^is this guy for real??



[Edited on April 20, 2006 at 3:32 PM. Reason : asdf]

4/20/2006 3:30:50 PM

HUGE SMOKING GUN--NYC MAYOR RUDOLPH GIULIANI TOLD IN ADVANCE THAT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS WERE GOING TO COLLAPSE

Just watch this short video clip from a local ABC News station where Peter Jennings is interviewing Rudolph Giuiani (go to around 50 seconds into the clip for relevant comments):

http://terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.wtc.giuliani.was.warned.wmv

Quote :

"PETER JENNINGS:...Did you go immediately to the office of emergency management? RUDOLPH GIULIANI: I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barklay Street, which was right there with the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management. And we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building. So we were trapped in the building for 10-15 minutes, and finally found an exit, got out walked north and took a lot of people with us."

And let me remind everyone that many NYC firefighters and others did [I]not[/I] believe that the towers were going to collapse (let alone did they know the towers were going to collapse). There are many examples of testimony from the emergency personnel tapes released in August '05 where firefighters describe how the fires were almost out just before the collapses, and they did not think the towers were going to collapse.

So...how did these people and Giuliani know a tower was going to collapse? Because the towers were brought down in controlled demolitions.


[Edited on April 20, 2006 at 3:59 PM. Reason : ``````````]

4/20/2006 3:37:07 PM

Quote :

"Who's to blame for the assassination of Abraham Lincoln? That's right, THE JEWS. By Billy H. I Can Make Fucking Ridiculous Claims Too Post It's been over 140 years since the death of Abraham Lincoln. Historians blame John Wilkes Booth for his assassination. However, new questions have come up thanks to the ICMFRCTP investigations. We discovered a sect of Jews, known as the Edomites, established a secret headquarters 2 blocks away from Ford Theatre. The organization, known as North American Zionist Incoporated, or NAZI for short, were orchestrating a plan to take over the United States while the nation was just ending a Civil War. They saw a weakness in the American infrastructure, and decided to attack. Meanwhile, the CIA picked up on NAZI chatter, and decided to listen in. They heard the plot, and decided to take no action. The NAZIs, led by Ehud Enbergsteinwitz, announced their plans to shoot Abraham Lincoln in the theatre. Enbergsteinwitz's right hand man, Donald O'Brien, was to be the triggerman. However, he had the flu, and decided not to take the shot. So the CIA sent an intelligence officer named John Wilkes Booth to the NAZI headquarters. Booth, who in the past, had hobbies of shooting from grassy knolls, dreams of flying machines into tall buildings, and a vendetta against Oklahoma City, OK, quickly was accepted by the NAZIs. He learned where Lincoln would sit, what time he would arrive, and when to take care of business. The Jews were ready to kill Lincoln. Why did they want to kill Lincoln? The Zionists wanted all the power. With the help of the CIA, the NAZIs could achieve what they wanted: a world controlled by the Jews. Lincoln showed how large of a figure he was by his leadership in the Civil War. The Jews wanted him out of the way. April 14 was the day that NAZI chose to assassinate Lincoln. The date , 4-14, when the numbers are added together, divided by 3, equals 6 (4+14=18/3=6). If you do that 3 times, then you have 666. Finally, 1865 was selected because 1+8=9, and 6+5=11. There is the explanation for 9/11 as well. It was finally becoming clear. Of course, Booth shot Lincoln on that fateful night. Lincoln died the next day. NAZI held this secret of the Booth connection for all this time. That is, until we uncovered it. Over time, the NAZIs gained power, growing into the NWO. They changed their name after Jews were being killed by another group, who happened to have initials of the exact resemblance. Ehud Enbergsteinwitz, who died on 6/6/1906 at 91.1 years old, was never charged with Lincoln's assassination. Booth was the scapegoat, and faced all of the reprocussions. The next president, Andrew Johnson, was also rumored to have secret dealings with NAZI. Some speculate he was in the theatre with Enbergsteinwitz when the assassination occurred. While we can't confirm this, we will just go ahead and accept it as fact, just like the 9/11 nuts like to do. As more comes in, we will report, and let you decide on whether the Jews are bad, or just terrible. "

http://ICanMakeFuckingRidiculousClaimsTooPost.com/YouAreAFuckingIdiot

[Edited on April 20, 2006 at 3:39 PM. Reason : /]

4/20/2006 3:38:50 PM

ok...when was he told that they were going to collapse??

his immediate thought was probably to get down there right away...and those people who were there helping (fire fighters) probably told him "hey you dont want to do that. those buildings are going to collapse"

thats not a smoking gun....its actually nothing at all

4/20/2006 3:39:53 PM

the only smoking gun that'll be worth anything in this thread would be in salisburyboy's lifeless hand

4/20/2006 3:48:12 PM

he was told they were going to collapse
he said lets leave
they collapsed before they could leave
...

how long does it take you to leave a building? conspiracies involve knowledge months or years in advance, not 30 seconds in advance.

