Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.conspiracy > #272661
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.conspiracy |
| Subject | Re: Why "9/11" ? |
| Date | 2015-12-30 22:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dej00nFrhvcU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (8 earlier) <1np48b5hfv9kis8kn5oc77hfrnoefbmouh@4ax.com> <degc04F75v9U1@mid.individual.net> <am668bdd7bcspj518966683dhdhdtvsius@4ax.com> <deh9p6Fdq4tU1@mid.individual.net> <o1a78b9mbp0mirf96hj6etl3crejuqeqpb@4ax.com> |
Am 30.12.2015 10:48, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3): .. >>>>>> No, if the 'gun-powder-plot' was in fact an early version of what >>>>>> apparently 9/11 (2001) seems to be : state-sponsored false flag >>>>>> operations, to utilise religious tensions for martial law and other >>>>>> atrocities. >>>>> >>>>> There is no evidence that the actions of Guy Fawkes, or his >>>>> associates, were the result of a state-sponsored false flag operation. >>>>> You are, of course, free to provide any and all evidence you have. But >>>>> you won't. You'll simply offer guesses and assumptions that are not >>>>> based in reality. >>>> >>>> I didn't say, that the actions of Guy Fawkes were state-sponsored, >>> >>> Yes, you did. As seen above (yes I replaced the part you >>> dishonestly snipped away, again), you did claim it was a >>> "state-sponsored false flag operations, to utilise [sic] religious >>> tensions for martial law and other atrocities." >>> Feel free to try and avoid the truth by dishonestly snipping once >>> more, if you NEED to. I'll simply bring back that which proves you the >>> liar you are. >>> >>>> but I doubt, that he had done anything at all. >>> >>> You doubt much that is true. It's almost amusing how often you do >>> so. >>> >>>> Reason: the guy had the name: Guy Faux (not Fawkes). >>> >>> Wrong. It was Fawkes. It's well established. >>> >>>> And that is French and means 'wrong'. >>> >>> While yours is not really a wrong translation of faux, a better >>> one would be "false." > > > Your dishonest snipping has been restored. It is my right to quote what I want to quote. You may call non quotes 'snipping', if you like, but I'm not obliged to write a reply to anything that you would like to have an answer to. ... >> >> So his name translates to: false guy! >> > > No. Since his name is Guy Fawkes, it can't translate to false > guy. Actually you are correct, in a way. But jokes do not function according to your laws. A joke usually uses unexpected relations and subconcious analogies. Here we had 'Guy' as name and 'guy' as synonym for - e.g.- 'bloke'. And 'Faux' could be understood in French as 'false' (as you stated above). So: 'false guy' or 'wrong bloke' could be associated (subconsciously). > >> That is actually what I meant: it's a sick joke! >> > > No, you have LIED about his name. It is not now, nor has it ever > been Guy Faux. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes Quote: "Guy Fawkes [gaɪ fɔːks] (* 13. April 1570 in York; † 31. Januar 1606 in London, auch geschrieben Guido sowie Faux oder Faukes)..." So, Wikipedia says, his real names was 'Faux'. .. >> So we have a pattern: bad guys fake evidence, kill the innocent and >> laugh about the public. >> > > You have yet to offer anything to support a claim that any fake > evidence was presented. Since your claim is not true, you can't. My statement was meant as 'hypothesis'. This is indicated by the term 'we have a pattern'. A hypothesis will not be proven, but withstands attempts to disprove it. (see: Scientific method). So, feel free to disprove my hypothesis. >> Would got killed? Actually the 'terrorists' were executed. >> >> In those days these 'terrorists' have been defined by their religion >> (Catholicism than, Islam today). >> > > Actually, the terrorist have been defined by their actions, not > their religion. My statement was: there have been no terrorists. These actions have been a fake by the government of that time (King Jacob), to force more people into the Church of England (under his command) and to discredit the Catholic Church. > What, specifically, do you have against being honest? > This is a serious question. Do you really think, King Jacob was honest? He was famous for burning 'witches'. >> The aim of King James/Jacob > > There was no King Jacob in England. King James became later King Jacob the first. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakob_I._%28England%29 .. > You will need to provide evidence that this was King James' > intended goal. But you won't. You can't. ?? We can guess, what motives a certain individual has for his activities, but we cannot be certain. You cannot possibly prove impressions, since this also caused by internal mental processes and is not base on 'hard facts'. So you may take my assumptions as what they are: assumptions or interpretations of my impression about this person. .. > >>>> So: was there actually any powder in the basement of the parliament? >>> >>> According to the historical documents, yes. >>> If you have anything to counter the documents, present it. Note: >>> guesses, feelings, hopes, and assumptions will be disregarded. >> >> >> Brits always declared, they are, who writes history. So we would need >> evidence from independent sources (other than British). > > So you have no evidence and are simply presenting yet more lies. > Got it. 'In dubio pro reo'. So the evidence has to be presented by the prosecution and not by the defending side. In this case this could be done by witness from other that British people and/or people related to the British government. >> >>>> We know about this powder from actually where? >>> >>> From the documents of the time. If you have anything to counter >>> them, present it. >> >> >> Yes, but that is just paper from suspicious sources. > > There is nothing suspicious about them. If King James faked the event, then certainly also these papers. So: where is independent evidence? .. >> Is there any other evidence? > > Your failure to counter the available evidence, then shifting the > burden of proof onto me is noted. > Clearly you are simply lying, as you so often do. And you don't > even make it a challenge to prove this. > TH
Back to alt.conspiracy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-24 05:28 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 15:53 +1100
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-23 21:18 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-24 00:14 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 03:59 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 03:59 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-25 08:58 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 14:07 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-26 19:53 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 05:27 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-28 07:24 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 03:58 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-29 04:45 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 04:56 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-29 22:24 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 17:44 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-30 06:52 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 03:48 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-30 22:18 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 20:54 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? dmaster <dan.woj@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-31 09:32 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 14:14 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-01 10:41 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 12:47 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-01 22:21 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 06:05 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-03 17:20 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 15:24 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-05 06:36 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 23:13 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 03:56 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 01:14 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-05 20:20 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 21:02 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-01-06 00:37 -0500
