Quote :

"If you want us to take you seriously, humor us for a little bit. Give us your response to some of these questions we've been asking. --GARnREG"

I think I am doing what you requested (over my past few posts)..ie, answering questions to a greater degree than before.

[Edited on March 3, 2004 at 12:32 AM. Reason : ..]

3/3/2004 12:31:24 AM

Quote :

"I do respond to some of the questions asked. As I said before, not all of the questions are worth responding to. I'm referring to the evidence itself....photographs, videos, and reports from "mainstream" sources, etc."

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/south_2.mpg
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/010912%20-%203rd%20clip.mpg
http://guardian.911review.org/WTC/Seven/fake-explosion.htm

All you respond with is the completely unfounded snippet about a CNN archivist claiming the time is correct. Forget about that because its completely hearsay and therefore not remotely close to proof or evidence.

BOTH videos show the physical proof of the "mystery cloud" not being in existence before the South Tower collapse and the emergence of the cloud after the collpase that the animated gif is supposed to be showing before the tower falling. Then there is the clear photo evidence that the conspiracy theorist uses to show that the gif is a fake (or myth). Are you saying that he is lying? Well, if thats the case then all the other theories he presents (which you also support) must be flawed and full of lies.

This is a question about physical evidence and logic. THe kind of question that you say you answer.

I'm not getting my hopes up... I've sent him several PM's like the one quoted below just looking for an answer and he never replies.

Quote :

" You still believe that 8 frame animation shows a bomb explosion before the fall of the tower? Even though the full length and uneditted or cropped video footage and pictures that everyone else has shows the clip is showing after the tower has fallen? Even though one of your own has pointed out with resounding picture evidence that the gif is a fake and he himself doesn't understand why its being continuously spread about when there are "bigger questions to answer"? Are you just ashamed to admit you were incorrect or fooled on something? DO you worry that it only increases the likelihood of people writing you off as incorrect if this one detail is proven wrong? You continuosly avoid the issue and try to divert attention to other comments or posts and refuse to acknowledge what you are seeing with your own eyes."

3/3/2004 12:34:51 AM

Quote :

"Are you saying that he is lying? Well, if thats the case then all the other theories he presents (which you also support) must be flawed and full of lies. --msb2ncsu "

That is flawed logic....SERIOUSLY flawed

You claim that just because a person is wrong about one thing, they must be wrong about EVERY SINGLE OTHER THING they ever say or claim. That is flat out RIDICULOUS.

[Edited on March 3, 2004 at 12:47 AM. Reason : ..]

3/3/2004 12:38:52 AM

i'm convinced

3/3/2004 12:42:10 AM

Quote :

"You still believe that 8 frame animation shows a bomb explosion before the fall of the tower? --msb2ncsu"

As far as the explostion at WTC 6 goes and the CNN animated GIF goes, I already satisfactorally answered you on this exact question (at least once)....but you keep pressing me on this issue for whatever reason....so here is my answer...AGAIN.

The analysis on the website you reference supposedly proving the CNN animated GIF to be dust from the south tower collapse may or may not be correct. I told you before...and I'll tell you again....I believe the American Free Press article when it says that CNN confirmed that footage of a mysterious explosion near WTC 6 was shot at 9:04am....and that a witness confirmed an explosion in WTC around that time.

For now, I believe that the CNN animated GIF is of that mysterious explosion. If, however, I later see evidence to prove otherwise, I will change my view.

[Edited on March 3, 2004 at 12:49 AM. Reason : ..]

3/3/2004 12:43:34 AM

Quote :

"Why do you insist that I must add my own opinion of the evidence? The evidence speaks for itself. --salisburyboy"

I don't care about your evidence. I could spend all day running through your doctored pictures, 2 frame animated gifs, and out-of-context clips and not see a damn thing that looked real, let alone be convinced of any wrong-doing.

I want to hear your own, honest to god, personal opinion on the CLAIMS THAT YOU MAKE. Not the evidence. Lets say you claim that the two planes had bombs in them. They struck the towers, yes, but it was the bombs inside that caused the serious damage. Ok. Then lets say you post up a quote from a webpage you found that you seem to think says lots of nice things about 9/11. Dandy.

Now here's the kicker. I want to hear your personal opinion on the claim you've made, and on the webpage you've posted. If you can't think up one original thought on a subject THAT YOU YOURSELF HAVE BROUGHT UP, then you do not deserve to speak on that subject.