4/20/2006 3:53:18 PM

THE NYC OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT HAD ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE OF SOUTH TOWER COLLAPSE

Here is the testimony of EMT Richard Zarrillo, from the Emergency Personnel tapes released in August '05:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110161.PDF

(see pp. 5-6 for below quote)

Quote :

""A few minutes later, John came to me and said you need to go find Chief Ganci and relay the following message: that the buildings have been compromised, we need to evacuate, they're going to collapse . . . . I mentioned to the EMS people there, again, not knowing who they were, I said you need to get away from here, the building might collapse, we need to leave this spot . . . I said, Steve, where's the boss? I have to give him a message. He said, well, what's the message? I said the buildings are going to collapse; we need to evac everybody out. With a very confused look he said who told you that? I said I was just with John at OEM. OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out. He escorted me over to Chief Ganci. He said, hey, Pete, we got a message that the buildings are going to collapse. His reply was who the fuck told you that? Then Steve brought me in and with Chief Ganci, Commissioner Feehan, Steve, I believe Chief Turi was initially there, I said, listen, I was just at OEM. The message I was given was that the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get our people out. At that moment, this thunderous, rolling roar came down and that's when the building came down, the first tower came down.”"

4/20/2006 3:56:21 PM

salis...THIS IS A SERIOUS QUESTION!!!

what do you contend that those articles prove??

4/20/2006 3:58:31 PM

Quote :

"salis...THIS IS A SERIOUS QUESTION!!! what do you contend that those articles prove??"

PRIOR KNOWLEDGE of the collapse of the South Tower.

4/20/2006 4:00:28 PM

SUPPOSITION IS NOT PROOF YOU FUCKING EUNUCH

4/20/2006 4:02:35 PM

HOW PRIOR!?!?!?


how much time???

4/20/2006 4:03:34 PM

Quote :

"PRIOR KNOWLEDGE of the collapse of the South Tower."

Well, that's like saying that the article I put up on the top of the page proves that the NAZI Jews killed Lincoln.

4/20/2006 4:06:36 PM

SIMILAR PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC BUILDING 7; FIREFIGHTERS AND PARAMEDICS KNEW IN ADVANCE THAT WTC BUILDING 7 WAS GOING TO COLLAPSE


The testimony of firefighter Frank Sweeney from the Emergency Personnel Tapes:

Quote :

""Once they got us back together and organized somewhat, they sent us back down to Vesey, where we stood and waited for Seven World Trade Center to come down""

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110113.PDF

(see page 14 for above quote)



The testimony of firefighter Richard Zarrillo:

Quote :

" "I don't know what happened to No. 7. I knew the building was coming down.""

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110161.PDF

(see page 8 for above quote)



Testimony of paramedic Steven Pilla:

Quote :

"“Then it was about 5:00 . . . We didn't do any further because building number seven was coming down. That was another problem, to wait for building seven to come down, because that was unsecure. It was about 5:30 that building came down.”"

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110104.PDF

(see pp. 13-14 for above quote)

Notice he said that the building was "unsecure." That's evidently what the higher ups had told him. And that's similar to what they said when they told others that the South Tower was going to collapse. In fact, Building 7 was completely secure and was not in danger of collapsing.


As most everyone who has seen the evidence will acknowledge, WTC Building 7 was clearly brought down in a controlled demolition. WTC Leaseholder Larry Silverstein admitted that in a PBS documentary.

Now, compare this prior knowledge (from firefighters, etc) of the collapse of WTC 7 with the similar prior knowledge of the collapse of the South Tower. Doesn't this lend support to the fact that the towers were also brought down in controlled demolitions?


[Edited on April 20, 2006 at 4:30 PM. Reason : ``````````]

4/20/2006 4:18:57 PM

NO

IT SUPPORTS YOU BEING A FUCKING NUTJOB

4/20/2006 4:22:07 PM

30thAnnZ, I can't remember...do you acknowledge or agree that WTC Building 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition? And if not, what do you believe caused it to collapse?

4/20/2006 4:42:35 PM

huge fucking planes setting 10 floors on fire while causing significant structural damage?

4/20/2006 5:25:59 PM

I believe there was an independent study that said WTC 7 could not have been brought down by the supposed debris that hit it and caused it to collapse, the way it came down was pretty much right on with a controlled demolition. On top of WTC 7, the twin towers also could not have been toppled by the aircraft imapct, the BUILDERS and DESIGNERS of the towers confirmed this, along with witnesses at the scene and people that were INSIDE THE TOWER AND NYPD and FDNY confirming visuals and hearing multiple explosions within the tower, wake up, our own government did this.

