^ Oh no, he's got you too now!

3/4/2004 4:48:22 PM

looks like the little fucker got scared of answering questions that made sense and decided to start spouting off about other bullshit

3/5/2004 1:54:21 AM

the truth is out there. goto http://www.fulloshit.com.org.fr

3/5/2004 11:02:45 AM

come on out and play - we miss you and the joy we get from knowing that natural selection has not worked in the case of your family's reproduction

3/5/2004 8:35:15 PM

More interesting information:

Quote :

"Canadian Exile Speaks Out About Possible 9-11 Cover-up Delmart Edward Joseph Michael Vreeland II is a Lieutenant who worked for the United States Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). ...In June and July of 2001 Vreeland wrote a 37 page document addressed and intended to be sent to Admiral Vernon Clark, Chief of Naval Operations. It recounted the information on the intercepted documents and was to serve as a warning of the coming attacks. http://www.sierratimes.com/02/04/19/araw041902.htm"

[Edited on March 13, 2004 at 12:13 PM. Reason : ..]

3/13/2004 12:09:37 PM

if you want proof then why don't you ask donny rumsfeld for his piece of the plane that crashed into the pentagon

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/8178828.htm

seems rather odd to keep a piece of a plane that didn't even exist as a souveneir(sp?)

[Edited on March 13, 2004 at 12:18 PM. Reason : .]

3/13/2004 12:18:11 PM

Quote :

"The Evidence Filter Any scenario constructed to account for the events of September 11 2001 must pass a graduated test, as embodied in the following items. These fall into three classes: Suspicious circumstances 1. Four of the named hijackers were not in the United States. 2. The WTC towers collapsed without adequate heat stress. 3. Smaller aircraft accompanied Flights 77 and 93. 4. Most of the alleged hijackers were rather poor pilots. 5. Evidence of the alleged hijackers developed too quickly. 6. Westward excursion of Flights UA93 and AA77 are inexplicable as terrorists hurrying to targets." Anomalies 1. The US Air Force failed to intercept any of the flights. 2. The hijackers' names did not show up on passenger lists. 3. The hijackers' faces did not appear on boarding gate videos. 4. Black boxes were missing from all but one flight. Contradictions 1. The Pentagon was not struck by a large passenger aircraft. 2. Cellphone calls alleged to have been made by passengers were essentially impossible. A successful scenario must at least explain the contradictions and account for a majority of the anomalies. It is of course desirable that it also account for the suspicious circumstances, but no scenario need stand or fall in this regard. http://www.serendipity.li/wot/operation_pearl.htm"

3/16/2004 10:08:20 AM

Oh we back:

Quote :

"2. The WTC towers collapsed without adequate heat stress."

YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF THIS

Untill I see a fullscale duplication of the exact conditions that happened on that day, you have no proof. Hell you don't even have a model of it.

Quote :

"3. Smaller aircraft accompanied Flights 77 and 93."

Again no proof.

Quote :

"4. Most of the alleged hijackers were rather poor pilots. "

Which proves nothing

Quote :

"5. Evidence of the alleged hijackers developed too quickly. "

According to whom? Have you ever seen the type of information that can be produced if the etirety of the government and law enforcement is looking for information as to what the hell happened? You can find out a shit load of information in 24 hours.

Quote :

"6. Westward excursion of Flights UA93 and AA77 are inexplicable as terrorists hurrying to targets." "

WTF?

Quote :

"1. The US Air Force failed to intercept any of the flights. "

You yourself noted it usualy takes upwards of a half an hour to intercept a lost flight, and that's if the flight is following it's original flight path or it's last known heading. These planes did neither. I also showed earlier that the bases which you cited as being close enough to intercept had no fighter wings

Quote :

"2. The hijackers' names did not show up on passenger lists. "

Gee, you don't suppose they used fake names and IDs do you? Nah, that would be too logical.

Quote :

". The hijackers' faces did not appear on boarding gate videos."