Furthermore, if you want to claim that many of the questions and contradictions you see on this board are silly and not worth responding to, again, fine. Granted, a lot of insults get thrown at you. But logical and sound arguments are still being made against your claims. You claim your evidence speaks for itself. Well, if I, or msb2ncsu or 1337 b4k4 make an argument against that evidence and discredit it in some way, don't you think you should try to make a rebuttel? (rebuttal? I don't feel like looking that up...)

[Ok, ignore the following below, noticed a new response from you that further explained your position on this. Nice and dandy, but do you have any proof that the American Free Press recorded that at the time you say?]

On that note, I notice you did attempt a response to 1337 b4k4 about his explosion question. Good, but I believe he was asking about that animated gif from page 16 or 17 with the whole "mystery explosion" and "light grey cloud vs dark grey smoke" etc etc, not about WTC6.

Quote :

"but I don't waste my time responding to silly questions and silly insults. --salisburyboy"

Yea, neither would I, but not all of it is silly stuff. Look closer man. We are trying to ask you serious questions, but when you manage to ignore, avoid, or just plain not see them, it becomes rather frustrating, so we must resort to CAPS, bold, you get the idea...

Quote :

"and I think that the vast majority of people here DO take me seriously. --salisburyboy"

And I would say the vast majority just choose not to say anything, or have stopped reading this thread long ago. Hell, if I'm wrong, and there really are salisburyboy supporters here, c'mon, say something. Defend him, agree with him, something. No need for an insult contest, but it'd be nice to have a discussion with more than one person on the conspiracy side (for lack of better term).

And all of this relates to your other threads, btw. Not just this one.

[Edited on March 3, 2004 at 12:55 AM. Reason : had to change it because of a post made while I was typing this...]

3/3/2004 12:52:02 AM

I said I believe that most people take me seriously, NOT that most people agree with me.

[Edited on March 3, 2004 at 12:57 AM. Reason : ..]

3/3/2004 12:55:33 AM

Fair enough. But I didn't use the word supporters to refer to people that agreed with you. Even if they just take you seriously, I'd like to see them raise a hand.

3/3/2004 12:56:51 AM

Quote :

"On that note, I notice you did attempt a response to 1337 b4k4 about his explosion question. Good, but I believe he was asking about that animated gif from page 16 or 17 with the whole "mystery explosion" and "light grey cloud vs dark grey smoke" etc etc, not about WTC6. --methos "

The animated gif is related to WTC 6, because I was saying that I believe the animated gif is of a "mystery explosion" at WTC 6. So, I did respond to the question he was asking.

[Edited on March 3, 2004 at 12:59 AM. Reason : ..]

3/3/2004 12:57:54 AM

Quote :

"That is flawed logic....SERIOUSLY flawed You claim that just because a person is wrong about one thing, they must be wrong about EVERY SINGLE OTHER THING they ever say or claim. That is flat out RIDICULOUS."

I'm just using the logic you use when defaming every other major legit news source.

Quote :

"As far as the explostion at WTC 6 goes and the CNN animated GIF goes, I already satisfactorally answered you on this exact question (at least once)....but you keep pressing me on this issue for whatever reason....so here is my answer...AGAIN."

My point is that you don't answer it. You dance around it and pretend like you are addressing what I ask.

Quote :

"I believe the American Free Press article when it says that CNN confirmed that footage of a mysterious explosion near WTC 6 was shot at 9:04am....and that a witness confirmed an explosion in WTC around that time."

Why? It is the absolute only source in the world that has ever cited such a notion. Not a single other publication, no matter how out there it might be has run such a story. No evidence of this CNN confirmation has ever been provided either. Its like if I just said "A CNN contact has verified for me my beliefthat [user]sailsburyboy[/user] is in fact a child molesting Catholic priest." Its bullshit. I mean shit, you even say that CNN is not reliable so how can someone else use that as supposed verification and you believe it now yet you won't believe anything else they actually report and can be seen with your own eyes?

Quote :

"For now, I believe that the CNN animated GIF is of that mysterious explosion. If, however, I later see evidence to prove otherwise, I will change my view."

How come this explosion and its residual smoke/dust in the air can not be seen in any other videos or photos of the towers prior to the collapse. Its only in the falsified animated gif. THe other videos and photos cover the alleged time period and subsequent time yet there is no evidence that it ever existed at the 9:04 time.

