'Mother, this is Mark Bingham, your son..'.

Or they would try to get through to the husband, but forget, this 
husband has a secretary (and lots of appointments).

Now these device are certainly smarter (compared to 2001), but still 
make mistakes.

The problem is apparently not the voice, but the content of the 
conversation, since it's extremely difficult to convince a human being, 
that a piece of software is actually alive.


TH

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

#515743

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 05:45:30 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 20.08.2015 10:53, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>.
>>>>        Yet it does happen.
>>>
>>>
>>> This was the question.
>>>
>>> A random pick would produce random result. This would gain likelihood of
>>> prominence at the rate those prominent people are distributed among the
>>> general public.
>>>
>>> That general public is the people of the USA and the office of the
>>> solicitor general is unique.
>>>
>>> There are a few other offices in government of similar hight, but not
>>> that many.
>>>
>>> To estimate the likelihood lets assume,
>>
>>       Let's not assume.
>>       You always depend on your assumptions and guesses. Stick with the
>> facts.
>
>Do you remember the movie 'Terminator II' with Arnold Schwarzenegger?
>

     Yes.
     Are you aware it was, and is, a work of fiction?

>Certainly you do. And there was a scene, where the bad guy talked to the 
>hero in the voice of his parents (whom killed actually).
>
>Now lets assume, 

[Remainder snipped as it does not connect with reality]

     Assumptions are worthless. Stick with facts.

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

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

#516024

CIA insider tells 911 truth. Time to re-examine your World-view,
America!
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnbMjAN7Bws

The sudden, complete, straight down at near free-fall speed collapse
of steel framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes,
is the SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's few small
fires and superficial debris damage could not account for this
collapse, which had all the earmarks of controlled demolition by
explosives. Videos clearly show this. Such demolitions take many days
or weeks to set up - not the few hours between the plane "attacks" and
the collapse. The explosives therefore had to be put in place
BEFOREHAND. This lends credibility to the use of previously placed
explosives to bring down the towers as well, which like the badly
damaged and fire-gutted Deutchbank building would probably have 
remained standing.

Propaganda shills, disinformationists, and those in psychological
denial still insist the collapse of WTC 7 could not be what it
obviously was, and they employ often ludicrous rationalizations and
fabrications, elaborate lies, and infantile ad-hominem attacks to
defend their indefensible position. The REAL terrorists are desperate
to cover up their mass-murderous crime of the century - the permitting
if not perpetration of, and subsequent political and economic
exploitation of the fully preventable 9/11 disaster. 

Could Bin Laden have somehow totally incapacitated NORAD - the world's
most sophisticated aerospace defense system - on that horrible
morning? I don't think so!

There is evidence of an INSIDE JOB even more clear and indisputable
than the explosive demolition collapse of building 7 and the standing
down of NORAD. Many very small HUMAN BODY FRAGMENTS have been found on
the roofs of nearby buildings. These were too far away to be from
jumpers from the towers. If the towers simply collapsed from damage
and fire alone, what blew these bodies to smithereens and sent the
fragments flying for considerable distances? The plane impacts did not
have the explosive brisance (shattering force) necessary to do this -
only HIGH EXPLOSIVES can blow bodies to tiny bits and throw them such
distances.

So - who can credibly account for these body fragments, other than
their being the result of high explosives being detonated in the
towers?


The NORAD STAND-DOWN (complete failure to take defensive action) is 
compelling evidence of the 9/11 conspiracy. NORAD is the world's most 
sophisticated aerospace defense system, with backups and redundancies
that make it extremely reliable and effective. NORAD routinely
intercepts off course or out of communication aircraft of all kinds,
especially near such security-sensitive areas as New York City and the
Pentagon. On 9/11, FOUR allegedly hijacked subsonic-speed commercial
jets were out of communication and flying towards known terrorist
targets for well over an hour. NOT ONE of these planes was intercepted
by NORAD!  We were told that NORAD only looks for aircraft coming from
outside the USA, but this is a blatant LIE, given the history of
NORAD's routine interceptions!


The following article proves, using the inviolate laws of physics, the
falsity of the government's propaganda explanation for the World Trade
Center building collapses:

SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE - GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK

On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade
Center (WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent
people. Videos of the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for
days. About 5 hours after the towers fell, WTC building 7 also
collapsed suddenly, completely, and straight down at near free-fall
speed. This steel-framed building was not touched by the planes that
struck the towers, and had sustained relatively minor debris damage
and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily damaged remained
standing.

In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan
Reynolds, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates stated, "The American people know what they saw with their own
eyes on September11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government
conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale."

We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's
tale that's "beyond the pale!"

Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented 
phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics,
and the emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have
stymied objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of
authoritarian assertions?

The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told
us that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now
referred to as a "pancake collapse". According to the government
claims, the plane crashes and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet
fuel is NOT exotic) fires heated the UL-certified structural steel to
the point where it was significantly weakened, which is very difficult
to believe, never mind repeat in an experiment. Even with massive
fires that incinerate everything else, the steel frames of such
buildings generally remain standing.

According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical
evidence was quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly
caused part of the tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the
tower, which, we've been repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain
reaction of the lower floors sequentially, one at a time, yielding to
the weight falling from above.

There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the
observed facts

* It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical
steel core columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the
next.

* The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to
gravity 
alone. 

This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from
the air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the
tower. Those undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered
resistance thousands of times greater than that of air. Those lower
stories, and the central steel core columns, had successfully
supported the mass of the tower for 30 years despite hurricane-force
winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.

Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the
way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively without friction
as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing
the fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute?

What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers
could not have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower
stories, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is
shown to be physically impossible!


So WHERE DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?