Proof? evidence? Were all the pasengers on the planes accounted for in those videos? Did we see all their faces?

Quote :

"4. Black boxes were missing from all but one flight. "

Needle, Haystack, blackboxes are not always recovered. And I'm pretty sure they found more than one. Proof please?

Quote :

"1. The Pentagon was not struck by a large passenger aircraft. "

Debunked so many times in this thread its boring. Perdu ran the simulations to prove that it did. THere is evidence of debris and damage. You have yet to show one piece of credible evidence that a large passenger craft did not hit the pentagon. Please note that this claim also contradicts eye witness statements.

Quote :

"2. Cellphone calls alleged to have been made by passengers were essentially impossible. "

Sounds to me like you are quite wrong:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-07-15-cell-planes_x.htm

Quote :

"Currently, passengers can use their cell phones onboard planes only when the cabin door is open, or when allowed while rolling toward the gate. However, it is not unusual to spot travelers sneaking a cell call in flight."

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-501431.html?legacy=zdnn

http://www.outlook4mobility.com/commentaries/sept272001.htm

Quote :

"Some of the in-flight calls were made on airphones installed in the seats — not a cellular system. "

3/16/2004 11:18:11 AM

Possible explanation for what really happened on 9-11-01:

Quote :

"1. Four commercial passenger jets (American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175) take off and shortly after the pilots are ordered to land at a designated airport with a military presence. 2. Two previously-prepared planes (one a Boeing 767, painted up to look like a United Airlines jet and loaded with extra jet fuel) take off and are flown by remote control to intercept the flight paths of AA 11 and UA 175 so as to deceive the air traffic controllers. 3. These (substituted) jets then fly toward Manhattan; the first crashes into the North Tower and (eighteen minutes later) the second crashes into the South Tower. 4. A fighter jet (under remote control), or a cruise missile, crashes into the Pentagon. 5. Back at the airport the (innocent) passengers from three of the Boeings are transferred to the fourth (UA 93). 6. This plane takes off, flies toward Washington, and is shot down by a U.S. Air Force jet over Pennsylvania, eliminating the innocent witnesses to the diversion of the passenger planes. 7. Under cover of darkness later that evening the other three Boeings are flown by remote control out over the Atlantic, are scuttled and end up in pieces at the bottom of the ocean. http://www.serendipity.li/wot/operation_pearl.htm"

[Edited on March 16, 2004 at 11:59 AM. Reason : ..]

3/16/2004 11:58:21 AM

Quote :

"The Nose of the 'SADDLED" CRUISE MISSILE seems to have stayed intact all the way through the building and bursting out of the other side. NO WIDE BODIED JET COULD EVER REPEAT THIS FEAT. AFTER exiting the building it explodes in a firey WHITE HOT explosion. Obviously the engineers running the operation missed their cues because the Cruise missile never should have exited the building like this. It is a clue to the holograms used in this operation."

Quote :

"Click here....http://www.themedianews.com/video/Spiegel[1].TV.wmv...and witness what it looks like when a military hologram strapped to a Cruise missile flies into the World Trade Center. It is like flying into a sea of Jello. Furthermore the explosion takes place well after it would have, had it been a real airplane."

source: http://www.themedianews.com/9-11_fakenose_1.htm

[Edited on March 16, 2004 at 12:28 PM. Reason : ..]

3/16/2004 12:24:02 PM

i'll grant you, that IS a pretty weird video, but i don't know anything about the physics of it to know if it's as weird as it looks

3/16/2004 12:43:47 PM

Quote :

"Back at the airport the (innocent) passengers from three of the Boeings are transferred to the fourth (UA 93). "

How in the hell are you going to fit the passengers of 3 other airplanes onto a single one? That is way damn too many people, even if you cram them all in the isles as well as the seats.

Quote :

"4. A fighter jet (under remote control), or a cruise missile, crashes into the Pentagon."

