On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:12:04 -0400, BDK <TopShill at (no spam) sanity.com> wrote:

In article <4ae4bd29 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org>, slika at (no spam) hotmail.com says...

"chinagreenelvis" <chinagreenelvis at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:42637b13-4a72-4029-97b9-f2ead6a47d77 at (no spam) p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
And all you're capable of is posting, over and over again, the same
ridiculous nonsensical 911 "stuff". Just "stuff" that any Jr. high kid
would laugh at.

And the more you post in response to this "stuff," the more attention
you bring to it. You shills are beginning to sound like broken
records, too. Seriously, I was here six months ago and bore witness to
an almost exact duplication of this thread. Why does this tennis match
continue?

That's how Gov Shill operates, so he doesn't have to discuss facts.

Typical technique for a coward.




So you consider anyone not insane enough to believe in 911 "troof" to be
a coward?

Of course you do.

Because you need courage to say stupid things in a public forum over and
over again.

Have any scientific evidence which would prove that no explosives have
been used on 9/11?

"Patrick Keenan" <test at (no spam) dev.null> wrote in message
news:dOGdnaIv4_AfGnLXnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...
"slika" <slika at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4aede022$1 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...

"Patrick Keenan" <test at (no spam) dev.null> wrote in message
news:cPednVFYcMZPDHHXnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...
"slika" <slika at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4aec3125$2 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...

"Patrick Keenan" <test at (no spam) dev.null> wrote in message
news:j-OdnaBET4e4QHTXnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...

"slika" <slika at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ae77fe9$1 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...

"Patrick Keenan" <test at (no spam) dev.null> wrote in message
news:A9GdnfK6DvOPj3jXnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...
"slika" <slika at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ae423cd$1 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...

"Electra" <honda900f at (no spam) excite.com> wrote in message
news:580cf602-bd8b-4015-b927-671366c2a5ca at (no spam) m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 23, 4:00 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:37:40 -0400, "Freedom Man"
libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:

Nah, it couldn't have been the handfuls of people who claimed
responsibility for it and were
tracked down (after the fact); it must have been the thousands of
conspirators who have remained
silent and undetected all this time.

Exactly. And you're one of them.

Sorry, but I'm not the one who thinks that thousands of people were
involved in a conspiracy to smuggle explosives into the WTC and
install them, none whom have ever spoken up or ever been detected.

Thousands? Are you kidding me?

No, I'm not. By necessity, the "controlled demolition" theory
involves a lot of people.

More than 19, yes Patrick. Tens of thousands? Far from it.

Tens of thousands is your claim, not mine.

Quote, please.

However, there is no way that only nineteen people were involved in a
controlled demolition and remained silent.

The small number of people who were actually responsible for the attacks
and murders were not shielded by the many people they came into contact
with. All the people who fed them, housed them, taught them, rented cars
to them, came forward.

Your idea requires that none of the many people who would have come into
awareness of the procuring and movement of large amounts of explosives
have come forward.

The reality is that they haven't come forward because it didn't happen.

Have any scientific evidence which would prove that no explosives have
been used on 9/11?

"slika" <slika at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4aeffb0d$1 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...

"Patrick Keenan" <test at (no spam) dev.null> wrote in message news:dOGdnaIv4_AfGnLXnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...
"slika" <slika at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4aede022$1 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...

"Patrick Keenan" <test at (no spam) dev.null> wrote in message news:cPednVFYcMZPDHHXnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...
"slika" <slika at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4aec3125$2 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...

"Patrick Keenan" <test at (no spam) dev.null> wrote in message
news:j-OdnaBET4e4QHTXnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...

"slika" <slika at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4ae77fe9$1 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...

"Patrick Keenan" <test at (no spam) dev.null> wrote in message
news:A9GdnfK6DvOPj3jXnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...
"slika" <slika at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4ae423cd$1 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...

"Electra" <honda900f at (no spam) excite.com> wrote in message
news:580cf602-bd8b-4015-b927-671366c2a5ca at (no spam) m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 23, 4:00 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:37:40 -0400, "Freedom Man" <libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:

Nah, it couldn't have been the handfuls of people who claimed responsibility for it and were
tracked down (after the fact); it must have been the thousands of conspirators who have remained
silent and undetected all this time.