3/3/2004 1:06:39 AM

^^

Yes, I know. You posted your most recent explanation of your position on that while I was still writing my nice long post. I edited it just after I posted it. New part is in []s.

Quote :

"[Ok, ignore the following below, noticed a new response from you that further explained your position on this. Nice and dandy, but do you have any proof that the American Free Press recorded that at the time you say?] On that note, I notice you did attempt a response to 1337 b4k4 about his explosion question. Good, but I believe he was asking about that animated gif from page 16 or 17 with the whole "mystery explosion" and "light grey cloud vs dark grey smoke" etc etc, not about WTC6."

All in all, your recent responses (to the questions not the insults are much appreciated and a good start, keep it coming.

[Edited on March 3, 2004 at 1:09 AM. Reason : had to add a ^ ]

3/3/2004 1:08:43 AM

Quote :

"I want to hear your own, honest to god, personal opinion on the CLAIMS THAT YOU MAKE. Not the evidence. Lets say you claim that the two planes had bombs in them. ...I want to hear your personal opinion on the claim you've made, and on the webpage you've posted. If you can't think up one original thought on a subject THAT YOU YOURSELF HAVE BROUGHT UP, then you do not deserve to speak on that subject. --methos"

I HAVE given my own opinion on these matters. I have done it numerous times in this thread...but apparantly not enough by your standards. Here is the bottom line. I believe that the official government and media story on 9/11 is a lie. I believe that the U.S. government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks. I have many other opinions (and have given many, many of them on this thread....go back and read them if you wish...I'm not going to repeat all of them now).

Secondly, I don't understand why you are interesed in my opinion over the evidence. Is my opinion more important than the evidence? Of course not. The evidence is of primary importance if we are interested in knowing the truth about what really happened on 9/11 and who is responsible. THAT is what I am interested in....and that is why I focus on presenting the evidence.

Now, is that what you are interested in? If not, perhaps that is why you people are asking me all these questions...to sidetrack the discussion and thread away from a focus on the evidence.

3/3/2004 1:10:39 AM

Quote :

"I'm just using the logic you use when defaming every other major legit news source. --msb2ncsu"

I don't think so. What I HAVE said is that the mainstream news organizations are largely unreliable on important issues...because they spread deception and are silent on important issues.

I have not said that major news organizations lie on EVERY SINGLE THING they report. That would be ridiculous. Of course they can report the truth some of the times...and they report the facts/truth a lot of the time. But they also lie often and are silent on important issues very often.

[Edited on March 3, 2004 at 1:19 AM. Reason : ..]

3/3/2004 1:17:15 AM

Quote :

"As far as the explostion at WTC 6 goes and the CNN animated GIF goes, I already satisfactorally answered you on this exact question (at least once)....but you keep pressing me on this issue for whatever reason....so here is my answer...AGAIN."

My point is that you don't answer it. You dance around it and pretend like you are addressing what I ask.

Quote :

"I believe the American Free Press article when it says that CNN confirmed that footage of a mysterious explosion near WTC 6 was shot at 9:04am....and that a witness confirmed an explosion in WTC around that time."

Why? It is the absolute only source in the world that has ever cited such a notion. Not a single other publication, no matter how out there it might be has run such a story. No evidence of this CNN confirmation has ever been provided either. Its like if I just said "A CNN contact has verified for me my beliefthat [user]sailsburyboy[/user] is in fact a child molesting Catholic priest." Its bullshit. I mean shit, you even say that CNN is not reliable so how can someone else use that as supposed verification and you believe it now yet you won't believe anything else they actually report and can be seen with your own eyes?

Quote :

"For now, I believe that the CNN animated GIF is of that mysterious explosion. If, however, I later see evidence to prove otherwise, I will change my view."

How come this explosion and its residual smoke/dust in the air can not be seen in any other videos or photos of the towers prior to the collapse. Its only in the falsified animated gif. THe other videos and photos cover the alleged time period and subsequent time yet there is no evidence that it ever existed at the 9:04 time.

3/3/2004 1:18:47 AM

Quote :

"My point is that you don't answer it. You dance around it and pretend like you are addressing what I ask. --msb2ncsu"

No...I DO answer you....then you come in later as you did above and falsely characterize that legitimate answer as "not a real answer."

[Edited on March 3, 2004 at 1:20 AM. Reason : ..]

