SHHHH

SPEAK NOT OF THE DINGS OF WING




THIS FUCKIN' GUY

4/10/2006 2:27:00 PM

Quote :

"So how exactly can you say that the Liberty was swept under the rug? Were you alive to see the coverage in 1967 or are just basing your claims on what your websites tell you?"

The bottom line is that the MSM and government have consistently maintained for around 40 years that the attack on the USS Liberty was an "accident", rather than exposing the truth (ie, that the attack was deliberate).

So you found that there were some articles written on the incident. OF COURSE there were articles written on it. My point is that, overall, the MSM supported the "official" government story that it was an "accident." Did you read the articles that you referenced above? If you did, I bet you would find that they tend to support the official "accident" claim.

4/10/2006 2:28:25 PM

Although if the rap industry is at all involved, I guarantee that Beastie Boys played a part.

After all, all three are descendants of edomites.

Quote :

"Did you read the articles that you referenced above? If you did, I bet you would find that they tend to support the official "accident" claim."

Did you read them? No, you just believe what you want to believe, regardless of the facts.

Quote :

"the attack was deliberate"

Have you actually looked at both sides of the story, or did you just run across a website claiming that jews did something evil and immediately jump on the wagon?

[Edited on April 10, 2006 at 2:33 PM. Reason : 666]

4/10/2006 2:29:50 PM

^^ didn't you read the magna carta?

if you did i bet you'd find they knew about space aliens from the year 2839389

4/10/2006 2:31:31 PM

Quote :

"I bet you would find that they tend to support the official "accident" claim."

WITH NAMES LIKE

Quote :

"“Sinking the Liberty: Accident or Design?""

AND

Quote :

"“Israel Accused at Hearing on U.S. Ship.” "

HOW COULD THEY NOT BE!

4/10/2006 2:31:38 PM

Quote :

"Sinking the Liberty: Accident or Design?" “Israel Accused at Hearing on U.S. Ship.”"

Haven't you noticed that the MSM basically acts as a mouthpiece for the government. The Congressional and military "investigations" into the USS Liberty incident were whitewashes that covered up the truth, and claimed it was an "accident."

So, these MSM articles addressed the idea that Israel attacked deliberately, but most assuredly concluded that it was an "accident" as the government claimed, or merely parrotted the government claims that it was an "accident."

4/10/2006 2:37:23 PM

Quote :

"but most assuredly concluded that it was an "accident" as the government claimed, or merely parrotted the government claims that it was an "accident.""

Are your speculations supposed to carry any weight?

4/10/2006 2:38:25 PM

^^but you don't know this for sure do you

THIS FUCKIN' GUY

[Edited on April 10, 2006 at 2:38 PM. Reason : ^exactly]

4/10/2006 2:38:35 PM

If you connect 6 points on the U.S.S. Liberty's bow, you'll notice it forms, THAT'S RIGHT, one of THESE:

4/10/2006 2:43:52 PM

Quote :

"Are your speculations supposed to carry any weight? "

Look. Is it not the "official" claim of the government that the USS Liberty incident was an "accident"? Was not the "official" story from the MSM for a long time that the USS Liberty incident was an "accident"? Would it be accurate to say that this is still the official MSM position?

My point is that the MSM and government have been saying it was an "accident" for decades. Only in recent years has the MSM started to disclose some of the truth.

It's not "wild speculation" to believe that random MSM articles from decades ago would have supported the "official" story. It's entirely rational.

4/10/2006 2:45:51 PM

LOL

entirely rational

from THIS FUCKIN' GUY

4/10/2006 2:47:31 PM

LOL

entirely rational

from THIS FUCKIN' GUY

4/10/2006 2:49:34 PM

is woodfoot your leader or something?

wow, you guys are an informidable army of trolls and wanna-be trolls

4/10/2006 2:54:02 PM

if i needed a leader, i'd rather have woodfoot than whoever is heading up the tinfoil hat brigade these days.