4/20/2006 5:43:41 PM

can you find these studies and prove they are independent?

4/20/2006 5:44:32 PM

haha god i love this thread

4/20/2006 5:57:08 PM

ok...all your posts about "prior knowledge" are a joke man....

my family's house burned down when i was like 14. i was going to keep running inside and taking out stuff (as i had been doing for about 5 minutes) but my dad told me to stop because he thought the roof was going to collapse. sure enough....the roof collapsed.

thats all that happened here. if thats the best you got for "prior knowlege" well then.....thats sad.

im sure you will say thats not the best you got but the fact that you would even use that shows how much you are reaching for anything...

Quote :

"Doesn't this lend support to the fact that the towers were also brought down in controlled demolitions? "

ABSOLUTLY not

[Edited on April 20, 2006 at 6:21 PM. Reason : asdf]

4/20/2006 6:18:39 PM

sounds like your dad burned your house down to collect on the insurance money.
all insurance agencies are controlled by jews (because what isnt these days?)
therefore your dad is responsible for 9/11

4/20/2006 6:22:05 PM

haha...soooo true

4/20/2006 6:23:19 PM

SALISBURYBOY, YOU HAVEN'T ADRESSED ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS. It has become obvious to everyone that you CAN'T answer them. As soon as you post a response to them, I will stop asking them. Instead, you have spent 3 pages making excuses and throwing around accusations rather than posting an answer.

Again:

Also, could you please address these questions? I'm not trying to redirect or distract here. I'm genuinely curious. You made statements regarding all of these questions in this very thread, I would just like you to explain them before moving on. I questioned these claims when they were originally made, but you ignored me. Why won't you answer them?

Why didn't they build a pipeline in 1998? Why did they blow up their own african embassies and then launch a missile attack on Afghanistan? They were set to build a natural gas pipeline with the Taliban then. Why mess that up for no reason?

You don't believe that Afghanistan was invaded for the sake of a pipeline? Then why are you defending that theory so stubbornly?

You just said that Afghanistan was invaded so that a pipeline could be built. Now you're saying that the zionists wanted to prevent the building of a pipeline - just like how Iraq was invaded to secure the oil supply even though the zionists don't care about the oil supply. How do you reconcile all of the conflicting information that you spout off on here?

By the way, how did the zionists cause the US Civil War and the Revolutionary War?

I would also like to see some proof that Pearl Harbor was caused by the evil edomite zionists.

You have provided absolutely no evidence at all that the Rothschilds are the zionists at the top running world events. They were a prominent family that supported the creation of a jewish state, that is all. Please provide some evidence other than "Here are some rich jews!"

So why should anyone believe your rantings anyway You have admitted that you hate jews. As such, you are far from an impartial source when you blame jews for every problem in the world.

FYI, I've actually read a number of accounts from firefighters, and a number of them said that as soon as they saw the WTC the knew that it would collapse.

Quote :

"Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner. NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse. According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down." There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities. Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time." WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse."

"WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline “kink” that signals WTC 7’s progressive collapse."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y

Remind me why everything in the Popular Mechanics is BS?

BTW, I figured it out!
If you disagree, you're in denial.
If you question his logic, you're trolling.
If you ask a question more than once, you're spamming.
If you say "conspiracy theory", you're smearing.

[Edited on April 20, 2006 at 8:20 PM. Reason : 666]

4/20/2006 8:15:33 PM

Quote :

"And let me remind everyone that many NYC firefighters and others did [I]not[/I] believe that the towers were going to collapse (let alone did they know the towers were going to collapse). "

Actually they did know and were trying to radio firefighters to let them know. The problem was with the radio reception inside the buildings. Plenty of testimony confirms this.

4/20/2006 8:59:53 PM

Quote :

"can you find these studies and prove they are independent?"

Well, we know for damn sure the 9/11 whitewash Commission was NOT "independent." It was a government-controlled commission, with it's director/chairman appointed by Bush himself.

Quote :

"huge fucking planes setting 10 floors on fire while causing significant structural damage?"

WTC Building 7 did NOT have "significant structural damage." It was located about a block away from the twin towers, and was much further away from the twin towers than other buildings (that were right beside the towers) that did not collapse.

Quote :

"my family's house burned down when i was like 14. i was going to keep running inside and taking out stuff (as i had been doing for about 5 minutes) but my dad told me to stop because he thought the roof was going to collapse. sure enough....the roof collapsed."

No modern steel skyscraper has EVER collapsed due to fire. EVER. Before or since 9/11. Or on the day of 9/11. The firefighters and almost everyone else did not believe the towers were going to collapse. Additionally, the towers were designed to withstand impacts from commercial airliners.