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 22:43 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 06:30 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 22:41 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 04:22 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 20:32 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-07 06:37 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 03:34 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 23:47 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 00:03 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 01:10 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 01:14 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 05:56 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 09:01 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 05:33 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 09:30 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 05:34 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 05:55 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 05:55 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-08 18:27 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? edrhodes@hotmail.com - 2016-01-06 19:42 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-07 06:34 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 03:34 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? edrhodes@hotmail.com - 2016-01-07 01:54 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-08 07:01 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 05:55 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-09 10:05 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 05:38 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-01-09 10:28 -0500
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 12:10 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 14:29 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 14:34 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-01-10 10:08 -0500
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 16:51 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 01:00 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 01:37 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 01:42 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 01:45 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 04:19 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 04:18 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 04:17 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-17 06:07 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 05:23 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-02 23:41 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-25 15:14 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-25 16:22 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-25 19:42 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-29 00:29 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-29 00:38 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? PaxPerPoten <PPP@USA.org> - 2015-12-29 03:10 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-29 01:49 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-29 02:07 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-29 02:35 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-29 02:46 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 04:56 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-29 13:05 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-29 08:52 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-29 16:59 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 02:44 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-30 13:37 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 17:45 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 04:56 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-29 08:59 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-12-29 18:23 -0500
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 17:45 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-12-30 06:33 -0500
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 02:25 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-30 07:56 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-30 16:20 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-30 10:32 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-30 17:54 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 20:53 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-31 04:36 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-31 01:29 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 05:23 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 05:23 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-30 17:58 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-12-30 16:26 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-30 23:08 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-02 13:46 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-02 23:31 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-03 08:58 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-03 20:22 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-01-03 14:37 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 15:24 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-03 22:35 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-01-03 19:57 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-04 03:04 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-04 06:31 +0000
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 04:05 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 04:04 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 23:58 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 23:43 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 20:53 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-17 08:11 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-17 08:33 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 01:13 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 01:36 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-01-17 04:10 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 22:48 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 04:35 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-18 03:34 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-18 03:55 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-18 19:55 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 05:25 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 05:24 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 05:24 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-17 17:52 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-01-17 13:55 -0500
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 17:19 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-18 04:33 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 14:38 +1100
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 23:12 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 23:27 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 04:35 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-24 04:51 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-01-27 03:56 +0100
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 03:59 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-27 20:40 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-28 18:39 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 02:37 -0800
Re: Why "9/11" ? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 20:52 -0600
Re: Why "9/11" ? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-25 16:30 -0800
csiph-web