Quote :

"You guys haven't refuted one thing Salisbury has stated. That is embarrassing."

that is complete bullshit. go through the entire contents of this thread and his other 9/11 pet thread from ages ago and u will see multiple refutations by us of his "evidence". he is the one that is unwilling to acknowledge those refutations or just plainly ignores them as "trolling smear tactics" or whatever else he comes up with.

5/16/2006 3:31:19 PM

Quote :

"u will see multiple refutations by us of his "evidence""

Yeah, right. Like what?

Did you ever "refute" that WTC Building 7 was demolished in a controlled demolition? Did you ever "refute" that the Dec. 2001 tape supposedly of bin Laden is actually NOT bin laden, but is a bin Laden impersonator?

The proponents of the official conspiracy theory haven't refuted anything. All they've done is hurl insults and spam the thread with nonsense to try to distract from the evidence I'm presenting. My main opposition here is a group of admitted trolls.


[Edited on May 16, 2006 at 3:37 PM. Reason : ````````]

5/16/2006 3:36:16 PM

Quote :

"Did you ever "refute" that WTC Building 7 was demolished in a controlled demolition?"

Yeah, he did actually.

5/16/2006 3:38:42 PM

Quote :

"You guys haven't refuted one thing Salisbury has stated. That is embarrassing."

that you guys even try to refute salisbot-boy, is what is embarrasing. TSB is really dying from what it was a couple years ago.

all you people do is try to impress each other in some bizarre swordfight against this logically challenged cut-and-past Christian Identity Movement douchebag.

5/16/2006 3:39:38 PM

If you really believe WTC 7 wasn't brought down in a controlled demolition, you are in DEEP denial.

5/16/2006 3:40:09 PM

Quote :

" MOON WORSHIPPERS!!! DARKSIDED! "

5/16/2006 3:40:20 PM

Hey salisburyboy! What do you think of that bin Laden fatwah from 1998?

5/16/2006 3:41:45 PM

Quote :

"posted here is an animated gif of the video provided by prisonplanet.com: taking the gif frame by frame: as anyone with an objective mind can see, the shot that salisburyboy so often uses in his arguement: is in fact taken from the end of the video..NOT the beginning. he has demonstrated a ploy to use this as "evidence" that this particular still is taken at the beginning of the clip causing the "controlled demolition." this is a blatant use of resources to meet one's personal agenda and beliefs disregarding all credible and logical explanations. those "squibs" are the result of the building collapsing, NOT the cause. this is a new low and now this is real evidence of the lengths he goes to to convince others and himself of this grand conspiracy of the US government. [Edited on April 28, 2006 at 4:48 PM. Reason : embed]"

[Edited on May 16, 2006 at 3:43 PM. Reason : remember this ace?]

5/16/2006 3:42:43 PM

Quote :

"It was more of a smack with a powder puff than an assault. After listening to FOX News gloat over how this was going to finally silence the "conspiracy theorists" I though they might have something, but it turns out FOX was just being FOX, and the much ballyhooed videos showed little that we had not already seen before, and will not change anyone's mind about what happened. FOX news just wasted everyone's time in their push to improve ratings and bash the Internet one more time. Meanwhile, I note that the explanation given for withholding these videos until now was that they waited until the Moussaoui trial was over. That explanation, if true, has to apply to ALL photos and videos taken that day. So where is the video tape from the CITGO station next to the Pentagon?"

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

5/16/2006 3:43:31 PM

Heaven forbid that the boy ever address anything that damages his position.

5/16/2006 3:44:38 PM

Quote :

"those "squibs" are the result of the building collapsing, NOT the cause"

The central support columns were blown first, and the building started collapsing before those squibs went off at the upper parts of the building.