WTC Construction Manager: Towers Were Designed to Take Numerous Plane Crashes
short video clip: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/141104designedtotake.htm

WTC Construction Certifiers Say Towers Should Have Easily Withstood Jet Fuel Temperatures
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/121104easilywithstood.htm

Quote :

"NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated.....NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse"

First off, the Popular Mechanics hit piece is garbage. The entire article was a straw man exercise, and they back up their claims with no real evidence. And here, they admit they are "hypothesizing" about the cause of WTC 7's collapse. And the NIST may allege that it was severely damaged by large pieces of steel ejected from the North Tower, but there is no verifiable evidence of this.

Here's the bottom line. It is ABSOLUTELY CONCLUSIVE that WTC Building 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition. The building did not have severe damage and yet collapsed in a symmetrical fashion at virtual free-fall speed as in a controlled demolition. Video of the collapse of Building 7 shows it was demolished in a controlled demolition. The center of the building collapses just before the entire building collapses. This is when the central columns were blown, so that the building falls inward onto itself. Demolition charges (or "squibs") can also be seen in the collapse footage. AND, FINALLY, WTC LEASEHOLDER LARRY SILVERSTEIN ADMITTED THEY DEMOLISHED THE BUILDING IN A PBS DOCUMENTARY.


WTC Complex Leaseholder Larry Silverstein admitted in PBS documentary that WTC 7 was brought down in controlled demolition:
1 minute video clip: http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV

Quote :

""I remember getting a call from the Fire Department Commander telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is 'pull it.' And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse." --Larry Silverstein (WTC leaseholder)"

"Pull" and "pull it" are industry terms for triggering a controlled demolition. To make this perfectly clear, here is another video clip from the same PBS documentary where the term "pull" is used to describe beginning a controlled demolition on WTC Building 6.

video: http://thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/pull-it2_lo.wmv


WTC 7 Collapse footage. Watch the demolition charges going off at the top right of WTC 7 in the following video clip. Also notice how the center of building collapses first:
http://www.infowars.com/Video/911/WTC7COLLAPSE2.WMV


Here are some still pictures from the video of the collapse of WTC 7:



Notice the clear demolition squibs at upper right of building.


Excellent websites on WTC Building 7:
http://www.wtc7.net/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html


[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 8:35 AM. Reason : ``````````]

4/21/2006 8:24:09 AM

ive already posted that

4/21/2006 8:27:44 AM

Quote :

"I believe there was an independent study that said WTC 7 could not have been brought down by the supposed debris that hit it and caused it to collapse, the way it came down was pretty much right on with a controlled demolition. On top of WTC 7, the twin towers also could not have been toppled by the aircraft imapct, the BUILDERS and DESIGNERS of the towers confirmed this, along with witnesses at the scene and people that were INSIDE THE TOWER AND NYPD and FDNY confirming visuals and hearing multiple explosions within the tower, wake up, our own government did this."

Please find this "study" and either post a link to it or tell us where we can find it.

Thank you.

4/21/2006 8:55:34 AM

Quote :

"And let me remind everyone that many NYC firefighters and others did not believe that the towers were going to collapse (let alone did they know the towers were going to collapse). "

Quote :

"Actually they did know and were trying to radio firefighters to let them know. The problem was with the radio reception inside the buildings. Plenty of testimony confirms this."

DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM?

I sure have evidence to support my claims....

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60F1FFF3E550C7A8CDDA80994DA404482&incamp=archive:search

Quote :

"Fire Department Tape Reveals No Awareness of Imminent Doom By KEVIN FLYNN AND JIM DWYER (NYT) Late Edition - Final , Section B , Page 4 , Column 1 ABSTRACT - Officials release 78-minute audiotape of firefighters coping with catastrophe in damaged south tower of World Trade Center on Sept 11, only known audiotape of firefighters at scene; nowhere on tape is there any indication that firefighters had slightest indication that tower had become unstable or could fall;"

Testimony of Battalion Chief Brian Dixon:

Quote :

""there was never a thought that this whole thing is coming down.""

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110166.PDF

(see page 15 for above quote)



Testimony of the Emergency Medical Services Division Chief, John Peruggia, in charge of planning for the Chief of Department’s office:

Quote :

""No one feared that the building was in any danger as a result of two airplane attacks and subsequent fires...""

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Peruggia_John.txt

(see page 7 for above quote)



Testimony of Battalion Chief Stephen King:

Quote :

"A. ...I never expected that a tower might collapse." Q. "You never thought that?" A. No, I don't think I ever thought that. I know I didn't think that, not understanding that it was an airliner full of fuel....But, no, I don't believe I ever thought about that. I knew I had a very serious fire and I wasn't anticipating building failure at that point at all.""

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/King_Stephen.txt

(see approximately 1/6 down page for above quotes)



Testimony of Murray Murad, Lieutenant Investigator with Bureau of Investigations and Trials:

Quote :

""But again, no one ever expected it to collapse like that.""