Wasn't this settled about 10 pages ago?

Quote :

"7. Under cover of darkness later that evening the other three Boeings are flown by remote control out over the Atlantic, are scuttled and end up in pieces at the bottom of the ocean. "

Proof?

Naw, of course not, what else should I expect.

3/16/2004 12:52:53 PM

Quote :

"How in the hell are you going to fit the passengers of 3 other airplanes onto a single one? That is way damn too many people, even if you cram them all in the isles as well as the seats. "

I don't recall the actual numbers, but if I recall correctly, there 3 other planes (other than flight 93) had an unusually small number of passengers (like 60 or so on each plane) on 9-11-01.

[Edited on March 16, 2004 at 12:58 PM. Reason : ..]

3/16/2004 12:57:53 PM

Ignoring for the moment that your latest site seems to be claiming that the military flew a cruise missile with a full color 3 dimensional PERFECT hologram into a building.

The explosion does not happen well after it would have in a normal plane. As I said 10 pages ago or so and explosion will only occur when the fuel tanks are ruptured and the fuel ignites. Bear in mind that the plane is flying very fast into a building and is fully in the building when the explosion would start.

As for those pictures, I want other sources for them, they look horribly faked to me (round object leaving, triangular shaddow)

Quote :

"I don't recall the actual numbers, but if I recall correctly, there 3 other planes (other than flight 93) had an unusually small number of passengers (like 60 or so on each plane) on 9-11-01. "

PROOF FUCKNUT!. We're asking you for proof. My last post had at least 5 times where you were asked for proof. You haven't responded to one.

GIVE US PROOF

3/16/2004 1:19:17 PM

That would have to be by far the world's largest cruise missile!!

A tomahawk is barely a little over a foot in diameter

hell, a minuteman ICBM is well under 5 feet in diameter - the silos are just 12 feet wide

furthermore, what do you think cruise missile's are made of? they're metal...they explode - there is no way a cruise missile would exit a building after it exploded!

jesus christ man, seek professional help

3/17/2004 4:21:58 AM

still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one

3/18/2004 5:30:41 AM

still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one
still waiting for you to craft an explaination for this one

3/19/2004 6:38:20 AM

It can't be a missile in the video. THe warhead of cruise missiles are just barely behind the tip of the cone like here:



If that had been a missile then that nose cone would no longer exist and the several feet behind it wouldn't exist because thats wear the warhead sits in the missile.

Quote :

"It is a clue to the holograms used in this operation."

Watch that .wmv that you posted and you can see the impact of the wings. Lines of smoke and building damage at a diagonal just like the wings of the airplane were (at roughly 45 degree angles above and below the point of impact). A cruise missile is not capable of this becuase it doesnt have anything close to that sort of wingspan and a "hologram" most certainly isn't capable of causing damage where its image is. You just showed proof that it was in fact a plane. Thank you for pwnting yourself, kkthx.

3/19/2004 8:55:45 AM

"It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."

--Patrick Henry


[Edited on March 22, 2004 at 12:02 AM. Reason : ..]

3/21/2004 11:58:49 PM

good fucking answer you ignorant douche

3/22/2004 12:17:46 AM

Quote :

"It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope."

Well, at least you are coming to grips with it. Its obvious by your response that you are telling us your beliefs are just an illusion and that there would be no reason to respond to the factual thrashing of your points because it just hurts more. Its ok man, just let it go.

3/22/2004 10:00:57 AM

Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.