3/3/2004 1:20:00 AM

Quote :

"How come this explosion and its residual smoke/dust in the air can not be seen in any other videos or photos of the towers prior to the collapse. Its only in the falsified animated gif. THe other videos and photos cover the alleged time period and subsequent time yet there is no evidence that it ever existed at the 9:04 time. --msb2ncsu"

I already responed to a very similar question by 1337 b4k4 as the one above. And, I'm sure you believe that I must respond to this question as well (ie, type it out AGAIN) or else you will come in later and say I am "dodging valid questions", am "ceding the argument", yada, yada, yada....right?

Just because you haven't seen a video or photo, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. As far as I know, the videos of the time period during and after the attacks have not been aired on TV since 9/11. Even when they were aired on 9/11, the video could have been on "delay" and portions of the video could have been edited.

[Edited on March 3, 2004 at 1:28 AM. Reason : ..]

3/3/2004 1:25:29 AM

Quote :

"I said I believe that most people take me seriously, NOT that most people agree with me."

I take you serious only in the sense that I know you truely believe this. I've talked with you over PM and know that this isn't just for shits and giggles. Thats what bothers me so much about your claims. You can't seem to acknowledge what is clearly before you and instead cling to theories with shoddy "evidence" and ludicrous stories. It worries me.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Uh oh, Snopes is on the case!

[Edited on March 3, 2004 at 1:26 AM. Reason : .]

3/3/2004 1:25:50 AM

Quote :

"I already responed to a very similar question by 1337 b4k4 as the one above. And, I'm sure you believe that I must respond to this question as well (ie, type it out AGAIN) or else you will come in later and say I am "dodging valid questions", am "ceding the argument", yada, yada, yada, right? Just because you haven't seen a video or photo, doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

But you aren't answering it. "Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist?" I mean what kind of bullshit is that. The issue is that there IS video and photo of the same time period that shows the cloud was not there when you think it was. So this video that you are waiting to see is already there it just doesn't show what you want it to.

Quote :

"As far as I know, the videos of the time period during and after the attacks have not been aired on TV since 9/11. Even when they were aired on 9/11, the video could have been on "delay" and portions of the video could have been edited."

Come on Sal... you are deciding to base all your beliefs on something you can't see and video that has NEVER been seen by anyone yet (except in one highly refuted 8 frame gif), and yet you choose ignore the many videos and photos that do show there is no evidence of any such cloud ever existing prior to the collapse. Do you really think that makes sense?

[Edited on March 3, 2004 at 1:34 AM. Reason : .]

3/3/2004 1:30:29 AM

^^ uh oh, the gov't has gotten to snopes!

3/3/2004 1:31:08 AM

Quote :

"I take you serious only in the sense that I know you truely believe this. I've talked with you over PM and know that this isn't just for shits and giggles. Thats what bothers me so much about your claims. You can't seem to acknowledge what is clearly before you and instead cling to theories with shoddy "evidence" and ludicrous stories. It worries me. --msb2ncsu"

So, am I supposed to believe that you REALLY are "worried" about me? If you think I am just some "wacko" or "nut", why wouldn't you just not care about what I believe and let me go on in my "paranoia"? Are you contacting Alex Jones and the authors of the websites that question the official 9/11 story to check on them to see how they are doing?...to check on their mental health?

Or are you worried about something else?...like the truth about 9/11?

3/3/2004 1:33:23 AM

Quote :

"But you aren't answering it. "Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist?" I mean what kind of bullshit is that. The issue is that there IS video and photo of the same time period that shows the cloud was not there when you think it was. So this video that you are waiting to see is already there it just doesn't show what you want it to. --msb2ncsu"

I edited my response. Maybe you didn't see it. Here it is:

Quote :

"Just because you haven't seen a video or photo, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. As far as I know, the videos of the time period during and after the attacks have not been aired on TV since 9/11. Even when they were aired on 9/11, the video could have been on "delay" and portions of the video could have been edited. "

Also, what you think is video of a given time period may in fact not be that...but rather edited video to remove evidence of the explosion at WTC 6.

[Edited on March 3, 2004 at 1:44 AM. Reason : ..]

3/3/2004 1:36:12 AM

Quote :

"So, am I supposed to believe that you REALLY are "worried" about me? If you think I am just some "wacko" or "nut", why wouldn't you just not care about what I believe and let me go on in my "paranoia"? Are you contacting Alex Jones and the authors of the websites that question the official 9/11 story to check on them to see how they are doing?...to check on their mental health?"