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Murad_Murray.txt

(see page 18 for above quote)


[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 9:10 AM. Reason : ``````````]

4/21/2006 9:01:44 AM

haha....denying popular mechanics.....

"its a hit piece"..... OMG SMEAR


all your experts in all your articles were just contradicted by other experts in relation to all of your claims about 9/11. For some reason (they are jews maybe?) the PM experts are all liars and the experts from prisonplanet are the truth tellers. Thats basically what your argument comes down too right??

EXPERT ADMITS NO CHARGES NEEDED TO BRING DOWN WTC!!

Quote :

""The claims that the explosions and fires would not have generated enough heat to cause the building to collapse are nonsense," Partin told THE NEW AMERICAN. "Steel doesn't have to 'melt' as some of these people claim. The yield strength of steel drops very dramatically under heat, and the impact of the airliners would have severely impacted the support columns. When they could no longer support the upper stories and the top started coming down, the dynamic loading caused a very rapid collapse, or 'pancaking,' that would have very nearly approached free-fall rate. No demolition charges were needed to accomplish this." "

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1253.shtml


[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 9:34 AM. Reason : asdf]

4/21/2006 9:14:40 AM

Quote :

"all your experts in all your articles were just contradicted by other experts in relation to all of your claims about 9/11. For some reason (they are jews maybe?) the PM experts are all liars and the experts from prisonplanet are the truth tellers. Thats basically what your argument comes down too right??"

And you would say Alex Jones and "experts" who disagree with the "official" story are liars.

You can have "experts" saying this and that, and disagreeing with each other. But here's the bottom line: WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE ON OUR SIDE.

Don't blindly believe what the government, Popular Mechanics, thier so-called "experts", Alex Jones, me, or what anyone else tells you. Go investigate the facts and evidence and judge for youself. Verify if what these people say is true or not. And once you actually examine and look at the evidence, you will find for yourself that the "official" story is a lie.

4/21/2006 9:34:44 AM

see above for proof

4/21/2006 9:38:00 AM

For those that don't know, The New American is a publication of the John Birch Society, which is a controlled oppossition group. The JBS pretends to oppose globalism and expose corruption in the government, and does provide some good information, but avoids and provides false information on many of the most important issues (like 9/11).

4/21/2006 9:45:21 AM

OMG SMEAR

....nice try...

4/21/2006 9:45:57 AM

I don't need to smear anyone. The evidence is on my side.

Smear is a tactic employed to attempt to stop rational examination of the issue. I want people to think about these issues logically, examining the facts and evidence.

I'm not smearing JBS. I'm just telling the truth about them. Read their article for all I care (but you'd be wasting your time). But then go back and look at the evidence to verify if they are telling the truth or not.

4/21/2006 9:49:58 AM

Quote :

"Smear is a tactic employed to attempt to stop rational examination of the issue. I want people to think about these issues logically, examining the facts and evidence."

thats all im asking too. all the real evidence is on my side. please read all of salisubury's stuff then read the real stuff and ask yourself which makes more sense.

4/21/2006 9:52:03 AM

Quote :

"please read all of salisubury's stuff then read the real [other] stuff and ask yourself which makes more sense"

I wholeheartedly agree. Look at the evidence for both sides and then come to a rational conclusion. That's what I've been saying from the very beginning.

4/21/2006 9:57:15 AM

wonderful

also...

Quote :

"The compression caused by the descending mass of the air contained in the structures is more than sufficient to create massive overpressure in individual floors. Pressure x Volume is a constant; if you halve the volume, you double the pressure. Cram twice as much air into one floor as was initially there and you will achieve a pressure of 2atm = 29.4psi = 14.7psi of overpressure. A mere 1psi of overpressure is sufficient to burst out windows. A few psi of overpressure will kill you. 14.7psi will easily cause jets of air and concrete dust from the collapse region to be forcibly ejected from burst windows, which is exactly what we saw. No need for explosives here. "

look it up...its all fact

[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 10:02 AM. Reason : asdf]

4/21/2006 9:58:11 AM

Some good points regarding the government secrecy surrounding 9/11, the resistance to a real investigation into the attacks, and the lack of evidence to support the "official" story:

Quote :

"The time it took for investigations to start Sinking of the Titanic.............................6 days JFK Assassination.................................7 days The Challenger Disaster.........................7 days Pearl Harbour Attack.............................9 days The Events of 9/11... a reluctant............441 days"

Quote :