THIS FUCKIN' GUY

4/10/2006 2:59:58 PM

Quote :

"i'd rather have woodfoot than whoever is heading up the tinfoil hat brigade these days"

You don't see it yet, but you guys are the "tinfoil hat brigade." The real "nuts" and "crackpots" are those who, after seeing all this evidence, still support or believe the government's absurd conspiracy theory about 19 rag-tag Arabs masterminded by a guy in a cave pulling off 9/11. The real "whackjobs" are those who continue to blindly trust and believe the government when it is obvious they are lying to us about so many important issues.

I have the feeling that the majority of those reading this thread agree with me that a criminal element in the government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Only they aren't posting. It's just you and your small group of trolls who still openly post in favor of the government's bogus story. Whether you actually believe the government story or are otherwise compelled to support it is another question.

4/10/2006 3:11:14 PM

"evidence"

you have provided no evidence. what you have provided is wild accusations and crackpot theories that can be easily debunked.

you, my friend, are a dingbat.

Quote :

" have the feeling that the majority of those reading this thread agree with me that a criminal element in the government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Only they aren't posting."

HAHAHAHA the fact that they're not posting is evidence of their very existence!!!!!!11



THIS FUCKIN' GUY

[Edited on April 10, 2006 at 3:25 PM. Reason : *]

4/10/2006 3:25:10 PM

Quote :

"The real "nuts" and "crackpots" are those who, after seeing all this evidence, still support or believe the government's absurd conspiracy theory about 19 rag-tag Arabs masterminded by a guy in a cave pulling off 9/11."

You just don't get it! This is the evidence that you use.

Quote :

"I think it's more than just a "coincidence." It's most likely more evidence of prior knowledge of the attacks. On the CD cover, the explosion in the tower is located in the general area of the actual explosions on 9/11. It looks almost exactly like the explosion after the 2nd plane hit the South Tower. That's not to say that this rap group had prior knowledge of the attacks. They probably didn't. But, at the very least, the person who did the artwork (or commissioned for the art work) most likely had prior knowledge of the attack. Just looking at this one example (ie, the rap cover), you might dismiss my claim that someone had prior knowledge. But after looking at all the other anecdotal evidence of prior knowledge--eg, The Lone Gunmen episode, the dialogue from the The Long Kiss Goodnight movie, the cards in Steve Jackson's INWO game, etc--it becomes clear that some people surrounding the entertainment industry did indeed have prior knowledge of the attacks."

4/10/2006 3:29:46 PM

Quote :

"you have provided no evidence"

That's an ABSOLUTE JOKE, and a flat-out lie. Classic denial tactic. I have provided literally dozens and dozens of pieces of evidence in this thread conclusively proving the falsity of the "official" story and that our government was complicit in the attacks, including many "mainstream" news articles. For anybody who doubts this, simply go back through the thread and see for yourself.

Quote :

"what you have provided is wild accusations and crackpot theories...you, my friend, are a dingbat"

Your childish name-calling and smear tactics are NOT going to work any longer. The evidence is on our side, and you cannot stop the truth. You can only hope to distract from the evidence and try to prevent people from looking at it with pathetic, desperate tactics such as those above.

Quote :

"You just don't get it! This is the evidence that you use"

As I previously alluded to, that is merely anecdotal evidence of prior knowledge and is by no means the most compelling evidence proving the "official" story is false. I posted the more compelling evidence against the "official" story early in the thread (see pages 1-3).

What you are attempting to do is attack only the very weakest points of my argument, while completely ignoring the best and most compelling evidence supporting my position.

Do you want to talk about the most compelling evidence I have presented? How about the evidence that WTC Building 7 was destroyed in a controlled demolition, the evidence for explosives in the twin towers, the phony bin Laden tapes, the U.S. Government plan to invade Afghanistan before 9/11, that the neo-cons and Zionists wanted to go to war in the Middle East and central Asia well before 9/11, the stand down of NORAD and the U.S. Air Defense on 9/11, that many of the supposed "hijackers" turned up alive after 9/11, the 5 Mossad agents arrested on 9/11 after seen filming the WTC attack and celebrating, or the many other serious problems with the official story?

Do you want to discuss any of the evidence for those things?