WTC 7 Collapse footage
http://www.infowars.com/Video/911/WTC7COLLAPSE2.WMV

5/16/2006 3:48:19 PM

thats right...the puffs of air happen because they are a result of the collapse...they in no way caused the collapse....see the frame by frame above


and stop posting as afgasn or whatever the name is

5/16/2006 3:50:35 PM

wtf do u think the gif was from? the exact video u just posted.

5/16/2006 3:51:31 PM

Why would they need squibs at the upper corner of the building as it collapsed? Destroying the central support columns would make the building fall in on itself.

The puffs that you claim are squibs occured as the building began to fall. There would have been no reason to need extra charges in peripheral areas of the building.

5/16/2006 3:51:50 PM

I'd like to see the "NEW" video that was released about the pentagon plane crash. CNN has it on their home page... but it crashes my browser everytime I open it up.

5/16/2006 3:53:02 PM

no no mr joshua....you are forgetting that blowing out windows is absolutely essential to bringing down buildings in controlled demolitions....the strength of the glass can stop a building from falling so they had to blow the windows out with squibs

5/16/2006 3:53:58 PM

It's admitted the building was brought down in a controlled demolition. And even if it wasn't and it collapsed "due to fire", it would not collapse in the manner that it did--ie, as in a controlled demolition where all the structural supports fail virtually at the same time.

Those "squibs" of dust at the top of the building are not the result of floors "pancaking." They are from the explosives placed in the building.

5/16/2006 3:56:28 PM

it's fuckin ridiculous how this thread keeps goin in circles.

5/16/2006 3:59:37 PM

ok...you say they are not the result of pancaking ....i say they are....i dont have a lunatic like alex jones to agree with me...i only have the zionist MSM.....

so what now??

5/16/2006 3:59:56 PM

Quote :

"It's admitted the building was brought down in a controlled demolition."

Nothing was admitted. You're using extremely creative interpretation of one word.

Quote :

"And even if it wasn't and it collapsed "due to fire", it would not collapse in the manner that it did--ie, as in a controlled demolition where all the structural supports fail virtually at the same time."

Due to the design of WTC 7 the structural supports were actually supporting a much heavier load than in most buildings. As soon as one support fails, the others are overloaded and prone to failure.

Quote :

"Those "squibs" of dust at the top of the building are not the result of floors "pancaking." They are from the explosives placed in the building."

The evidence says otherwise, but that hasn't stopped you before.

[Edited on May 16, 2006 at 4:01 PM. Reason : 666]

5/16/2006 4:01:18 PM

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

5/16/2006 4:01:59 PM

Why would he tell the fire department commander to demolish his building?

Is the FDNY part of the plot?

5/16/2006 4:03:26 PM

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)

5/16/2006 4:05:52 PM

creative interpretation and taking things out of context..and ur a lawyer???

5/16/2006 4:07:19 PM

we have already seen all those....why??....because you have posted them 10 times each....pathetic


and of course they knew it was going to fall...they are firefighters....they are supposed to know when a buildings has been damaged and is going to fall

[Edited on May 16, 2006 at 4:09 PM. Reason : 666]

5/16/2006 4:07:57 PM

Quote :

"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."

5/16/2006 4:10:04 PM

there u have it, "absolutely conclusive"

5/16/2006 4:11:09 PM

and when faced with evidence that contradicts his story what does he resort to???.......


anyone???


POSTS FROM PRISONPLANET!!! ...YAY!!!

5/16/2006 4:11:28 PM

So...you would have us believe that a few small fires caused Building 7 to collapse at virtual free-fall speed, having all its structural supports fail at the same time?

How can you look at that collapse footage and say a few small fires did that? Impossible.

5/16/2006 4:15:28 PM

Quote :

"The building did not have severe damage and yet collapsed in a symmetrical fashion at virtual free-fall speed as in a controlled demolition"

Well, yeah, it did have severe damage. The NIST report makes this clear.

Quote :

"The center of the building collapses just before the entire building collapses."

Yes, because the central supports gave way. How else would you expect it to collapse.

Quote :

"Demolition charges (or "squibs") can also be seen in the collapse footage."