3/22/2004 10:16:08 AM

Technology now exists (and has for some time) to create highly realistic fake video and audio of a person saying something they didn't really say. This information (among other things, such as inaccurate translations) may make you think twice about bin Ladin's supposed "confessions" to the 9-11 attacks:

Quote :

"Digital morphing — voice, video, and photo — has come of age, available for use in psychological operations. PSYOPS, as the military calls it, seek to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations to pursue national and battlefield objectives. To some, PSYOPS is a backwater military discipline of leaflet dropping and radio propaganda. To a growing group of information war technologists, it is the nexus of fantasy and reality. Being able to manufacture convincing audio or video, they say, might be the difference in a successful military operation or coup. Pentagon planners started to discuss digital morphing after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Covert operators kicked around the idea of creating a computer-faked videotape of Saddam Hussein crying or showing other such manly weaknesses, or in some sexually compromising situation. The nascent plan was for the tapes to be flooded into Iraq and the Arab world. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm"

But, the U.S. military would never consider using this PSYOPS trickery on the American people, right?

Quote :

"Mike Talk (properly known as MikeTalk) is a computer program - a ''video-realistic text-to-audiovisual speech synthesiser", to be exact - and it makes videos of people saying things they never said. The software, created by MIT scientist Tomaso Poggio and PhD student Tony Ezzat, analyses video of a person talking. It learns facial expressions and mouth movements. It can then put words in the person's mouth - or, in tech-speak, be fed ''any typed sentence and produce as output an audio-visual movie of a face enunciating that sentence". Unlike earlier computer animations, MIT's technology is more realistic and much faster. The final result, the pair say on their Web site, ''should look like it was a video camera recording of a talking human subject". http://smh.com.au/articles/2002/05/16/1021415016681.html"

[Edited on March 22, 2004 at 11:54 AM. Reason : ..]

3/22/2004 11:44:11 AM

On the military's consideration of use of holograms (Washington Post article):

Quote :

"What if the U.S. projected a holographic image of Allah floating over Baghdad urging the Iraqi people and Army to rise up against Saddam, a senior Air Force officer asked in 1990? According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air. But doing so over the skies of Iraq? To project such a hologram over Baghdad on the order of several hundred feet, they calculated, would take a mirror more than a mile square in space, as well as huge projectors and power sources. And besides, investigators came back, what does Allah look like? The Gulf War hologram story might be dismissed were it not the case that washingtonpost.com has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS application. The "Holographic Projector" is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to "project information power from space ... for special operations deception missions." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm"

[Edited on March 22, 2004 at 12:06 PM. Reason : ..]

3/22/2004 11:46:21 AM

U.S. planned military action against "al-Queda" in Afghanistan BEFORE the 9-11 attacks:

Quote :

"US planned to hit bin Laden ahead of September 11 By David Rennie in Washington 05/08/2002 America had detailed plans to "roll back" al-Qa'eda and capture Osama bin Laden a year before the September 11 attacks, it was reported yesterday. But no action was taken, first by Bill Clinton as president, then by the incoming administration, amid political and bureaucratic squabbles. The plans were finally approved a week before September 11, after a lengthy policy review ordered by President George W Bush, Time magazine reported yesterday. One senior official acknowledged that the proposals inherited from the Clinton administration amounted to "everything we've done since" September 11. The plans included sending US special forces to Afghanistan on a "search and destroy" mission for bin Laden, and attempts by the CIA to recruit tribal leaders to attack the al-Qa'eda chief. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/05/walq05.xml"

Quote :

"US 'planned attack on Taleban' By the BBC's George Arney Tuesday, 18 September, 2001 A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm"

[Edited on March 22, 2004 at 12:07 PM. Reason : ..]

3/22/2004 12:05:59 PM

Good resource on the subject of 9-11, outlined with links to "mainstream" sources:

http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/9-11list.html

[Edited on March 22, 2004 at 12:10 PM. Reason : ..]

3/22/2004 12:10:04 PM

Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.Sal, I don't suppose you have any plans on addressing the holes in your theories since we're being kind enough to address those in ours.