[Edited on April 10, 2006 at 3:53 PM. Reason : ````]

4/10/2006 3:46:57 PM

I'VE TRIED TO DISCUSS THEM DINGUS. WHENEVER ANYONE POINTS OUT ONE OF THE GAPING HOLES IN YOUR THEORY YOU RESORT TO CHILDISH NAME-CALLING AND SMEAR TACTICS BECAUSE YOUR POSITION IS SO WEAK.

I haven't ignored anything, little buddy. If anyone in the Soap Box can be accused of constantly ignoring rational debate in favor of copy and paste, it would have to be you.

[Edited on April 10, 2006 at 3:53 PM. Reason : 666]

4/10/2006 3:52:44 PM

Quote :

"WHENEVER ANYONE POINTS OUT ONE OF THE GAPING HOLES IN YOUR THEORY YOU RESORT TO CHILDISH NAME-CALLING AND SMEAR TACTICS BECAUSE YOUR POSITION IS SO WEAK. "

So now all you can do is immitate what I'm saying?

As any objective person can easily see, it is my opponents who initiated the name-calling and smear tactics in this thread (as expected). They are the ones who are relying on such tactics, not me. I don't need to use logical falacies and smear tactics, because the evidence is on my side.

To my knowledge, the only time in this thread where it could be said that I even approached using smear tactics is when I called you a troll, and when I responded to 30thAnnZ saying that those who support the official story are the real "crackpots." In the former case, you are a troll (so it's just stating a fact), and in the latter case I was only responding to the smear tactics of 30thAnnZ.

As anyone can see, I am primarily trying to focus on the evidence and debate these issues substantively and using logic and reason. My opponents, on the other hand, have for the most part avoided discussing the evidence or issues in a rational manner, and have primarily resorted to tactics of smear and distraction, calling me names and spamming the thread to try to distract from the evidence.

Quote :

"I haven't ignored anything, little buddy"

If you are the type that doesn't ignore the strongest parts of your opponent's argument, then please address some of the most compelling evidence supporting my argument, such as the evidence for WTC 7's controlled demolition, the phony bin Laden tapes, the evidence for explosives in the twin towers, the neo-con and Zionist plans to go to war in the Middle East and central Asia well before 9/11, the evidence proving Zionist control over our government, and the other things I mentioned above.


[Edited on April 10, 2006 at 4:12 PM. Reason : `````````]

4/10/2006 4:03:22 PM

Quote :

"So now all you can do is immitate what I'm saying?"

I'm just pointing out your glaring hypocrisy, little fella.

Quote :

"In the former case, you are a troll"

I'm the one of the few people who has actually tried to have a rational discussion with you. As I said, whenever anyone points out one of the gaping holes in your theory you resort to childish name-calling and smear tactics. Thank you for proving my point.

Quote :

"As anyone can see, I am primarily trying to focus on the evidence and debate these issues substantively and using logic and reason."

When have you ever debated anything? You copy and paste articles from prisonplanet and ignore anyone who questions their credibility or call them a troll.

Quote :

"If you are the type that doesn't ignore the strongest parts of your opponent's argument"

I haven't ignored anything, I was simply pointing out the ridiculous logic that you use to make a point.

Quote :

"such as the evidence for WTC 7's controlled demolition"

A jew said "pull". That is your evidence.

Quote :

"the phony bin Laden tapes"

Which one? You've labeled every single bin Laden tape a phony for no reason.

Quote :

"the evidence for explosives in the twin towers"

Puffs of smoke as a building collapse aren't evidence. Bombs in the basement wouldn't make it collapse top-to-bottom. Where did the NWO hide the thousands of pounds of squibs and miles of detonator cord?

Quote :

"the neo-con and Zionist plans to go to war in the Middle East and central Asia well before 9/11"

Contingency plans. They exist for every country.

Quote :

"the evidence proving Zionist control over our government"

When have you ever proven anything?

[Edited on April 10, 2006 at 4:16 PM. Reason : 666]

4/10/2006 4:12:17 PM

Quote :

"I haven't ignored anything"

Quote :

"If you are the type that doesn't ignore the strongest parts of your opponent's argument, then please address some of the most compelling evidence supporting my argument, such as the evidence for WTC 7's controlled demolition, the phony bin Laden tapes, the evidence for explosives in the twin towers, the neo-con and Zionist plans to go to war in the Middle East and central Asia well before 9/11, the evidence proving Zionist control over our government, and the other things I mentioned above."