I don't contact the others because I don't have readily available communication with them. It worries me because your behavior is reminiscent of certain social/psych behaviors that are detrimental to the individual and often eventually others. People that choose to ignore reality and cling to fantasy. Its not healthy. As a Christian I'm supposed to care and at times its hard to.

Quote :

"I already responed to a very similar question by 1337 b4k4 as the one above. And, I'm sure you believe that I must respond to this question as well (ie, type it out AGAIN) or else you will come in later and say I am "dodging valid questions", am "ceding the argument", yada, yada, yada, right? Just because you haven't seen a video or photo, doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

But you aren't answering it. "Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist?" I mean what kind of bullshit is that. The issue is that there IS video and photo of the same time period that shows the cloud was not there when you think it was. So this video that you are waiting to see is already there it just doesn't show what you want it to.

Quote :

"As far as I know, the videos of the time period during and after the attacks have not been aired on TV since 9/11. Even when they were aired on 9/11, the video could have been on "delay" and portions of the video could have been edited."

Come on Sal... you are deciding to base all your beliefs on something you can't see and video that has NEVER been seen by anyone yet (except in one highly refuted 8 frame gif), and yet you choose ignore the many videos and photos that do show there is no evidence of any such cloud ever existing prior to the collapse. Do you really think that makes sense?

Quote :

"Also, what you think are video of a given time period may in fact not be that...but rather edited video to remove evidence of the explosion at WTC 6."

No, the editting of that many independent sources is IMPOSSIBLE. Its also possible that aliens utilized time splicing to hide their crafts entering the NYC area and used a tractor beam to guide the planes into the building. There is no video evidence to proof they didn't and their use of intradimensional travel and time shifting doesn't even require the video to be editted. This is just bad.

[Edited on March 3, 2004 at 1:43 AM. Reason : .]

3/3/2004 1:39:51 AM

Bed time for me.

3/3/2004 1:44:03 AM

Quote :

"Secondly, I don't understand why you are interesed in my opinion over the evidence. Is my opinion more important than the evidence? --salisburyboy"

Listen. Please, for just once would you listen to what I say? I said "your opinion on the claims that you make, not the evidence. Go back up and read the text that you quoted from me (eleven posts ago...maybe twelve by the time I get this posted). Read it! I never said I wanted to hear your opinion on the evidence. I said I wanted to hear your opinion on your claims and the websites you post.

Ok, maybe technically the websites are your evidence, but they are more than that. They are your sources. And I'd like to know WHY you consider them to be credible, trustworthy sources.

AGAIN, claims and websites/sources, not the evidence. No evidence. Evidence out. Evidence not in discussion. Ok?

3/3/2004 1:54:02 AM

Quote :

"More from the interview of retired Army colonel Donn de Grand-Pre, including the claim that the planes that hit the WTC and Pentagon had no hijackers: "In the interview with Jones, de Grand-Pre made several stunning assertions, among them: There were no hijackers on the 9/11 killer jets. And he said the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Richard Myers) agrees with him. In response to a caller to Alex Jones' radio show, de Grand-Pre noted: "... the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs himself has agreed, there were no hijackers. There were no cell phone calls. Everybody aboard that aircraft, pilots and crew, were unconscious within 8 to 18 minutes after take-off. And you can take it from there. I've got it covered in books 2 and 3, what actually happened." "These planes were being piloted by remote control, probably an AWACs aircraft taking over that airplane or airplanes or drones, unmanned drones. And flying them at 5 and 8 G-force that no pilot could withstand. So, in short, and if you read books 2 and 3, you will discover how and why this came about." The 9/11 planes that took off full of passengers are now at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. "And I'm telling you that we are knowledgeably speculating," said de Grand-Pre in response to another caller. "Those aircraft carrying crew and passengers went over the Atlantic and that was all she wrote." http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904nohijackers.html""

- salisburyboy

Quote :

"so if no one was conscious aboard, everyone dead or unconscious already, how did so many families receive telephone calls from their loved ones on board those planes? explain that. next your gonna tell me the calls were faked and that it wasnt really the family members, they were clones using voiceboxes. gimme a damn break. - brianj320"

[Edited on March 3, 2004 at 1:37 PM. Reason : damn quotes]

3/3/2004 1:36:13 PM

^
I don't know ALL the answers, and I have never claimed to have ALL the answers. I don't know the answer to the question of whether the supposed phone calls actually took place. I'm not the one claiming the phone calls were not made. That claim is from de Grand-Pre, the retired Army colonel, in the article (http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904nohijackers.html). I posted the article for your consideration. Contact de Grand-Pre if you are really that interested in his claim.