"The Official Story 19 hijackers, most of whom couldn't fly Cessna's and of which half are still alive, got drunk in a strip club the night before pulling off an assault that military pilots stated on the record couldn't have been done by crack fighter pilots. Both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney took extraordinary steps to limit any investigation into the events of 9/11. Why this continued cover-up? -The NTSB never held inquiries into any of the 4 plane crashes, as required by law, and the FBI is withholding the data from the airliner's flight recorders. -All of the steel from the Twin Towers was shipped out of the country before any investigation was held. The media says that bin Laden carried out the 9/11 massacre from the caves of Afghanistan, yet after a supposedly "thorough" investigation, the FBI says they have not uncovered a single piece of paper that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot. No proof whatsoever has been offered that bin Laden carried out this attack – none. [except phony video and audio tapes--my addition] http://www.newsgateway.ca/by_topic_9_11.htm"

Why all the government secrecy surrounding 9/11? Why did they ship the steel from the WTC oversees without any real investigation? Why did the FBI and government agents seize videos showing whatever it was that hit the Pentagon? Why have those tapes not been released? Why has Israeli/Mossad involvement in the 9/11 attacks been classified?

Why the resistance and long delay to conduct an investigation into the 9/11 attacks? When the government finally got around and conceded to an "investigation" (including into possible government failures), why was the "investigation" commission not independent of the government? And why was the Bush Administration and government so secretive and uncooperative even with the government-controlled 9/11 Commission?

And why was the government so quick to go to war in Afghanistan before an investigation was even conducted and it was established who really perpetrated the attacks? Why were they so quick to blame the named 19 "hijackers"? And when it later turned out that many of those men were alive, why was there then no investigation into who the real "hijakers" may have been?

Does not government secrecy and stonewalling of a real investigation into the attacks indicate government involvment or complicity? Why cover up and hide the facts and evidence? Why cover up and hide the truth about 9/11?

4/21/2006 10:20:15 AM

More on the 9/11 Whitewash Commission:

ONLINE JOURNAL EDITOR CALLS 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT "A WORK OF FICTION" AND GREATEST WHITESASH SINCE THE WARREN COMMISSION REPORT; STATES COMMISSION RECOMMENDS POLICIES THAT TAKE AWAY OUR LIBERTIES AND IMPLEMENT POLICE STATE HERE IN AMERICA; SUGGESTS CRIMINAL ELEMENT IN THE GOVERNMENT WERE THE REAL PERPETRATORS OF THE ATTACKS


http://www.onlinejournal.org/Special_Reports/072604Conover/072604conover.html

Quote :

"The 9-11 Commission Report: the greatest whitewash since the Warren Commission's report By Bev Conover Online Journal Editor & Publisher [...] ABC News' John Donvan called this work of fiction the greatest thing since the Warren Whitewash Commission's work of fiction. If that isn't scary enough, now the corporate media, the knuckleheads in Congress and the dolts on the street who appear on camera are clamoring to implement the commission's recommendations to keep them "safe" from brown-skinned Muslims out to kill them. Hey, we don't need no steenking freedom. Hello, police state. [...] ...the commission chose not to mention Operation Northwoods, dreamt up by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962, which laid out a scenario similar to what happened on 9-11, as a way of conning the American people into going to war against Castro. Nor did the commission make any reference to the Project for a New American Century, which said the US might need a "new Pearl Harbor" to achieve global hegemony. Nowhere does the commission point out that Osama bin Laden was the CIA's point man in Afghanistan, during the time the Reagan administration was bent on pushing the Soviets out of that country. Nor does the commission note that al Qaeda is a creature of the CIA, born out of the Afghan Mujahadeen, which it armed and financed. Yes, we loved those "Muslims" when they were doing our dirty work, but they have served their purpose and now they are "evildoers." [...] But the commission didn't see it as its job to connect those dots, so people would understand who was really behind 9-11, how 9-11 was used to strip us of our freedoms and illegally invade Afghanistan and Iraq. If it had, and had laid blame at the feet of the real perpetrators, the American people would have the big picture of this failed mad scheme that cost this country what little respect it had left in the world and why there are now people who truly hate us. [...] Nor could we expect the corporate-connected commissioners to bite the hand that feeds them. The commission was tasked with shoring up the Bushwellian Official 9-11 Legend for the consumption of the ignorant, without causing those responsible for the dastardly deed to be brought to justice, and persuading the people to trade the rest of their liberty for "safety." If Benjamin Franklin were still with us, he would say that people who would do that are deserving of neither liberty nor safety."

4/21/2006 11:15:21 AM

i want a rational conversation
...
here are facts that prove the effects of the airplanes and the fire and the floors collapse caused the explosive like effects
...
unrelated topic


salisburyboy is back to trolling himself i see

[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 11:51 AM. Reason : i screwed up triks response]

4/21/2006 11:39:27 AM

the explosive like effects were caused by the collapsing floors. As the floors "pancaked" together, air was compressed at an extremely fast rate. This was the cause of the puffs of smoke and dust that shot from the windows of the WTC.

4/21/2006 11:46:17 AM

Now check this stuff out...pretty amazing...