3/22/2004 12:44:23 PM

bored, so here's a salisburyboy drinking game. Never tried one of these before, so feel free to adjust number of shots, or add new stuff.


every new thread, 3 shots

THEORIES:
new theory post, 0.5 shot
post that includes still photo as evidence, 1 shot
post that includes animated gif as evidence, 3 shots
post that includes link to actual movie/video, 2 shots
post includes link to geocities site, 4 shots
if salisbury reposts earlier theory, 2 shots
if salisbury reposts earlier theory that has already been countered, 4 shots

COUNTER-ARGUMENTS:
if theory is countered by logical argument (not an insult), 1 shot
if "evidence" is countered, 1 shot
theory and evidence countered in one post, 3 shots
if salisbury responds to counter-argument, 2 shots
if salisbury responds with logical argument, 24 pack
if salisbury completely changes subject/presents new theory after logical counter-argument has been given, 3 shots
If logical counter-arguments are re-quoted in order to get salisbury to acknowledge them, 1 shot

QUOTES FROM FAMOUS PEOPLE
each salisbury post with famous quotes, 1 shot
each successive quote in a post, 0.5 shot
quote post is in response to logical counter-argument from someone else, 2 shots
2 quote posts in a row, 4 shots
if quotes are actually related to previous theory, 5 shots

MISC
if another salisbury thread is referenced or quoted, 5 shots
salisbury refuses to answer question or acknowledge something said by someone, 0.5 shot
salisbury's sexuality is insulted, 1 shot
salisbury's intelligence is insulted, 0.5 shot
geocities is insulted, 2 shots
salisbury insults someone else, 4 shots
If someone supports salisbury, 12 pack

3/22/2004 12:45:57 PM

[Edited on March 22, 2004 at 12:53 PM. Reason : ..]

3/22/2004 12:52:48 PM

It can't be a missile in the video. THe warhead of cruise missiles are just barely behind the tip of the cone like here:



If that had been a missile then that nose cone would no longer exist and the several feet behind it wouldn't exist because thats wear the warhead sits in the missile.

Quote :

"It is a clue to the holograms used in this operation."

Watch that .wmv that you posted and you can see the impact of the wings. Lines of smoke and building damage at a diagonal just like the wings of the airplane were (at roughly 45 degree angles above and below the point of impact). A cruise missile is not capable of this becuase it doesnt have anything close to that sort of wingspan and a "hologram" most certainly isn't capable of causing damage where its image is. You just showed proof that it was in fact a plane.

3/22/2004 1:33:10 PM

3/22/2004 1:36:14 PM

Quote :

"That if the U.S. projected a holographic image of Allah floating over Baghdad urging the Iraqi people and Army to rise up against Saddam, a senior Air Force officer asked in 1990? According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air. But doing so over the skies of Iraq? To project such a hologram over Baghdad on the order of several hundred feet, they calculated, would take a mirror more than a mile square in space, as well as huge projectors and power sources. And besides, investigators came back, what does Allah look like? The Gulf War hologram story might be dismissed were it not the case that washingtonpost.com has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS application. The "Holographic Projector" is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to "project information power from space ... for special operations deception missions." "

Ummm... yeah. Don't think so, bud. Plus, there is a big difference between representing a static object and replicating a 3d object moving at a few hundred mph and using it to perfectly cloak a speeding cruise missile. Its just not possible.

As for the video manipulation... yeah, we all saw Forest Gump, big deal.

3/22/2004 1:39:41 PM

of course we planned to attack the taliban before 9-11...they were harboring terrorists known to have carried out terrorist attacks across the world (including the WTC basement bombing in the 90's)

in fact, clinton launched missiles against them on occasion of attacks

3/23/2004 4:35:55 AM

Sal, why can't you address what I pointed out about the "cruise missile" and "hologram"? Its not like I was overly wordy or used big words. Sometimes I feel like you don't like me when you ignore me and it hurts.

3/23/2004 9:05:57 AM

yeah Sal answer the fucking question. Your anti-bush websites should provide you with the ammo you need. Arguing with Sal is like arguing with Gary whenever somebody brings up a valid point he changes the subject or doesn't comment at all. Your theories are full of holes. Cruise missles wings are perpindicular, not angled like the wings of an airplane.