Exactly. And you're one of them.

Sorry, but I'm not the one who thinks that thousands of people were involved in a conspiracy to
smuggle explosives into the WTC and install them, none whom have ever spoken up or ever been detected.

Thousands? Are you kidding me?

No, I'm not. By necessity, the "controlled demolition" theory involves a lot of people.

More than 19, yes Patrick. Tens of thousands? Far from it.

Tens of thousands is your claim, not mine.

Quote, please.

However, there is no way that only nineteen people were involved in a controlled demolition and remained
silent.

The small number of people who were actually responsible for the attacks and murders were not shielded by
the many people they came into contact with. All the people who fed them, housed them, taught them, rented
cars to them, came forward.

Your idea requires that none of the many people who would have come into awareness of the procuring and
movement of large amounts of explosives have come forward.

The reality is that they haven't come forward because it didn't happen.

Have any scientific evidence which would prove that no explosives have
been used on 9/11?

Yes, as you would know if you were familiar with the topic.

But you aren't, and have shown that you are just making things up.

"Patrick Keenan" <test at (no spam) dev.null> wrote in message news:huadndYPqvMKu2_XnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...
"slika" <slika at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4aeffb0d$1 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...

"Patrick Keenan" <test at (no spam) dev.null> wrote in message news:dOGdnaIv4_AfGnLXnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...
"slika" <slika at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4aede022$1 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...

"Patrick Keenan" <test at (no spam) dev.null> wrote in message news:cPednVFYcMZPDHHXnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...
"slika" <slika at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4aec3125$2 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...

"Patrick Keenan" <test at (no spam) dev.null> wrote in message
news:j-OdnaBET4e4QHTXnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...

"slika" <slika at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4ae77fe9$1 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...

"Patrick Keenan" <test at (no spam) dev.null> wrote in message
news:A9GdnfK6DvOPj3jXnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...
"slika" <slika at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4ae423cd$1 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...

"Electra" <honda900f at (no spam) excite.com> wrote in message
news:580cf602-bd8b-4015-b927-671366c2a5ca at (no spam) m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 23, 4:00 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:37:40 -0400, "Freedom Man" <libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:

Nah, it couldn't have been the handfuls of people who claimed responsibility for it and were
tracked down (after the fact); it must have been the thousands of conspirators who have remained
silent and undetected all this time.

Exactly. And you're one of them.

Sorry, but I'm not the one who thinks that thousands of people were involved in a conspiracy to
smuggle explosives into the WTC and install them, none whom have ever spoken up or ever been detected.

Thousands? Are you kidding me?

No, I'm not. By necessity, the "controlled demolition" theory involves a lot of people.

More than 19, yes Patrick. Tens of thousands? Far from it.

Tens of thousands is your claim, not mine.

Quote, please.

However, there is no way that only nineteen people were involved in a controlled demolition and remained
silent.

The small number of people who were actually responsible for the attacks and murders were not shielded by
the many people they came into contact with. All the people who fed them, housed them, taught them, rented
cars to them, came forward.

Your idea requires that none of the many people who would have come into awareness of the procuring and
movement of large amounts of explosives have come forward.

The reality is that they haven't come forward because it didn't happen.

Have any scientific evidence which would prove that no explosives have
been used on 9/11?

Yes, as you would know if you were familiar with the topic.

But you aren't, and have shown that you are just making things up.

Read it to me, Patrick. Please. In which portion of the NIST report do they
mention the techniques used in order to find whether explosives have been
used, how many people were involved, which agencies were involved, how
long and how careful did they look for explosives, give me charts, numbers,
formulas... ANYTHING, Patrick.

"Patrick Keenan" <test at (no spam) dev.null> wrote in message news:huadndYPqvMKu2_XnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...
"slika" <slika at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4aeffb0d$1 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...

"Patrick Keenan" <test at (no spam) dev.null> wrote in message news:dOGdnaIv4_AfGnLXnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...
"slika" <slika at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4aede022$1 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...