I realize the source is merely a post from democraticunderground, but the information supposedly comes from Daniel Hopsicker's book Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta & the 9-11 Cover-up in Florida.

EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THAT MOHAMMED ATTA WAS FRAMED BY AN ISRAELI IMPERSONATOR USING FAKE IDS; THIS "ATTA" LOVED TO PARTY, GET DRUNK, SNORT COCAINE, EAT PORK, DATED A STRIPPER, WAS FLUENT IN HEBREW, ASSOCIATED WITH "EUROPEANS" CONNECTED TO THE DRUG TRADE (NOT ARABS); FBI LATER INTIMIDATED WITNESSES OF THIS "ATTA" TO CHANGE THEIR STORIES AND BE QUIET

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1433886

Quote :

"I just finished Daniel Hopsicker's Welcome to Terrorland. He exposes the cover story of the Florida flight schools, and the ongoing cover-up. The whole thing stinks of Iran/Contra and CIA drugs. It's the same, bloody game. ...And FYI, here are some notes I kept while reading the book: [...] 1. In Venice Florida, Mohamed Atta lived for two months with an American stripper/lingerie model named Amanda Keller. 2. Atta loved to party. He was out with Keller nearly every night they were together. He was a heavy drinker, snorted coke, was a stylish dresser and wore expensive jewelry. 3. According to Keller, Atta loved pork chops. [...] 6. In Miami, Atta consorted with women known to be linked to the Mafia. 7. Atta’s email list included names of people who worked for defense contractors. [...] 9. Atta was fluent in at least Arabic, English, German, French and Hebrew. [...] 10. One day when Atta was rummaging through his flight bag, Keller got a look inside. Her words: "...And a folder with all these different ID’s in it. And that’s when I saw one – because it fell out – a little blue and white thing the size of a driver’s license. It had his picture on it, and it looked like a mug shot, or a prison shot. And it didn’t look like him, and I asked him, 'Who is this?' ... He told me he spoke Hebrew. I said bullshit. So he started speaking it, and I guess he did. [...] 14. Under pressure from the FBI, and despite numerous witnesses who had known them together, Keller publicly retracted her story of having lived with Atta, saying he’d been another hijacker named Mohammed, no last name... [...] 38. A former Huffman executive, speaking about the hijackers: "Early on I gleaned that these guys had government protection. They were let into this country for a specific purpose. It was a business deal." 39. The FBI visited the home of this executive just four hours after the attacks. The purpose has been not to investigate, but to intimidate him into silence. The man says his phones were bugged, and thinks pilots were "double agents." He quit the flight school fearing for his life, and claims he knows too much about Wally Hillier, saying he "has a family to think about." [...] 48. Most of Atta's closest associates in Venice were not Arabs, but Europeans with connection to the drug trade. [...] 50. According to his girlfriend, Atta was a big Beastie Boys fan."

WOW...Again, this is coming from one novel, but if true, it sure explains a lot.

Would the real Mohammed Atta be fluent in Hebrew? And would a real "devoutly religious muslim fanatic" party all the time, get drunk, snort cocaine, eat port, and date a stripper? And why would the real Atta have a bunch of phony IDs? And what about this "Atta" associating with people linked to the Mafia, and associating more with Europeans connected to the drug trade than Arabs? And this "Atta" was a "big fan of the Beastie Boys"? Come on. This was NOT the real Mohammed Atta. This was an Israeli or Mossad agent impersonating Atta in order to frame him.

As the post also recounts, Atta was acquainted with several individuals involved in drug trafficking (who even had government protection to continue the trafficking) linked to the flight school where he was supposedly taking flight lessons.

And notice that bombshell where the flight school executive says that the "hijackers" had "government protection" and "were let into this country for a specific purpose." Remember how Israeli/Mossad involvement in 9/11 is "classified"?

Also, FBI agents applied pressure to witnesses (including the flight school executive) and people associated with this "Atta" impersonator to recant their stories and be silent.

There's a whole lot to 9/11 yet to be revealed. VERRRRY interesting stuff.


[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 12:10 PM. Reason : ``````````]

4/21/2006 12:05:57 PM

that is COMPLETELY ridiculous

EVEN IF THATS TRUE all it means is that there are some suspicious things about Atta. How on earth do you go from that to an israeli impersonator?

4/21/2006 12:09:17 PM

Quote :

"EVEN IF THATS TRUE all it means is that there are some suspicious things about Atta. How on earth do you go from that to an israeli impersonator?"

Assuming the information is true, just think about it: this "Atta" was fluent in Hebrew, a big Beastie Boys fan, associated with Europeans connected to the drug trade more than Arabs, may have had "government protection" (remember how Mossad/Israeli involvement in 9/11 is "classified"), etc.

And we know from publically available sources that Israeli spies lived in Florida near the "hijackers" and were "tracking" (ie, framing) them. IE, the Israeli spies were the "hijackers."