4/10/2006 4:14:23 PM

Quote :

"such as the evidence for WTC 7's controlled demolition"

A jew said "pull". That is your evidence.

Quote :

"the phony bin Laden tapes"

Which one? You've labeled every single bin Laden tape a phony for no reason.

Quote :

"the evidence for explosives in the twin towers"

Puffs of smoke as a building collapse aren't evidence. Bombs in the basement wouldn't make it collapse top-to-bottom. Where did the NWO hide the thousands of pounds of squibs and miles of detonator cord?

Quote :

"the neo-con and Zionist plans to go to war in the Middle East and central Asia well before 9/11"

Contingency plans. They exist for every country.

Quote :

"the evidence proving Zionist control over our government"

When have you ever proven anything?

4/10/2006 4:18:02 PM

Quote :

"A jew said "pull". That is your evidence"

Yes, WTC Leaseholder Larry Silverstein admitted in a PBS documentary that WTC Building 7 was brought down in a controlled demoltion. But there is more evidence than just that--including the video footage which shows the demolition squibs.

First off, WTC 7 was not hit by any plane, and only had a few small fires in it before it collapsed. Yet, it collapsed at virtual free-fall speed in a symmetrical fashion as in a controlled demolition. If you watch the collapse footage 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 even be seen in the collapse footage.


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

Quote :

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

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

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


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


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



Notice the clear demolition squibs at upper right of building.


NOW, AFTER SEEING THIS EVIDENCE, ARE YOU SERIOUSLY GOING TO ARGUE THAT WTC BUILDING 7 WAS NOT BROUGHT DOWN IN A CONTROLLED DEMOLTION?


[Edited on April 10, 2006 at 4:31 PM. Reason : `````]

4/10/2006 4:23:34 PM

Quote :

" such as the evidence for WTC 7's controlled demolition, the phony bin Laden tapes, the evidence for explosives in the twin towers, the neo-con and Zionist plans to go to war in the Middle East and central Asia well before 9/11, the evidence proving Zionist control over our government"

oh the evidence

you mean

1. blurry photos
2. blurry photos
3. blurry photos
4. military planning
and
5. racism

that evidence?

THIS FUCKIN' GUY

4/10/2006 4:38:43 PM

haha i already posted that exact post, gg

but on a serious not:

more than a few people predicted that a plane could fly into the twin towers, this isn't disputed its just a known fact. why then is it not more likely that these ideas influenced the terrorists plans on where to attack the us? that seems to be the most logical explanation. if there is a conspiracy so vast that even a small artist knows about it (and decided to rub it in our faces with some album artwork) how has everyone kept quiet?

after the wtc was bombed people that had concerns about the security of the tower gained a new voice and a new audience, many of these people predicted an attack of this nature. were they in on it, or did they just figure it out? why do you so infrequently come to the most simple conclusion, as the most simple solution is often times the truth?

4/10/2006 4:41:12 PM

Look! I can cut and paste too! Except I use credible sources, not the rantings of a guy who yells at people on street corners.

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

4/10/2006 4:43:56 PM

popular mechanics is such an edomite rag

4/10/2006 4:45:57 PM

Quote :

"Which one? You've labeled every single bin Laden tape a phony for no reason. "

How about the December 2001 tape? Here is a CNN article referring to the Dec. 2001 video tape that supposedly shows bin Laden taking credit for the 9/11 attacks:

CNN: "Bin Laden on tape: Attacks 'benefited Islam greatly'
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/ret.bin.laden.videotape/

Now, take a close look at picture of the man from that tape that is purportedly the real Osama bin Laden. Here is a comparison of the photo of the man from that video tape and a photo of the real Osama bin Laden:



It is obvious that the man from the Dec. 2001 tape is not the real Osama bin Laden.

LOOK AT THAT CNN LINK. ARE YOU SERIOUSLY GOING TO TELL ME THAT THE MAN IN THAT TAPE IS OSAMA BIN LADEN?