"Patrick Keenan" <test at (no spam) dev.null> wrote in message news:cPednVFYcMZPDHHXnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...
"slika" <slika at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4aec3125$2 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...

"Patrick Keenan" <test at (no spam) dev.null> wrote in message
news:j-OdnaBET4e4QHTXnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...

"slika" <slika at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4ae77fe9$1 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...

"Patrick Keenan" <test at (no spam) dev.null> wrote in message
news:A9GdnfK6DvOPj3jXnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...
"slika" <slika at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4ae423cd$1 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...

"Electra" <honda900f at (no spam) excite.com> wrote in message
news:580cf602-bd8b-4015-b927-671366c2a5ca at (no spam) m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 23, 4:00 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:37:40 -0400, "Freedom Man" <libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:

Nah, it couldn't have been the handfuls of people who claimed responsibility for it and were
tracked down (after the fact); it must have been the thousands of conspirators who have remained
silent and undetected all this time.

Exactly. And you're one of them.

Sorry, but I'm not the one who thinks that thousands of people were involved in a conspiracy to
smuggle explosives into the WTC and install them, none whom have ever spoken up or ever been detected.

Thousands? Are you kidding me?

No, I'm not. By necessity, the "controlled demolition" theory involves a lot of people.

More than 19, yes Patrick. Tens of thousands? Far from it.

Tens of thousands is your claim, not mine.

Quote, please.

However, there is no way that only nineteen people were involved in a controlled demolition and remained
silent.

The small number of people who were actually responsible for the attacks and murders were not shielded by
the many people they came into contact with. All the people who fed them, housed them, taught them, rented
cars to them, came forward.

Your idea requires that none of the many people who would have come into awareness of the procuring and
movement of large amounts of explosives have come forward.

The reality is that they haven't come forward because it didn't happen.

Have any scientific evidence which would prove that no explosives have
been used on 9/11?

Yes, as you would know if you were familiar with the topic.

But you aren't, and have shown that you are just making things up.

Read it to me, Patrick. Please. In which portion of the NIST report do they
mention the techniques used in order to find whether explosives have been
used, how many people were involved, which agencies were involved, how
long and how careful did they look for explosives, give me charts, numbers,
formulas... ANYTHING, Patrick.

Go ahead. I'm waiting.

C'mon, Patrick, why are you being such an asshole?

Cat caught your (lying) tongue? Or is it maybe that no one looked for
explosives? So in other words, when one would say "no explosives
have been used on 9/11", it would be... kind of... a... lie, maybe?

Because, there is no scientific evidence to back that claim up? Huh?
Patrick? Where have you gone? C'mon, don't be shy. I'll tell you again:

Read it to me, Patrick. Please. In which portion of the NIST report do they
mention the techniques used in order to find whether explosives have been
used, how many people were involved, which agencies were involved, how
long and how careful did they look for explosives, give me charts, numbers,
formulas... ANYTHING, Patrick.

Let's see who's is lying and who has been lying all these years. Mark Roberts
or Steven Jones.

And it lies upon you, Keenan. Right here. And right now.

GO! I'm all ears. Seriously.

On Oct 23, 7:25 pm, Iarnrod <iarn... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 23, 1:37 pm, "Freedom Man" <libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:

snip kkkookerkrap

Sorry, Reality Fighter, but "Inside Job" controlled demolition has
been proven to be a complete physical impossibility.

Not if you also think that the lunar landings were done on Kubrick's
2001, A Space Odyssey sound stage at Pinewood, while Neil and Buzz's
first landing was a plot instigated by those nasty Democrats to cover
up that nasty shunt that brother Teddy had around the same time.

After all, I have a copy of a paper from those days and the top says
"MAN ON MOON" while the bottom has "Senator Kennedy in Accident At
Chappaquiddick" .

It's all part of the big scam.

I BELIEVE FREEDOM FRIES HAS ME BLOCKED.  PLEASE REPOST THIS MESSAGE SO
HE CAN SEE MY REPSONCE TO HIS ARITHMETIC ERROR.

In article <hbvfaf$p0... at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>,



Freedom Man <libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:

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.