Connect the dots man.


[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 12:18 PM. Reason : ```]

4/21/2006 12:16:54 PM

dude....im not...and no one else...is going to make absurd assumptions like that

4/21/2006 12:19:20 PM

salisburyboy loves to play connect the dots, but instead of a sailboat, he gets a bunch of interconnected random lines.

[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 12:31 PM. Reason : *]

4/21/2006 12:31:40 PM

Quote :

"dude....im not...and no one else...is going to make absurd assumptions like that"

Are you denying that at least some of the named "hijackers" were not framed? FBI director Robert Mueller has admitted that some of the named "hijackers" were framed using phony IDs:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/21/inv.id.theft/

Quote :

"Expert: Hijackers likely skilled with fake IDs September 21, 2001 By Daniel Sieberg CNN (CNN) -- FBI Director Robert Mueller has acknowledged that some of those behind last week's terror attacks may have stolen the identification of other people, and, according to at least one security expert, it may have been "relatively easy" based on their level of sophistication."

The only question is WHO it was that framed them? And all the evidence shows that it was Israeli/Mossad agents. There are MSM reports to support this, and the Israelis have a history of trying to frame Arabs in these type of "false flag" operations.

It's not absurd. Israeli spies were "trailing" these "hijackers" and lived very close to them (which was reported in "mainstream" sources). Also, as reported in "mainstream" sources, Moussaoui was framed by an impersonator.

What's absurd is the "official" government fairy tale of a rag-tag group of 19 Arabs masterminded by evil genius from a cave in Afghanistan pulling off 9/11 and getting NORAD and the U.S. Air Defense to stand down. And having 3 buildings collapse in a controlled demolition fashion at virtual free-fall speed, and then claiming that "fire" or a "pancake theory" caused them to collapse...especially Building 7 which wasn't even hit by a plane, had no significant damage, and only a few small fires in it. The entire "official" conspiracy theory is one big joke. It's as bogus as those phony bin Laden tapes. Anyone who's bothered to do a little investigating for themselves knows this, rather than only being spoon-fed the "official" story from the government and MSM.


[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 12:42 PM. Reason : ```````]

4/21/2006 12:36:10 PM

NO IM NOT DENYTHING THAT SOME OF THEM MIGHT HAVE BEEN FRAMED

so what if they were being trailed. you all of a sudden reach the conlcusion that these "trailers" were really israeli mossad agents where planned the whole thing. Thats crap. complete crap.

the government is not claiming that a ragtag group planned this. they claim that a very organized, well funded group of terrorists did. (straw man??) the pancake story is not theory. its fact. anyone who has seen all the evidence knows that (except you, of course)

4/21/2006 12:43:43 PM

Quote :

"so what if they were being trailed. you all of a sudden reach the conlcusion that these "trailers" were really israeli mossad agents where planned the whole thing. Thats crap. complete crap."

Are the Lavon Affair and the 1967 attack on the U.S.S. Liberty "crap" too? Look. The Zionist Israelis have an established track record of pulling off these kind of "false flag" terrorist attacks where they attempt to frame muslims.

And who had the motive and stood to gain from the 9/11 attacks? Why would muslims or Arabs attack the U.S. like this? What could they gain from it? Nothing. Meanwhile, after 9/11, the Zionist Cabal controlling our government has us invading one muslim country after another. The Zionist neo-cons PLANNED this whole thing. They were planning to go to war against Afghanistan before 9/11. The just needed a "crisis" or pretext to justify the war. These Zionists surrounding our government have been planning for years to go to war in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Quote :

"the government is not claiming that a ragtag group planned this. they claim that a very organized, well funded group of terrorists did. (straw man??) the pancake story is not theory. its fact. anyone who has seen all the evidence knows that (except you, of course)"

Oh, so this "al-CIA-duh" group really exists, BUT OUR GOVERNMENT LEAVES THE BORDER VIRTUALLY WIDE OPEN. That alone shows the "al-Qaeda" threat doesn't exist.

The idea of this vast, highly sophisticated muslim terrorist group is a fantasy. It's bogus, as many high-profile foreign government officials and others have stated. To the extent it exists, it was created by the Western (and related) intelligence agencies.

Do you want me to pull up all the evidence showing that "al-Qaeda" is a hoax?

4/21/2006 12:53:00 PM

ya know what....we are right back to this....prove it....all you have said to me is "connect the dots"

how about you just prove it. i am still waiting for all that "evidence" that you have that will prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the zionist neocons planned 9/11. show me something that is not a "dot" that i have connect with 1000 other "dots" to see this conspiracy

and dont go saying that the evidence is right in front of me and since i cant see it im a sheep to the jew controlled media and the zionist media. where is the proof??

4/21/2006 1:05:03 PM