3/23/2004 10:24:53 AM

Quote :

"The time has come to stop using the flag as a blindfold, to stop waving our guns and our gods at each other, to take a close look at the facts which have emerged from the attacks on the World Trade Towers and to recognize the very real possibility, indeed probability, that We The People are the victims of a gigantic and deadly hoax. In a normal terrorist event, the terrorists cannot wait to take credit, in order to link the violence to the socio-political intent of the terrorist organization. Yet the prime suspect in the New York Towers case, ex(?) CIA asset Osama Bin Laden (whose brother is one of George W. Bush's Texas business partners), has issued only two statements regarding the September 11th attacks, and both of those are denials of any involvement. Huge problems are emerging in the official view of events. It's known that the United States was planning an invasion of Afghanistan long before the attacks on the World Trade Towers. Indeed the attacks on the World Trade Towers perfectly fit the timetable of an invasion by October stated by US officials just last summer. ... FBI Chief Robert Mueller admitted on September 20 and on September 27 that at this time the FBI has no legal proof to prove the true identities of the suicidal hijackers. Yet in the haste to move forward on the already planned war in Afghanistan, our government and the FBI (which does not have the best record for honesty in investigations to begin with, having been caught rigging lab tests, manufacturing testimony in the Vincent Foster affair, and illegally withholding/destroying evidence in the Oklahoma Bombing case) are not taking too close a look at evidence that points away from the designated suspect, ex(?) CIA asset Osama Bin Laden. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hoax.html"

[Edited on March 23, 2004 at 11:01 PM. Reason : ..]

3/23/2004 10:45:36 PM

Quote :

"It can't be a missile in the video. THe warhead of cruise missiles are just barely behind the tip of the cone like here: If that had been a missile then that nose cone would no longer exist and the several feet behind it wouldn't exist because thats wear the warhead sits in the missile. [quote]It is a clue to the holograms used in this operation."

Watch that .wmv that you posted and you can see the impact of the wings. Lines of smoke and building damage at a diagonal just like the wings of the airplane were (at roughly 45 degree angles above and below the point of impact). A cruise missile is not capable of this becuase it doesnt have anything close to that sort of wingspan and a "hologram" most certainly isn't capable of causing damage where its image is. You just showed proof that it was in fact a plane.[/quote]

3/23/2004 10:55:33 PM

Quote :

"We are being told that this crack team of terrorists, able to breeze past airport security as if it wasn't there, wound up leaving so much evidence in its wake that the bumbling Inspector Clouseau (or the FBI) could not fail to stumble over it. The locations where the terrorists supposedly stayed are so overloaded with damning materials that they resemble less a crimes scene, and more a "B" detective movie set, with vital clues always on prominent display for the cameras. Yet another problem lies with the described actions of the hijackers themselves. We are being told on the one hand that these men were such fanatical devotees of their faith that they willingly crashed the jets they were flying into buildings. Yet on the other hand, we are being told that these same men spent the night before their planned visit to Allah drinking in strip bars, committing not just one, but two mortal sins which would keep them out of Paradise no matter what else they did. Truly devout Muslims would spend the day before a suicide attack fasting and praying. Not only does the drinking in strip bars not fit the profile of a fanatically religious Muslim willing to die for his cause, but the witness reports of the men in the bars are of men going out of their way to be noticed and remembered, while waving around phony identifications. Because of the facts of the phony identifications, we don't really know who was on those planes. What we do know is that the men on those planes went to a great deal of trouble to steal the identities of Muslims, and to make sure those identities were seen and remembered, then to leave a plethora of planted clues around, such as crop dusting manuals, and letters in checked baggage (why does a terrorist about to die need to check baggage?) that "somehow" didn't get on the final, fatal, flight. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hoax.html"

3/23/2004 11:04:35 PM

^are you still going at this?? when are you going to actually realize how rediculous you sound?