A Quick Recap:

Earth's gravity causes objects to fall, and they fall according to precise
physical equations. The equations assume no air or other resistance. Any
resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would
without that resistance. If a falling object is affected by air resistance
it falls slower than it would if free-falling, and it will take longer to
fall a given distance.

Free-fall From WTC Building Heights:

The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall; average = 1355 feet. Let's start by
using our free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to
free-fall from the towers' height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time squared.   (D = 1/2 x G x T x T)

With a little basic algebra, we solve the equation for the fall time, T:

2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)   (2 x D = G x T x T)

Time squared = (2 x Distance) / Gravity   (T x T = 2 x D / G)

Time squared = 2 x 1355 / 32 = 84.7   (T = square root of (2 x D / G))

Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it takes 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the
ground from the height of the WTC towers.

Using our simpler equation, V = G x T, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, the
free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over
200 mph.

But that can only occur IN A VACUUM.

You are wrong.

Your mistake is that the 9 second interval wasn't from 1300 ft. It was
from about 1,000 ft.  It was the measured fall time from some beam
from the impact zone. That would be something from the 78-84th floor,
not 1300 ft.  Call it 80% of the full height; 1,040 ft (320m).

Free fall from 1,040ft is 8.07 seconds and v in the last second is
abouy 240ft/sec so that extra second is plenty to account for aero
drag.

SOURCE:

  6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and
     9 seconds (WTC 2)-speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped
     from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?  NIST
     estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to
     strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the
     towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately
     9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1)
     precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence,
     and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades,
     N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave
     transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A)... [2]

You get an "F" in your High School physics paper.

--
Al Dykes
 News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
    - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail

"Patrick Keenan" <test at (no spam) dev.null> wrote in message
news:huadndYPqvMKu2_XnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...
"slika" <slika at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4aeffb0d$1 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...

"Patrick Keenan" <test at (no spam) dev.null> wrote in message
news:dOGdnaIv4_AfGnLXnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...
"slika" <slika at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4aede022$1 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...

"Patrick Keenan" <test at (no spam) dev.null> wrote in message
news:cPednVFYcMZPDHHXnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...
"slika" <slika at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4aec3125$2 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...

"Patrick Keenan" <test at (no spam) dev.null> wrote in message
news:j-OdnaBET4e4QHTXnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...

"slika" <slika at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ae77fe9$1 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...

"Patrick Keenan" <test at (no spam) dev.null> wrote in message
news:A9GdnfK6DvOPj3jXnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...
"slika" <slika at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ae423cd$1 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...

"Electra" <honda900f at (no spam) excite.com> wrote in message
news:580cf602-bd8b-4015-b927-671366c2a5ca at (no spam) m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 23, 4:00 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:37:40 -0400, "Freedom Man"
libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:

Nah, it couldn't have been the handfuls of people who claimed
responsibility for it and were
tracked down (after the fact); it must have been the thousands of
conspirators who have remained
silent and undetected all this time.

Exactly. And you're one of them.

Sorry, but I'm not the one who thinks that thousands of people were
involved in a conspiracy to smuggle explosives into the WTC and
install them, none whom have ever spoken up or ever been detected.

Thousands? Are you kidding me?

No, I'm not. By necessity, the "controlled demolition" theory
involves a lot of people.

More than 19, yes Patrick. Tens of thousands? Far from it.

Tens of thousands is your claim, not mine.

Quote, please.

However, there is no way that only nineteen people were involved in a
controlled demolition and remained silent.

The small number of people who were actually responsible for the
attacks and murders were not shielded by the many people they came into
contact with. All the people who fed them, housed them, taught them,
rented cars to them, came forward.

Your idea requires that none of the many people who would have come
into awareness of the procuring and movement of large amounts of
explosives have come forward.

The reality is that they haven't come forward because it didn't happen.

Have any scientific evidence which would prove that no explosives have
been used on 9/11?

Yes, as you would know if you were familiar with the topic.

But you aren't, and have shown that you are just making things up.

Read it to me, Patrick. Please.