[Edited on March 3, 2004 at 2:09 PM. Reason : ..]

3/3/2004 2:02:01 PM

Do you think his claim has any merit? Tell us your opinion.

3/3/2004 3:37:37 PM

On FEMA and Sept 11:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/fema.htm

On Israellis staying home Sept 11:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.htm

Quote :

"Also, what you think is video of a given time period may in fact not be that...but rather edited video to remove evidence of the explosion at WTC 6. "

Or consequently since you can't seem to find another source to support the claim, it may not be a video of the time you say it is (we're still waiting for you to show us the second tower. Come on, it's not that hard) and it was edited to make it look like there was an explosion. You've already posted fakes and edits before, what makes you think this is any different?

3/3/2004 4:34:07 PM

Quote :

"We made several modifications to the building as part of that renovation that we think helped save people's lives," says Lee Evey, who runs a billion-dollar project to renovate the Pentagon. They’ve been working on it since 1993. The first section was five days from being finished when the terrorists hit it with the plane."

OH MY GOD!!! WE KNEW WAY BACK IN 1993 THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE ATTACKED THE WEEK OF SEPT 11, 2001, AND HAD A PLAN TO REINFORCE THE ONE SECTION OF THE PENTAGON BIN LADEN TOLD US HE WOULD AIM FOR!!! IT'S ALL PROOF!!!'

god you suck at life...see how stupid that sounds? now go back and look at all the shit you've posted...it's the same kind of crap

3/4/2004 5:39:11 AM

More from the interview with de Grand-Pre:

Quote :

""The 9-11 activity and horrific destruction of US property and lives was intentionally meant to trigger a psychological and patriotic reaction on the part of the US citizens, which is paving the way for "combined UN activity" (using the fig leaf of NATO) for striking key targets in both the Middle East/ South Asia and the Balkans. The goal continues to be ultimate destruction of all national sovereignty and establishment of a global government. "The trigger for the 9-11 activity was the imminent and unstoppable world-wide financial collapse, which can only be prevented (temporarily) by a major war, perhaps to become known as WW 111. To bring it off (one more time), martial law will probably be imposed in the United States. de Grand-Pre had also sounded the same themes on Jackie Patru's Radio Sweet Liberty Webcast. "The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation against the United States, requiring the utmost professional military skill in command, communications and control. It was flawless in timing, in the choice of selected aircraft to be used as guided missiles, and in the coordinated delivery of those missiles to their pre-selected targets. http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904nohijackers.html "

3/4/2004 10:54:38 AM

Good site: http://www.libertythink.com/

Quote :

""The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor" (2000) --Project for a New American Century "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." --David Rockefeller "Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death." --Adolf Hitler"

3/4/2004 12:28:55 PM

Retired Army colonel Donn de Grande-Pre claims flight 93 was shot down:

Quote :

" Flight 93, the jetliner that supposedly crashed in Pennsylvania after courageous passengers struggled with armed hijackers, was shot down by the North Dakota Air Guard. "I know the pilot who fired those two missiles to take down 93," de Grand-Pre insisted, adding that the order to shoot down the plane came from the Adjutant General of North Dakota. http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904nohijackers.html"

I would add here that I have read reports that the debris from flight 93 was found over a wide area (not in a confined area as you would expect in a plane crash).

[Edited on March 4, 2004 at 12:33 PM. Reason : ..]

3/4/2004 12:32:50 PM

Wow, that's some pretty inflammatory stuff. What's your take on it?

3/4/2004 12:33:13 PM

Quote :

""Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death." --Adolf Hitler""

I guess you can blame Hitler for the success of the Jews then. He put a lot of fear in them, and as you say they now control everything so perhaps Hitler was actually a puppet of the supreme secret Jewish ruling party carrying out their will so the Jewish people would be driven enough to take over the worlkd in the latter half of the century.

3/4/2004 12:35:13 PM

Quote :

"I guess you can blame Hitler for the success of the Jews then. He put a lot of fear in them, and as you say they now control everything... --msb2ncsu"

That is a LIE. I have not said that "the jews control everything", and you can't find a quote from me saying that.

Please continue with your attempts to slander me and spread misinformation about me.