3/23/2004 11:05:33 PM

It can't be a missile in the video. The warhead of cruise missiles are just barely behind the tip of the cone like here:



If that had been a missile then that nose cone would no longer exist and the several feet behind it wouldn't exist because thats wear the warhead sits in the missile.

Quote :

"It is a clue to the holograms used in this operation."

Watch that .wmv that you posted and you can see the impact of the wings. Lines of smoke and building damage at a diagonal just like the wings of the airplane were (at roughly 45 degree angles above and below the point of impact). A cruise missile is not capable of this becuase it doesnt have anything close to that sort of wingspan and a "hologram" most certainly isn't capable of causing damage where its image is. You just showed proof that it was in fact a plane.

[Edited on March 23, 2004 at 11:18 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2004 11:17:55 PM

3/23/2004 11:34:43 PM

Pentagon officials cancel flights for Sept. 11th on Sept. 10th, 2001 (MSNBC article):

--> see 5th paragraph from the bottom

Quote :

"On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns. http://propagandamatrix.com/pentagon_officials_safe.htm"

[Edited on March 24, 2004 at 12:07 AM. Reason : ..]

3/23/2004 11:57:59 PM

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
--Edmund Burke

"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy; the best weapon of a democracy is openness."
--Edvard Teller

"When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority
are wrong. The minority are right."
--Eugene V. Debs

[Edited on March 24, 2004 at 12:08 AM. Reason : ..]

3/23/2004 11:58:49 PM

Quote :

"The mainstream media is whitewashing and lying about what really happened on Sept 11th. 911: The Road to Tyranny is shaking the foundations of Washington, DC as the definitive film on what really happened on Sept. 11th and who stands to gain. http://www.infowars.com/videos.html"

Watch Alex Jones' film 9/11: The Road to Tyranny. The entire film can be downloaded
and watched here:

-------------->http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/the_road_to_tyranny__34kbps_.rm<----------------


[Edited on March 24, 2004 at 12:24 AM. Reason : ..]

3/23/2004 11:59:10 PM

Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the WTC complex admits that he and the NYC Fire Dept. made
the decision to bring down WTC 7 in a controlled demolition. Watch the admission in the video
below (from a PBS documentary):

------------>http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV<--------------

Note that "pull it" is the industry term for triggering a controlled demolition.


[Edited on March 24, 2004 at 12:16 AM. Reason : ..]

3/24/2004 12:00:06 AM

Somebody find the Boeing 757 that allegedly hit the Penatgon here in the few frames of video the
government released...




[Edited on March 24, 2004 at 12:18 AM. Reason : ..]

3/24/2004 12:00:30 AM

Why won't the government release the video from the security camera at the gas station near the
Pentagon?

Quote :

"Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon.html"

WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT HIDING??


[Edited on March 24, 2004 at 12:18 AM. Reason : ..]

3/24/2004 12:00:54 AM

George Bush AND Tony Blair claim to have seen the FIRST plane that hit the WTC on
television the day of the attacks.

Blair:

Quote :

"I remember it very, very clearly. I was about to give the speech to the Trades Union Congress in Brighton, and so I was preparing my speech and the television was on in the background. You saw the first plane crash, and then people came in and started to brief me on it, and then of course it became clear a short time afterwards that this was not simply a terrible accident but was almost certainly a terrorist incident, and then everything changed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/world/02/september_11/where_were_you_when/html/11.stm "

Bush:

Quote :

"BUSH: Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident." But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack." http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html"

[Edited on March 24, 2004 at 12:20 AM. Reason : ..]

3/24/2004 12:01:22 AM

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

--Adolf Hitler

[Edited on March 24, 2004 at 12:30 AM. Reason : ..]

3/24/2004 12:01:46 AM

[Edited on March 24, 2004 at 12:29 AM. Reason : ..]

3/24/2004 12:02:18 AM