Quote :

"Look! I can cut and paste too! Except I use credible sources, not the rantings of a guy who yells at people on street corners"

The Popular Mechanics article is a poorly written hit piece that does not back up its claims with any real evidence.

Even Village Voice is questioning why WTC Building 7 collapsed:

Village Voice Questions Why WTC Building 7 and the Twin Towers Fell
http://villagevoice.com/news/0549,murphy,70685,6.html

If you can't see (or won't admit) that WTC 7 was brought down in a controlled demoltion, something is seriously wrong with you.


[Edited on April 10, 2006 at 4:56 PM. Reason : ```]

4/10/2006 4:49:02 PM

because when i think "scientific discussion" i think "FUCK POPULAR MECHANICS - BRING ME THE Village Voice"

and once again: BLURRY PHOTOS

4/10/2006 4:55:49 PM

Quote :

"and once again: BLURRY PHOTOS"

Don't bitch about it to me. It isn't my fault. It's al-CIA-duh's doing. They had to make it blurry in order to try to pass off the bin Laden impersonator as the real bin Laden.

4/10/2006 4:58:46 PM

So you're trying to make a point with a grainy picture of a man's nose?



Doesn't look too different to me. You've claimed that bin Laden is still a CIA asset, why don't they just call him up and say "Hey, Osama, we need another tape. We're sending Eddie over with the video camera."?

Quote :

"They had to make it blurry in order to try to pass off the bin Laden impersonator as the real bin Laden."

LOLercaust!

Quote :

"The Popular Mechanics article is a poorly written hit piece that does not back up it's claims with any evidence."

Expert testimony, scientific analysis, and an analysis of the engineering involved isn't evidence? You have presented a deck of cards as evidence. If anything, this is just another addition to the mountain of evidence proving that you are even more close minded than the people who question you. This article contradicts you, so you immediately slam it as rubbish. It's written better than any of the sensationalist garbage that Alex Jones posts.

[Edited on April 10, 2006 at 5:00 PM. Reason : 666]

4/10/2006 4:58:48 PM

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

Quote :

"You have presented a deck of cards as evidence"

4/10/2006 5:01:13 PM

ahaha, i also already posted that stuff about the fake osama tape

if anyone is curious, salisburyboy is now around page 30 of his old thread

ps here was my last post, it got lost

Quote :

"haha i already posted that exact post, gg but on a serious not: more than a few people predicted that a plane could fly into the twin towers, this isn't disputed its just a known fact. why then is it not more likely that these ideas influenced the terrorists plans on where to attack the us? that seems to be the most logical explanation. if there is a conspiracy so vast that even a small artist knows about it (and decided to rub it in our faces with some album artwork) how has everyone kept quiet? after the wtc was bombed people that had concerns about the security of the tower gained a new voice and a new audience, many of these people predicted an attack of this nature. were they in on it, or did they just figure it out? why do you so infrequently come to the most simple conclusion, as the most simple solution is often times the truth? "

[Edited on April 10, 2006 at 5:06 PM. Reason : .]

4/10/2006 5:06:20 PM

rap cds and magic the gathering

that shit knew what was coming

4/10/2006 5:11:08 PM

This is part of your argument: There is a face in the smoke!

You aren't allowed to talk about "real evidence" if you're going to pull shit like this.

Awwww snap, I said pull!!! We all gonna die!

4/10/2006 5:11:36 PM

good job

completely pwnt by your own posts in under 10 pages

i guess you'll die down for a couple weeks/months

and then have the duke (who is now officially your fuckin homeboy) lock this thread

and then you'll just TRY TRY AGAIN


THIS FUCKIN' GUY

4/10/2006 5:35:42 PM

yeah how many more pages before "the information is disorganized" in this thread too and he needs a new one

4/10/2006 5:37:07 PM

if anyone is curious, salisburyboy is now around page 30 of his old thread

4/10/2006 5:37:38 PM

so he'll start bringing up the mossad even more soon?

YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS

MORE TALK OF "EDOMITES"

AND YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS

4/10/2006 5:43:11 PM

What salisburyboy doesn't realize is that it wasn't really the Jews. That's just the cover. It was really the aliens that orchestrated 9/11.

