Re: [CTRL] Millegan's Attacks On Eastman, Webfairy, etc. -was- In Plane Site ...
-Caveat Lector- Mark: You really are a jackass to not realize how valuable this list is usually...from all angles. You are an even greasier jackass to not realize how open minded Kris usually is, even when faced with biased posts. Whatever lists you market, they must be crap. I have been on and off this list for nearly six years...whenever I have had problems and I complain about posts not getting though, they usually make it second time around. See...Kris is not responsible for the FBI tag you apparently have on your butt. Sometimes I get em too...but only YOU can attempt to cut their probe off of your ass, guy. Kris can't promise you the world. Good riddence if you can't figure out who your Net friends are...get the hell off this list... E. Murray --- Mark S Bilk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Caveat Lector- In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911 Kris, this attack from you (below), like your similar ones against Dick Eastman, contains only unsupported smears with no data to back them up, except for your claim that the people you're attacking created forged e-mails from Brian Quig. But that claim is based on the fact some people addressed in those e-mails say they didn't receive them, or at least can't find them. This is _not_ valid evidence, even if the recipients in question actually didn't get copies of the messages, because e-mail sending and receiving software is quite fallible: I administer two mailing lists (Kris is on one of mine, and I am on two of his), and I have seen dozens of instances in which messages are bounced by mail servers because of subtle errors in their configuration with respect to certain recipients; this occurs only intermittently -- most messages to those recipients get through. One cause of this can be erroneous MX (mail exchanger) records for these recipients. If the sending server can't reach the receiving server listed in a primary MX record (which happens intermittently due to high loads), it may try to send to a server listed in a secondary MX record which may be out of date, and that server may bounce the mail because the recipient is no longer known to it. This situation has been made much worse during the last ten years or so as mail servers have been programmed to reject relaying -- reception of mail destined for recipients on other servers -- as a means of cutting down on spam. Also, mail client software, especially the programs from Microsoft, sometimes lose messages that they've received. I've heard complaints from Windows users about this (I use the much more reliable -- and free -- Linux system). And certainly it's very easy to hit the wrong key and accidently delete an e-mail without realizing it. Finally, many messages are mistakenly and silently deleted as spam by people's mail servers and never sent to them. The same messages may reach other recipients whose servers employ different spam rejection programs. Kris, I apologize for not giving you this information before, although we've had a number of phone conversations. I've only gradually become aware of it, correlated it, and learned the technical facts behind it. So your accusations of mail forgery may have resulted from your not having this knowledge. You should then rethink all the conclusions you've drawn from your belief that these forgeries occurred. As to your other disagreements with the people you're attacking, I haven't followed your disputes with Webfairy, but I have read many of your attacks against Eastman. These come down to your uncritical acceptance of various witness reports that the 757 hit the Pentagon, and your refusal to deal with the physical evidence. Witnesses can be mistaken; movies frequently portray airplane and helicopter crashes by showing film of the aircraft flying toward a building and then film of a large petroleum explosion; actually there was no crash. This is very likely what was arranged for the Pentagon attack; it's exactly like a stage magician vanishing in a puff of smoke. It would certainly fool witnesses, who almost always think they've seen what they expected to see. In fact, when some of the witness accounts that claim the plane hit are examined carefully, they contain details that would have occurred far too rapidly -- in a few thousandths of a second -- for the human eye or brain to perceive; this is proof that these witnesses either imagined these details, or are intentionally lying. Witnesses can easily be deceived, and false witnesses can easily be planted, but the physical evidence against the government story tells the truth. The original hole in the building was far too small; there was no evidence of the impact of the huge engines or the tail fin; there was no fire, and very little debris, on the lawn despite the plane allegedly hitting the wall at nearly
[CTRL] Millegan's Attacks On Eastman, Webfairy, etc. -was- In Plane Site ...
-Caveat Lector- In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911 Kris, this attack from you (below), like your similar ones against Dick Eastman, contains only unsupported smears with no data to back them up, except for your claim that the people you're attacking created forged e-mails from Brian Quig. But that claim is based on the fact some people addressed in those e-mails say they didn't receive them, or at least can't find them. This is _not_ valid evidence, even if the recipients in question actually didn't get copies of the messages, because e-mail sending and receiving software is quite fallible: I administer two mailing lists (Kris is on one of mine, and I am on two of his), and I have seen dozens of instances in which messages are bounced by mail servers because of subtle errors in their configuration with respect to certain recipients; this occurs only intermittently -- most messages to those recipients get through. One cause of this can be erroneous MX (mail exchanger) records for these recipients. If the sending server can't reach the receiving server listed in a primary MX record (which happens intermittently due to high loads), it may try to send to a server listed in a secondary MX record which may be out of date, and that server may bounce the mail because the recipient is no longer known to it. This situation has been made much worse during the last ten years or so as mail servers have been programmed to reject relaying -- reception of mail destined for recipients on other servers -- as a means of cutting down on spam. Also, mail client software, especially the programs from Microsoft, sometimes lose messages that they've received. I've heard complaints from Windows users about this (I use the much more reliable -- and free -- Linux system). And certainly it's very easy to hit the wrong key and accidently delete an e-mail without realizing it. Finally, many messages are mistakenly and silently deleted as spam by people's mail servers and never sent to them. The same messages may reach other recipients whose servers employ different spam rejection programs. Kris, I apologize for not giving you this information before, although we've had a number of phone conversations. I've only gradually become aware of it, correlated it, and learned the technical facts behind it. So your accusations of mail forgery may have resulted from your not having this knowledge. You should then rethink all the conclusions you've drawn from your belief that