Puffs of dust as the building collapses are not indicative of explosives. Did anyone report hearing explosions prior to the building's collapse? I would expect that a large amount would be needed to bring down a 47 story building.

Quote :

"AND, FINALLY, WTC LEASEHOLDER LARRY SILVERSTEIN ADMITTED THEY DEMOLISHED THE BUILDING IN A PBS DOCUMENTARY."

He told the fire department commander to pull it because of the loss of life that day. Your entire theory is based on the creative interpretation of one word.

Why would he order the fire department commander to demolish his building?

5/16/2006 4:15:56 PM

Quote :

"searching sites specific to the demolition trade does not support this meaning of 'pull'. The following Google searches of the two best known controlled demolition sites in October of 2003 did not return any results indicating that pulling and demolition are synonymous. * site:controlled-demolition.com pull * site:implosionworld.com pull Searching Google with the query demolition pull and filtering out sites referring to the Silverstein pull-it remark returns only one result in about 10 pages of results that uses 'pull' to mean demolish: "City staff have contacted the property owner by phone to request that he obtain a demolition permit and pull down and demolish the building""

[Edited on May 16, 2006 at 4:21 PM. Reason : 666]

5/16/2006 4:16:30 PM

Can you actually refute this?

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."

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

Now is the part where you call it a "hit piece written by hacks for a zionist rag like Popular Mechanics. Slandering those who disagree with you sure is easier than having a discussion, isn't it?

[Edited on May 16, 2006 at 4:24 PM. Reason : 666]

5/16/2006 4:21:56 PM

^of course it is easier for him. he will inevitably respond by calling it a zionist hit piece and then post asinine article from prisonplanet

5/16/2006 4:23:53 PM

Quote :

"Well, yeah, it did have severe damage. The NIST report makes this clear."

NIST can allege that WTC 7 suffered severe damage, but it's simply not true. WTC Building 7 was about a block away from the twin towers, and was not hit by any significant amount of debri.

Government-funded and controlled "investigations" are predetermined to support the official story, and will twist the facts and cover up the truth in order to do so.

5/16/2006 4:24:43 PM

Quote :

"NIST can allege that WTC 7 suffered severe damage, but it's simply not true."

NIST is wrong and you are right.

Can we have some evidence to go along with that?

5/16/2006 4:27:53 PM

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/160506giantpsyop.htm

Quote :

"Pentagon Video Is Giant Psy-Op Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | May 16 2006 [...] The fact that they have again chosen to release grainy and foggy images which only lead to more speculation tell us two things. 1) The government truly is frightened to death of releasing any images which accurately depict what happened at the Pentagon because it doesn't jive with the official version of 9/11. 2) Or the government knows that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and has clear footage of the incident, but is deliberately releasing these speculative images in order to stoke the debate so it can later release the high quality video and use it to debunk the entire 9/11 truth movement. The media obsession with this one facet of an entire smorgasbord of 9/11 questions, and their refusal to address more hardcore 9/11 evidence, leads us to fear the latter explanation is the case."

I disagree. I think it's the former.

5/16/2006 4:30:45 PM

Quote :

"The fact that they have again chosen to release grainy and foggy images which only lead to more speculation tell us two things."

Or because the only images that exist or grainy and foggy images of distant objects from security cameras. No, thats not exciting enough, is it?

CAN WE HAVE SOME EVIDENCE THAT WTC 7 SUFFERED VERY LIMITED DAMAGE.

Once again, salisburyboy has made a claim and then realized that he has no evidence to support it, so he ignores all questions relating to it.

5/16/2006 4:33:35 PM

Quote :

"WTC Building 7 was about a block away from the twin towers, and was not hit by any significant amount of debri."

i want evidence proving this statement.

