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

Groups > alt.conspiracy > #263929

Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake

From Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups alt.conspiracy, sci.physics
Subject Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake
Date 2015-08-17 05:09 +0200
Message-ID <d3d1itFln1eU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References (2 earlier) <QsidnaLhXI45kVDInZ2dnUU7-QudnZ2d@giganews.com> <d37qk5Fc3fdU1@mid.individual.net> <ac6usadhkpmdhb5umn72l8a03h2tfjq3t9@4ax.com> <d3ajjtF2pfkU1@mid.individual.net> <be31tad84oqi3j8ss7msnm1pgu8h6iaerm@4ax.com>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

Back to alt.conspiracy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-10 15:54 -0500
  Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake "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: 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 "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 "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 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
        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
              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 dmaster <dan.woj@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-18 09:30 -0700
                Re: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-18 19:47 +0200
  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 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: 9/11 - Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake ( fake phone call too ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-20 09:33 -0500

csiph-web