[Edited on March 4, 2004 at 12:47 PM. Reason : ..]

3/4/2004 12:47:09 PM

General Tommy Franks admits he was given orders to prepare to go after the Taliban within HOURS after 9/11 attacks:

Quote :

"Franks said that within hours of the attacks, he was given orders to prepare to root out the Taliban in Afghanistan and to capture bin Laden. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml"

Hours, huh? That sure was quick!

[Edited on March 4, 2004 at 12:59 PM. Reason : ..]

3/4/2004 12:59:13 PM

^^Durr . . . he wasn't claiming that you believed that statement. He was putting it in as a fact. Guess this just follows your trend of not listening to people and hearing only what you want to hear.

Plus, your whole statement about that airliner being shot down completely undermines your entire argument. If it were true (and I believe that there is a possibility), it only proves that the planes were hijacked by terrorists and the government tried to stop it. Holy crap you're amazing.

Man, he's even arguing with himself now .

[Edited on March 4, 2004 at 1:01 PM. Reason : ^]

3/4/2004 1:00:52 PM

Why would a north dakota ANG unit be ordered to shoot down a plane in Penn?

Quote :

"I would add here that I have read reports that the debris from flight 93 was found over a wide area (not in a confined area as you would expect in a plane crash). "

YOu do realize a plane crash area can span 5 miles right? You would think that one of the witnesses who saw 93 comming down would have seen it explode no?

Quote :

"Hours, huh? That sure was quick! "

not really. hours is anything less than 24 hours. And when something like this happens, you get all your people on it and you say "give me anything and everything that could be a lead and I want it yesterday". Besides, if clinton left bush the plans for this, don't you think it's possible they figured this was the most likely culprit based on intelligence?

No of course not, common sense doesn't apply when it could be a government conspiracy

3/4/2004 1:09:58 PM

Quote :

" General Tommy Franks admits he was given orders to prepare to go after the Taliban within HOURS after 9/11 attacks: Quote : "Franks said that within hours of the attacks, he was given orders to prepare to root out the Taliban in Afghanistan and to capture bin Laden. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml" Hours, huh? That sure was quick! "

Sounds interesting. Could you elaborate? What are your thoughts?

3/4/2004 2:49:45 PM

Quote :

"Plus, your whole statement about that airliner being shot down completely undermines your entire argument. If it were true (and I believe that there is a possibility), it only proves that the planes were hijacked by terrorists and the government tried to stop it. Holy crap you're amazing. --CapnObvious"

Not at all.

Just because they shot down an aircraft over Pennsylvania does not mean that the aircraft was hijacked by islamic terrorists as the government says happened. You are making an assumption. An aircraft could be shot down for any number of reasons, and just because an aircraft is shot down does not mean it was hijacked.

[Edited on March 4, 2004 at 3:48 PM. Reason : ..]

3/4/2004 3:47:39 PM

Why would a N. Dakota ANG unit be ordered to shoot down a plane in Penn?

3/4/2004 4:07:08 PM

^^ So let me get this straight.. the government used planes under their control to craash into the WTC and Pentagon (or of course if could have been missiles or a big laser thing) and then they shoot down a regular airliner to show they are doing something and fake cell phone calls (with latest voice and personality reproduction software) from the loved ones aboard that flight to their friends and family so they could make everyone else think the plane was actually hijacked and the people on the plane tried to stop it and the plane was subsequently intentionally crashed. Or were the people on the plane that the government shot down actually all agents that willingly went on the flight knowing they would die and called up their families and lied to them so people would think there was a hijacking, all to further the government's true goal of achieving a police state?

Wow, thats deep man.

(Would like to note that this is why we want you to speak for yourself more... you through so much theorist crap at us that we aren't even sure what the big picture is you are trying to paint. If anything it seems you just want as much disinformation out as possible so as to create confusion and distrust in the governement.)

[Edited on March 4, 2004 at 4:09 PM. Reason : .]

3/4/2004 4:07:12 PM

You lose again - you gotta do your research before you start quoting shit

Quote :

""I know the pilot who fired those two missiles to take down 93," de Grand-Pre insisted, adding that the order to shoot down the plane came from the Adjutant General of North Dakota."

The North Dakota Office of the Adjutant General is charged with the control of the military
department of the State of North Dakota. The office is responsible for all military stores held by
the state. The Adjutant General acts upon the desire and the instruction of the Governor, who is
commander in chief of the military forces of the state. The mission of the National Guard is to
maintain peace, order, and public safety within the state when so ordered by the Governor.