In which portion of the NIST report do they
mention the techniques used in order to find whether explosives have been
used,

On Oct 23, 6:39 pm, Electra <honda9... at (no spam) excite.com> wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:25 pm, Iarnrod <iarn... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 23, 1:37 pm, "Freedom Man" <libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:

snip kkkookerkrap

Sorry, Reality Fighter, but "Inside Job" controlled demolition has
been proven to be a complete physical impossibility.

Not if you also think that the lunar landings were done on Kubrick's
2001, A Space Odyssey sound stage at Pinewood, while Neil and Buzz's
first landing was a plot instigated by those nasty Democrats to cover
up that nasty shunt that brother Teddy had around the same time.

After all, I have a copy of a paper from those days and the top says
"MAN ON MOON" while the bottom has "Senator Kennedy in Accident At
Chappaquiddick" .

It's all part of the big scam.

Silly person. The moon landing were faked at Williard White's desert
facility under the control of Ernst Stravo Blofeld. Haven't you seen
"Diamonds Are Forever" which blew the whistle on the whole scheme?

In article <ce763f59-0ddb-4ef0-8538-4e621b6ac606
at (no spam) z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, edrho... at (no spam) hotmail.com says...



On Oct 23, 6:39 pm, Electra <honda9... at (no spam) excite.com> wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:25 pm, Iarnrod <iarn... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 23, 1:37 pm, "Freedom Man" <libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:

snip kkkookerkrap

Sorry, Reality Fighter, but "Inside Job" controlled demolition has
been proven to be a complete physical impossibility.

Not if you also think that the lunar landings were done on Kubrick's
2001, A Space Odyssey sound stage at Pinewood, while Neil and Buzz's
first landing was a plot instigated by those nasty Democrats to cover
up that nasty shunt that brother Teddy had around the same time.

After all, I have a copy of a paper from those days and the top says
"MAN ON MOON" while the bottom has "Senator Kennedy in Accident At
Chappaquiddick" .

It's all part of the big scam.

Silly person. The moon landing were faked at Williard White's desert
facility under the control of Ernst Stravo Blofeld. Haven't you seen
"Diamonds Are Forever" which blew the whistle on the whole scheme?

Wasn't Blofeld Larry Silverstein's cousin?

In article <decdc454-b543-4063-b30e-c53801377664
at (no spam) c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, edrho... at (no spam) hotmail.com says...



On Nov 8, 1:24 am, BDK <TopSh... at (no spam) sanity.com> wrote:
In article <ce763f59-0ddb-4ef0-8538-4e621b6ac606
at (no spam) z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, edrho... at (no spam) hotmail.com says...

On Oct 23, 6:39 pm, Electra <honda9... at (no spam) excite.com> wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:25 pm, Iarnrod <iarn... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 23, 1:37 pm, "Freedom Man" <libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:

snip kkkookerkrap

Sorry, Reality Fighter, but "Inside Job" controlled demolition has
been proven to be a complete physical impossibility.

Not if you also think that the lunar landings were done on Kubrick's
2001, A Space Odyssey sound stage at Pinewood, while Neil and Buzz's
first landing was a plot instigated by those nasty Democrats to cover
up that nasty shunt that brother Teddy had around the same time.

After all, I have a copy of a paper from those days and the top says
"MAN ON MOON" while the bottom has "Senator Kennedy in Accident At
Chappaquiddick" .

It's all part of the big scam.

Silly person. The moon landing were faked at Williard White's desert
facility under the control of Ernst Stravo Blofeld. Haven't you seen
"Diamonds Are Forever" which blew the whistle on the whole scheme?

Wasn't Blofeld Larry Silverstein's cousin?

Not very likely.

Did you understand the post I was replying to?

On Nov 8, 1:24 am, BDK <TopSh... at (no spam) sanity.com> wrote:
In article <ce763f59-0ddb-4ef0-8538-4e621b6ac606
at (no spam) z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, edrho... at (no spam) hotmail.com says...



On Oct 23, 6:39 pm, Electra <honda9... at (no spam) excite.com> wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:25 pm, Iarnrod <iarn... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 23, 1:37 pm, "Freedom Man" <libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:

snip kkkookerkrap

Sorry, Reality Fighter, but "Inside Job" controlled demolition has
been proven to be a complete physical impossibility.

