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


Groups > alt.conspiracy > #263583

Re: Nuke Em

From "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
Newsgroups alt.conspiracy
Subject Re: Nuke Em
Date 2015-08-15 15:34 -0500
Organization Sooper Sekrit Gov'mint Agency. Shhhhhhhh.
Message-ID <mg8vsapsl680aug63ek3fufb17evsecsnn@4ax.com> (permalink)
References (6 earlier) <qiresal9pi9nsh36sn9trerjvkni4g6e6d@4ax.com> <9sfk9c-t1o.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <98WdnTSVp9aZNlrInZ2dnUU7-VednZ2d@giganews.com> <c4d9eac4-872f-4af2-8af2-637723dd1aae@googlegroups.com> <x6ednazox9uq-lLInZ2dnUU7-UmdnZ2d@giganews.com>

Show all headers | View raw


On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 11:23:29 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

><edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:c4d9eac4-872f-4af2-8af2-637723dd1aae@googlegroups.com...
>On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 3:33:25 PM UTC-4, Rocky wrote:
>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>> news:9sfk9c-t1o.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> > In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 03:22:22 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >>>>> Arguing with the insane is pointless, kook boi.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Have you ever won a jury trial 12 to 0 as a pro se litigant?  I have 
>> >>>> so I certainly know how to make an argument.
>> >>>
>> >>>Was this trial one of those high school things, kook boi?
>> >>>
>> >>>Or maybe just something you imagined...
>> >>
>> >>      The trial did happen. Rocky has been able to offer ample evidence
>> >> of this.
>> >>      I find it interesting that he is able to produce evidence for the
>> >> trial (actually a re-trial as he was found guilty at the first one),
>> >> but can offer no evidence for his claims about nukes.
>> >
>> > Insanity for most people is progressive; he was probably fully 
>> > functional for some part of his life.
>>
>> And you have been caught in a lie about radiation caused cancers in the
>> people that helped to clean up the site of the Great 9/11 Hoax.  See:
>>  http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/30/health/911-cancer-increase/
>>
>> BTW it wasn't a "re-trial" but a second trial and I obviously learned the
>> tricks of the Prosecutor on the first trial and kept him from using those
>> tricks a second time.  <G>
>>
>> Now the question is why do you keep lying about the First Responders and 
>> how a building collapse could leave "Surviving Walls" and leave "Surviving
>> Corners?"
>>
>> And I don't need to prove that nukes were used at ground zero since nobody
>> has been able to address how a building collapse could leave Surviving 
>> Walls and leave Surviving Corners and leave Survivors in Stairwell B of the 
>> North Tower other a DEEP UNDERGROUND nuke.
>>
>> BTW you and anybody else for that matter have to address the nukes used at
>> Ground Zero as DEEP UNDERGROUND NUKES because they perform a lot different
>> than ground level or airborne nukes as proven by the remains of the Twin
>> Towers.  DUH.
>
>DUH, yourself. YOU have never provided any support for the idea that DEEP 
>UNDERGROUND NUKES can affect the surface without the blast and shock wave 
>breaching the surface. And there's NO indication that there was a blast or 
>shock wave breaching the surface at the World Trade Center.
>
>=====================================
>
>ROTFLMAO because you have no proof that the CGIs that rammed into the Twin 
>Towers were not about the cheapest CGIs money could buy because there were 
>no crash dynamics whatsoever and the fact they were CGIs also easily 
>explains the fade in and fade out wing..  <G>

     At this point I think everyone reading knows you admit you're
wrong by shifting the burden of proof. 
     Way to admit, again, that you were and are wrong. Not that this
TRUTH wasn't in question.

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

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


Thread

Re: Nuke Em "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-08 19:28 -0500
  Re: Nuke Em jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-09 00:42 +0000
    Re: Nuke Em "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-08 20:33 -0500
      Re: Nuke Em jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-09 03:22 +0000
        Re: Nuke Em "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-09 06:45 -0500
          Re: Nuke Em jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-09 17:38 +0000
            Re: Nuke Em "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-09 14:23 -0500
              Re: Nuke Em jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-09 19:46 +0000
                Re: Nuke Em "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-09 18:30 -0500
                Re: Nuke Em jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-10 00:21 +0000
                Re: Nuke Em "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-15 11:15 -0500
                Re: Nuke Em jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-15 17:03 +0000
                Re: Re: Nuke Em Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-16 06:54 -0500
                Re: Nuke Em "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 21:40 -0500
        Re: Nuke Em "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 10:14 -0500
          Re: Nuke Em jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-09 17:39 +0000
            Re: Nuke Em "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-09 14:32 -0500
              Re: Nuke Em "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 15:48 -0500
              Re: Nuke Em edrhodes@hotmail.com - 2015-08-09 17:48 -0700
                Re: Nuke Em "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-15 11:23 -0500
                Re: Nuke Em "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 15:34 -0500
            Re: Nuke Em "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 15:45 -0500
              Re: Nuke Em jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-09 21:05 +0000
                Jim's lies (was: Nuke Em) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-09 18:01 -0500
                Re: Jim's lies jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-09 23:30 +0000
                Re: Jim's lies "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-15 11:28 -0500
                Re: Jim's lies jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-15 17:06 +0000
                Re: Jim's lies "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 15:31 -0500
                Re: Jim's lies Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-15 18:42 +0100
                Re: Jim's lies "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-15 19:25 -0500
                Re: Jim's lies jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-16 01:07 +0000
                Re: Jim's lies Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-16 09:29 +0100
                Re: Jim's lies (was: Nuke Em) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 21:35 -0500
      Re: Nuke Em "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 10:14 -0500

csiph-web