these forgeries occurred. As to your other disagreements with the people you're attacking, I haven't followed your disputes with Webfairy, but I have read many of your attacks against Eastman. These come down to your uncritical acceptance of various witness reports that the 757 hit the Pentagon, and your refusal to deal with the physical evidence. Witnesses can be mistaken; movies frequently portray airplane and helicopter crashes by showing film of the aircraft flying toward a building and then film of a large petroleum explosion; actually there was no crash. This is very likely what was arranged for the Pentagon attack; it's exactly like a stage magician vanishing in a puff of smoke. It would certainly fool witnesses, who almost always think they've seen what they expected to see. In fact, when some of the witness accounts that claim the plane hit are examined carefully, they contain details that would have occurred far too rapidly -- in a few thousandths of a second -- for the human eye or brain to perceive; this is proof that these witnesses either imagined these details, or are intentionally lying. Witnesses can easily be deceived, and false witnesses can easily be planted, but the physical evidence against the government story tells the truth. The original hole in the building was far too small; there was no evidence of the impact of the huge engines or the tail fin; there was no fire, and very little debris, on the lawn despite the plane allegedly hitting the wall at nearly a 45 degree angle which would have caused much of it to end up outside; the plastic nosecone (designed to pass radar waves to and from the radar antenna inside it) could not possibly have penetrated the many layers of walls without shattering -- it must have been planted; and a rusted part -- allegedly from an aircraft that was kept polished to a mirror finish -- was photographed inside the building, and so must also have been planted. All this is why almost all 9-11 researchers agree that the 757 did not crash into the Pentagon, but rather passed over it, and, possibly after loitering over the ocean for a while, landed at Reagan airport or some other during the very chaotic period when all planes were being forced to land immediately, wherever they were. In the last year or so there have been many accusations from some 9-11 researchers that various people who disagree with them are fascist agents. I'm sure this isn't true in
Re: [CTRL] Millegan's Attacks On Eastman, Webfairy, etc. -was- In Plane Site ...
-Caveat Lector- Ya know, what Mark, didn't you posit some BS about piano wires and the light poles? I dunna really care what the fuck you say, nor do I care to "hang" with you. Your logic is innane. And you do not know what the fuck you are talking about. About the Quig forged emails, about Flight 77, or how the email list worked at the time. And you statement "all 9-11 researchers agree that the 757 did not crash into the Pentagon," is again bullshit. What you have is a bunch of wankers, holocaust deniers, oppers and ignorant dweebs. Peace, Om K In a message dated 8/15/04 2:36:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -Caveat Lector- In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911 Kris, this attack from you (below), like your similar ones against Dick Eastman, contains only unsupported smears with no data to back them up, except for your claim that the people you're attacking created forged e-mails from Brian Quig. But that claim is based on the fact some people addressed in those e-mails say they didn't receive them, or at least can't find them. This is _not_ valid evidence, even if the recipients in question actually didn't get copies of the messages, because e-mail sending and receiving software is quite fallible: I administer two mailing lists (Kris is on one of mine, and I am on two of his), and I have seen dozens of instances in which messages are bounced by mail servers because of subtle errors in their configuration with respect to certain recipients; this occurs only intermittently -- most messages to those recipients get through. One cause of this can be erroneous MX (mail exchanger) records for these recipients. If the sending server can't reach the receiving server listed in a primary MX record (which happens intermittently due to high loads), it may try to send to a server listed in a secondary MX record which may be out of date, and that server may bounce the mail because the recipient is no longer known to it. This situation has been made much worse during the last ten years or so as mail servers have been programmed to reject "relaying" -- reception of mail destined for recipients on other servers -- as a means of cutting down on spam. Also, mail client software, especially the programs from Microsoft, sometimes lose messages that they've received. I've heard complaints from Windows users about this (I use the much more reliable -- and free -- Linux system). And certainly it's very easy to hit the wrong key and accidently delete an e-mail without realizing it. Finally, many messages are mistakenly and silently deleted as spam by people's mail servers and never sent to them. The same messages may reach other recipients whose servers employ different spam rejection programs. Kris, I apologize for not giving you this information before, although we've had a number of phone conversations. I've only gradually become aware of it, correlated it, and learned the technical facts behind it. So your accusations of mail forgery may have resulted from your not having this knowledge. You should then rethink all the conclusions you've drawn from your belief that these "forgeries" occurred. As to your other disagreements with the people you're attacking, I haven't followed your disputes with Webfairy, but I have read many of your attacks against Eastman. These come down to your uncritical acceptance of various witness reports that the 757 hit the Pentagon, and your refusal to deal with the physical evidence. Witnesses can be mistaken; movies frequently portray airplane and helicopter crashes by showing film of the aircraft flying toward a building and then film of a large petroleum explosion; actually there was no crash. This is very likely what was arranged for the Pentagon attack; it's exactly like a stage magician "vanishing" in a puff of smoke. It would certainly fool witnesses, who almost always think they've seen what they expected to see. In fact, when some of the witness accounts that claim the plane hit are examined carefully, they contain details that would have occurred far too rapidly -- in a few thousandths of a second -- for the human eye or brain to perceive; this is proof that these witnesses either imagined these details, or are intentionally lying. Witnesses can easily be deceived, and false witnesses can easily be planted, but the physical evidence against the government story tells the truth. The original hole in the building was far too small; there was no evidence of the impact of the huge engines or the tail fin; there was no fire, and very little debris, on the lawn despite the plane allegedly hitting the wall at nearly a 45 degree angle which would have caused much of it to end up outside; the plastic nosecone (designed to pass radar waves to and from the radar antenna inside it) could not possibly have penetrated the many layers of walls without shattering -- it must have been planted; and a rusted part -- allegedly from an aircraft