So, please explain how the fuck a reserve officer in the North Dakota National Guard ordered a plane to fire weapons over Pennsylvania? EASY - HE DIDN'T NOR CAN HE!!!

God you suck so bad....

edit: i see others called you out on this, but wanted to make it specifically clear in the hopes that you would actually try to respond, thou we all know you'll just ignore it like the little bitch that you are

[Edited on March 4, 2004 at 4:22 PM. Reason : .]

3/4/2004 4:11:59 PM

I'm confused. Flight 93 was reported to be hijacked, which would explain why it deviated from it's flight plan and started heading towards Washington, DC. If it wasn't hijacked, why did it divert towards DC? Why would the government shoot down a plane involved in their own conspiracy? What do you think about these points?

3/4/2004 4:14:32 PM

Quote :

"Why would a N. Dakota ANG unit be ordered to shoot down a plane in Penn?"

http://www.misu.nodak.edu/redgreen/2001_2002/may2_02/commencement.html

Does this guy not sound like the kind of man the government would want to handle such a vital mission as the beginning steps of scaring the country into a police state? I mean the ND Air National Guard is most undoubtably the most firece and most revered fighting force in the country. Why would you have Air Force special ops or perhaps a Top Secret clearance Navy fighter jet pilot thats been groomed for missions that are beyond the normal call of duty when you could have a guy do it who spends most of the year as a dairy farmer in Fargo. Its the perfect cover!

3/4/2004 4:20:11 PM

Quote :

"I'm confused. Flight 93 was reported to be hijacked, which would explain why it deviated from it's flight plan and started heading towards Washington, DC. If it wasn't hijacked, why did it divert towards DC? Why would the government shoot down a plane involved in their own conspiracy? What do you think about these points?"

I ALREADY ANSWERED THIS ONE!!! How many times must I repeat myself?

3/4/2004 4:22:47 PM

this thread is just bunch of conspiracy theory and pointless yelling. let it die by not arguing any more. if you think you've already disproved the conspiracy claims then theres no point in arguing w/ someone who wont be convienced(other was you are just helping spread his msg and keeping a public eye on it longer). if you've taken 19 pages and haven't disproven it then just see what his msg has to offer and move on.

either way its about time for this thread to die, i will have little respect for anyone who posts after this.

Quote :

"He feels like he is really getting the word out there about "the truth". "

And your helping him, you brought it back to the top by saying its a dumb thread. If you really want to know more about it from him, have private discusions w/ him, they will be much more organized and one on one.
If you think hes right then the msg you agree with is out there, thread over. If you think hes wrong, let the thread die b/c if you can't convience him hes wrong in 19 pgs you wont be able to, thread over. If you think there might be truth in what hes saying talk to him privately in an organized fashion b/c its not working in this thread its just ppl yelling back and forth and not responding to each others questions

plz let this die w/ GARnREG's post


[Edited on March 4, 2004 at 4:45 PM. Reason : [/thread] (i edited as opposed to posting to help the thread die sooner)]

3/4/2004 4:29:23 PM

^ Just to note... he won't stop posting no matter what we do. These threads he starts are his obsession. He feels like he is really getting the word out there about "the truth". If we delete it then he'll start a new one it in a few months it will be back up to 19 pages.

I only come here for the chuckles now.

3/4/2004 4:34:45 PM

Sorry, You must have posted when I was posting.

The thing is, this is a messed up thread. I can't believe it's gone on for 19 pages. So far, salisburyboy has "shown" us that the government had planned this all along. Bush saw the attack from a closed circuit feed while talking at a school assembly. You'd think somebody else would see the feed. That a missle hit the Pentagon, because using another plane would be too obvious. That WTC 6 and 7 were blown up with a bomb. I guess taking out two enourmous skyscrapers wasn't awesome enough. That there were bombs attached to the planes going into the WTC towers. I guess in case the towers didn't fall. But when they did, there wasn't an explosion. It just fell. That the plane in Pennsylvania diverted for the hell of it and was shot down for the hell of it. And no explanantion of motive! Just regurgitated "facts."

I'm like you, msb2ncsu. I want the big picture, too.

3/4/2004 4:40:10 PM

^^ and ^


oh no supplanter doesn't respect you guys no more, i guess you'll have to kill yourselves

3/4/2004 4:46:50 PM