5/16/2006 4:37:24 PM

5/16/2006 4:39:25 PM

Here's an analysis of NIST's claims about WTC 7, including the photographs NIST used as evidence for it's theory about WTC 7's collapse:

http://www.wtc7.net/damageclaims.html

Quote :

"Claims of Severe Damage to Building 7 NIST's preliminary reports on WTC 7's collapse includes a slide presentation named: Project 6: WTC 7 Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis. A key tenet of its theory is that the building sustained severe structural damage from heavy pieces of debris cast out by the collapse of the North Tower, whose closest wall was about 350 feet from Building 7's south wall. The only evidence NIST adduces in support of its "estimated extend of debris damage" are...two images, which apparently hadn't surfaced until NIST published its presentation. [...] Even if one accepts all of NIST's claims about extensive structural damage to WTC 7, and its claims about fires on several different floors, its collapse scenario is not remotely plausible. The alleged damage was asymmetric, confined to the tower's south side, and any weakening of the steelwork from fire exposure would also be asymmetric. Thus, even if the damage were sufficient to cause the whole building to collapse, it would have fallen over asymmetrically -- toward the south. But WTC 7 fell straight down, into its footprint."

5/16/2006 4:42:12 PM

From Popular Mechanics:

Quote :

""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. .............. 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."

Quote :

"A key tenet of its theory is that the building sustained severe structural damage from heavy pieces of debris cast out by the collapse of the North Tower, whose closest wall was about 350 feet from Building 7's south wall."

WTC 1 and 2 were nearly 1400 feet tall. Obviously the large amount of debris is going to travel some distance when they collapse.

Whats great about your website is that it provides absolutely no mention of who is making these claims. There isn't a single name nor mention of any engineering credentials, let alone any qualifications to evaluate the NIST report. Whereas the Popular Mechanics article includes a lengthy list of names and credentials (the vast majority of whom aren't government employees).

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=9&c=y

I visited ground zero nearly a year after 9/11 and the facade of the Millenium Hotel, which was even further away than WTC 7, was still severely damaged.

[Edited on May 16, 2006 at 5:03 PM. Reason : 666]

5/16/2006 5:01:16 PM

this sure looks conclusive to me:




it's ok though; just label it as Zionist propaganda that is only going along with the official government conspiracy.

[Edited on May 16, 2006 at 5:16 PM. Reason : .]

5/16/2006 5:14:26 PM

He won't believe that.

Quote :

"Government-funded and controlled "investigations" are predetermined to support the official story, and will twist the facts and cover up the truth in order to do so."

because blurry pictures/misinterpretation > evidence/logic/rational examination

it's ok though; just label it as a Zionist propaganda hit piece that is only going along with the official government conspiracy

you know better, brian. you've been at this for a while.

[Edited on May 16, 2006 at 5:20 PM. Reason : 666]

5/16/2006 5:18:53 PM

o i forgot, engineering data and analysis should not be considered to be accurate and logical.

5/16/2006 5:21:37 PM

5/16/2006 7:40:42 PM

i want evidence on flight 93. i bet that shit was shot down.


as far as the rest of the conspiracies, complete bullshit

5/16/2006 11:41:15 PM

Flight 93 and the pentagon I feel are obviously bogus in some way. WTC 1 & 2 with the whole "freefall speed" thing is pretty convincing as well.

5/17/2006 4:00:53 AM

CNN Reported No Plane Hit Pentagon

Here is a video clip from CNN coverage on the morning of 9/11. CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre says he inspected the Pentagon site and it is obvious no plane crashed there.

Short CNN Video Clip here: http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/

Quote :

"CNN's JAMIE MCINTYRE: "From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happenm immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.""

5/17/2006 10:28:31 AM

can't stop. won't stop.

some boob reporter on the scene knows what crash and explosion scenes look like, ok? forensics and experts don't know shit!

5/17/2006 10:31:01 AM

SO THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS ONLY WORTH LISTENING TO THE 0.04% OF THE TIME IT AGREES WITH YOU

5/17/2006 10:38:32 AM