4/10/2006 5:55:55 PM

prove him wrong fucker

4/10/2006 5:57:36 PM

my serious alien thread got locked

4/10/2006 6:16:58 PM

two words put together as one: dingbat

oh and to quote a wise man:

"you are a meathead."

4/10/2006 6:17:22 PM

My contention is that it was actually invisible dragons.

They also sank the USS Liberty because it was too close to the sunken civilization of Atlantis in the Mediterranean.

Prove me wrong.

4/10/2006 8:13:45 PM

Jewish aliens from Alpha Centauri.

4/10/2006 8:35:32 PM

i see your shwartz is as big as mine.

4/10/2006 10:31:11 PM

Quote :

"Puffs of smoke as a building collapse aren't evidence."

When those "puffs of smoke" are indicative of demolition squibs, then they ARE evidence of a controlled demolition. And the squibs are only a fraction of the evidence supporting the fact that the twin towers were brought down with explosives. There are literally dozens of examples of testimony from firefighters, emergency personnel, tv reporters, and other eyewitnesses describing the explosives going off in the towers.

New York Firefighters Discuss Bombs in WTC Towers (*MUST SEE*)
40 second video clip: http://www.prisonplanet.com/032404firefightersdiscuss.html

Quote :

"Firefighter 1: "Floor by floor it started popping out." Firefighter 2: "It was if they had detonators...planted to take down the building" Firefighter 1: "Yeah. Detonators. Yeah." Firefighter 2: "Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom..." Firefighter 1: "All the way down.""

AMAZING EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY FROM THE 9/11 EMERGENCY PERSONNEL TAPES RELEASED IN AUGUST '05 DESCRIBING EXPLOSIVES GOING OFF JUST BEFORE THE TWIN TOWER COLLAPSES

The testimony of Stephen Gregory, Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.):

Quote :

"A. ...I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been the result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down. Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was? A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me… He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too. [...] Q. On the television pictures it appeared as well, before the first collapse, that there was an explosion on the upper floors. A. I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like eye level.""

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110008.PDF

(see pp. 14-15 of PDF file for above quotes)


The testimony of Chief Frank Cruthers:

Quote :

""And while I was still in that immediate area, the south tower, 2 World Trade Center, there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.""

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110179.PDF

(see page 4 of PDF file for above quote)

The testimony of Daniel Rivera (Paramedic, EMS):

Quote :

""It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop" That's exactly what -- because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down.""

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110035.PDF

(see page 9 of PDF file for above quote)


The testimony of Captain Karin Deshore of emergency medical services:

Quote :

""Somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building. I went inside and told everybody that the other building or there was an explosion occuring up there and I said I think we have another major explosion. I don't know if we are all going to be safe here."

http://sfgate.com/gate/pictures/2005/09/10/ga_karin_deshore.pdf

(see page 15 of PDF file for above quote)

Quote :

"READ THESE TESTIMONIES! "Popping sounds" associated with red and orange flashings going around the building. Witnesses describing explosions and material shooting out of the building and then a delay before the collapse. Witnesses saying they thought it was a “controlled demolition.” TELL ME THAT THERE WEREN'T EXPLOSIVE CHARGES IN THE TOWERS. TELL ME THAT ISN'T A DESCRIPTION OF A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION."

Quote :

"Bombs in the basement wouldn't make it collapse top-to-bottom."

You are saying that based on the assumption that there were bombs only in the basement. There were explosives not only in the basement area of the towers, but all over the building. Explosives were needed in various locations (including at the base level) in order to bring down the towers in the way that they collapsed.

Quote :

"Where did the NWO hide the thousands of pounds of squibs and miles of detonator cord?"

Where did they put the detonator cords and how did they rig WTC BUILDING 7 for it's controlled demolition? Look. They pulled it off in the case of WTC 7. Why is it so hard for you to believe they did it with the twin towers?


[Edited on April 11, 2006 at 10:08 AM. Reason : `````]

4/11/2006 9:55:55 AM

4/11/2006 10:32:36 AM

it should be pretty obvious he cut and pasted from the old thread when he has quotes from what people asked in the old thread

4/11/2006 10:48:34 AM