Not if you also think that the lunar landings were done on Kubrick's
2001, A Space Odyssey sound stage at Pinewood, while Neil and Buzz's
first landing was a plot instigated by those nasty Democrats to cover
up that nasty shunt that brother Teddy had around the same time.

After all, I have a copy of a paper from those days and the top says
"MAN ON MOON" while the bottom has "Senator Kennedy in Accident At
Chappaquiddick" .

It's all part of the big scam.

Silly person. The moon landing were faked at Williard White's desert
facility under the control of Ernst Stravo Blofeld. Haven't you seen
"Diamonds Are Forever" which blew the whistle on the whole scheme?

Wasn't Blofeld Larry Silverstein's cousin?

Not very likely.

On Nov 8, 8:19 pm, BDK <TopSh... at (no spam) sanity.com> wrote:
In article <decdc454-b543-4063-b30e-c53801377664
at (no spam) c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, edrho... at (no spam) hotmail.com says...



On Nov 8, 1:24 am, BDK <TopSh... at (no spam) sanity.com> wrote:
In article <ce763f59-0ddb-4ef0-8538-4e621b6ac606
at (no spam) z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, edrho... at (no spam) hotmail.com says...

On Oct 23, 6:39 pm, Electra <honda9... at (no spam) excite.com> wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:25 pm, Iarnrod <iarn... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 23, 1:37 pm, "Freedom Man" <libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:

snip kkkookerkrap

Sorry, Reality Fighter, but "Inside Job" controlled demolition has
been proven to be a complete physical impossibility.

Not if you also think that the lunar landings were done on Kubrick's
2001, A Space Odyssey sound stage at Pinewood, while Neil and Buzz's
first landing was a plot instigated by those nasty Democrats to cover
up that nasty shunt that brother Teddy had around the same time..

After all, I have a copy of a paper from those days and the top says
"MAN ON MOON" while the bottom has "Senator Kennedy in Accident At
Chappaquiddick" .

It's all part of the big scam.

Silly person. The moon landing were faked at Williard White's desert
facility under the control of Ernst Stravo Blofeld. Haven't you seen
"Diamonds Are Forever" which blew the whistle on the whole scheme?

Wasn't Blofeld Larry Silverstein's cousin?

Not very likely.

Did you understand the post I was replying to?

'fraid not, sorry.

In article <6f564777-be63-4716-8ae3-343325e1b650
at (no spam) g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, edrho... at (no spam) hotmail.com says...



On Nov 8, 8:19 pm, BDK <TopSh... at (no spam) sanity.com> wrote:
In article <decdc454-b543-4063-b30e-c53801377664
at (no spam) c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, edrho... at (no spam) hotmail.com says...

On Nov 8, 1:24 am, BDK <TopSh... at (no spam) sanity.com> wrote:
In article <ce763f59-0ddb-4ef0-8538-4e621b6ac606
at (no spam) z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, edrho... at (no spam) hotmail.com says...

On Oct 23, 6:39 pm, Electra <honda9... at (no spam) excite.com> wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:25 pm, Iarnrod <iarn... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 23, 1:37 pm, "Freedom Man" <libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:

snip kkkookerkrap

Sorry, Reality Fighter, but "Inside Job" controlled demolition has
been proven to be a complete physical impossibility.

Not if you also think that the lunar landings were done on Kubrick's
2001, A Space Odyssey sound stage at Pinewood, while Neil and Buzz's
first landing was a plot instigated by those nasty Democrats to cover
up that nasty shunt that brother Teddy had around the same time.

After all, I have a copy of a paper from those days and the top says
"MAN ON MOON" while the bottom has "Senator Kennedy in Accident At
Chappaquiddick" .

It's all part of the big scam.

Silly person. The moon landing were faked at Williard White's desert
facility under the control of Ernst Stravo Blofeld. Haven't you seen
"Diamonds Are Forever" which blew the whistle on the whole scheme?

Wasn't Blofeld Larry Silverstein's cousin?

Not very likely.

Did you understand the post I was replying to?

'fraid not, sorry.

Wow. How old are you?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066995/