Conclusions

In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the
observed duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more
of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met

* The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero
resistance to the collapse.
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any
expenditure of energy.
* The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by
magic.

None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible,
conditions can be accounted for by the official government theory of
9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to
prop up this official myth of 9/11.

The Bottom Line


It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the
WTC collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the
plane impacts.

The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that
the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but
rather they came down because something else was causing them to
disintegrate.

So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates'
other premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is
left to you to decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly
incorrect presumptions, is also flawed.

The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane,  also
collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day.  

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192

 No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever
collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel
columns

Understanding the full truth of 9/11 seems to require two separate
awakenings.

The first, awakening to the fraudulence of the "official 9/11 story,"
is a pretty simple brain function and only requires a little study,
logic or curiosity. We can help a lot with that part here and it's a
major purpose of this site.

The second step, however, consciously confronting the implications of
that knowledge--and what it says about our media, politics and
economic system today--is by far the harder awakening and requires an
enormous exercise of nerve and heart. (As the Chinese say, "You cannot
wake up a man who is pretending to sleep.") In other words, this part
of the journey depends more on character than on maps and evidence so
we can't help you much here, except to point out inspiring heroes and
heroines who have courageously faced that truth, spoken out, and
survived...



www.tomatobubble.com  www.ihr.org   http://nationalvanguard.org  

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com    

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

#516038 — 2 Topaz stop right there (was: Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake)

put alt.astronomy back in

"Topaz" <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:dq2jtatq7bbfjt4k0ubbtl894jk2177jhh@4ax.com...
>
>
> CIA insider tells 911 truth. Time to re-examine your World-view,
> America!
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnbMjAN7Bws
>
> The sudden, complete, straight down at near free-fall speed collapse
> of steel framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes,
> is the SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy.

Stop right there because there is something you are missing.

If all people do is look at WTC7 they see one thing but if you consider the 
damage done to the building directly north of WTC7 we see another.

All sorts of evidence states that Fiterman Hall, the building north of WTC7 
was damaged by WTC7 but there was no falling debris that jumped across the 
street onto Fiterman Hall so Fiterman Hall was not damaged by WTC7 it was 
damaged by the exact same underground nuke that vaporized the lower floors 
of WTC7.

Oddly enough because WTC7 was only 47 stories tall it would have been easy 
to use a nuke to vaporize the entire building but it was only partially 
vaporized.  From photos I've seen they use the rubble pile from WTC7 to make 
it appear that the Twin Towers also left a pile of rubble but other photos 
prove next to nothing was left of the Twin Towers.

So how they managed to use a nuke to only vaporize part of the WTC7 is 
probably the same way they used nukes to vaporize right up to the floors 
below the alleged impact points making people think the collapse started at 
the alleged impact area instead of noticing that the floors below the 
alleged impact area were vaporized and that is what really started the 
collapse of the Twin Towers.

I know from my own experience that it is hard to believe that nukes were 
used at Ground Zero but I also know once all the evidence that says "nukes" 
is looked at and all the evidence against nukes is the same bullshit we were 
given about a commercial jet at the Pentagon I'm stuck believing the Twin 
Towers were nuked.  See:
  http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Rocky 

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

#516060 — Re: 2 Topaz stop right there (was: Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake)

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:17:49 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>put alt.astronomy back in
>

     And removed, since outside of your delusions, it's not relevant.

>"Topaz" <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:dq2jtatq7bbfjt4k0ubbtl894jk2177jhh@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> CIA insider tells 911 truth. Time to re-examine your World-view,
>> America!
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnbMjAN7Bws
>>
>> The sudden, complete, straight down at near free-fall speed collapse
>> of steel framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes,
>> is the SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy.
>
>Stop right there because there is something you are missing.
>
>If all people do is look at WTC7 they see one thing but if you consider the 
>damage done to the building directly north of WTC7 we see another.
>
>All sorts of evidence states that Fiterman Hall, the building north of WTC7 
>was damaged by WTC7 but there was no falling debris that jumped across the 
>street onto Fiterman Hall 

     Yes, there was.

>so Fiterman Hall was not damaged by WTC7 it was 

     Yes, it was.

>damaged by the exact same underground nuke that vaporized the lower floors 
>of WTC7.

     No nukes were used. You've proved this.

>
>Oddly enough because WTC7 was only 47 stories tall it would have been easy 
>to use a nuke to vaporize the entire building but it was only partially 
>vaporized.  

     It would have been, yes. But since, as you've proved, no nukes
were used, it doesn't matter.

>From photos I've seen they use the rubble pile from WTC7 to make 
>it appear that the Twin Towers also left a pile of rubble but other photos 
>prove next to nothing was left of the Twin Towers.

     Photos you've linked to prove there was a lot of debris from the
twin towers.

>
>So how they managed to use a nuke to only vaporize part of the WTC7 is 
>probably the same way they used nukes to vaporize right up to the floors 
>below the alleged impact points making people think the collapse started at 
>the alleged impact area instead of noticing that the floors below the 
>alleged impact area were vaporized and that is what really started the 
>collapse of the Twin Towers.

     You really need to work on your sentence structure.
     That aside, nothing was vaporized. You've helped to prove this.

>
>I know from my own experience that it is hard to believe that nukes were 
>used at Ground Zero 

      Since none were used, it's impossible to believe.

>but I also know once all the evidence that says "nukes" 

     No, it does not.

>is looked at and all the evidence against nukes is the same bullshit we were 
>given about a commercial jet at the Pentagon I'm stuck believing the Twin 
>Towers were nuked.  See:
>  http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>

     You keep linking to a picture that proves your claims wrong. Why
is that?

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

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

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web