this is the pic from the cnn article on the Bin Laden tape. this is not the same picture you used.

you used this one:

i mean, did you not expect us to look at the image tag, or click the article for that matter?

[Edited on April 11, 2006 at 12:03 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2006 12:02:01 PM

that was mentioned in the old thread too, around page 30

4/11/2006 12:04:06 PM

Do you really have to believe salisburyboy in order to doubt that those two aren't the same people?

4/11/2006 12:05:02 PM

Quote :

"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"

I did not quote anything asked in any old thread. I was responding to Mr. Joshua's comments from this thread.

Quote :

"this is the pic from the cnn article on the Bin Laden tape. this is not the same picture you used."

So what? The picture I used is an authentic picture from the December 2001 tape.

The picture in the CNN article is not as good as the picture I used. The picture CNN chose to use is dark (probably done intentionally to hide the fact that the man in the tape is not bin Laden).

Quote :

"did you not expect us to look at the image tag, or click the article for that matter?"

I specifically asked you to look at the CNN article. I'm not trying to hide anything about the pictures. I want you to look at the tape and the pictures. If you do, you will see that the man in the December 2001 tape is clearly NOT Osama bin Laden.

4/11/2006 12:14:58 PM

but you admit though that your posts are verbatim from your old thread
and that i have actually cut and pasted some of them before you did

you admit that, right

4/11/2006 12:16:15 PM

Quote :

"The high winds of a tornado can cause a roar that is often compared with the sound of a freight train."

http://www.redcross.org/services/disaster/keepsafe/tornado.html

Using salisburyboy logic, I have determined that tornadoes are actually freight trains. Despite the huge amount of scientific evidence to the contrary, the simple fact that people have compared the sound of a tornado to the sound of a freight train conclusively proves it.

Quote :

"It sounded like something really heavy was dropped on the building"

http://www.harpazo.net/quakes.html

I have also concluded that earthquakes actually have nothing to do with the earth. The true cause is really heavy things being dropped on buildings. Despite the huge amount of scientific evidence to the contrary, the simple fact that someone compared the sound of an earthquake to the sound of something really heavy being dropped on a building conclusively proves it.

Quote :

"In the morning it felt like someone was shaking the bed."

Quote :

"I was sunbathing with my girlfriend on the beach in Phuket when suddenly I heard an unbelievably loud roar, it sounded like I was standing next to an airplane as it took off."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/12/28/more.emails/

It has also become all too clear that the Great Tsunami of 2004 wasn't caused by an underwater earthquake, but was actually the result of an airplane taking off, as well as someone shaking the bed. Despite the huge amount of scientific evidence to the contrary, the simple fact that someone compared the tsunami to someone shaking the bed and to the sound of an airplane taking off conclusively proves it.

Quote :

"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?"

You're doing it again. You are basing an unproven allegation on another unproven allegation. Prove one thing before you jump to the next step, little buddy.

4/11/2006 12:17:14 PM

Quote :

"but you admit though that your posts are verbatim from your old thread"

Yes, I posted some of the same articles and other evidence from the old thread. Big deal. The old thread is locked. This thread is essentially replacing that one. So why wouldn't you expect some of the old information to be presented here? That is precisely what you should expect.

Quote :

"you admit that, right"

And you admit that you are spamming the thread to try to distract from the information and evidence I'm presenting.

4/11/2006 12:22:08 PM

4/11/2006 12:26:47 PM

im spamming this thread cause i enjoy it
i dont really care about your information

if i didnt want people to see your information i probably wouldnt spam this with your own information

4/11/2006 12:30:45 PM

Quote :

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

Quote :

"Contingency plans. They exist for every country"

What I'm talking about is far more than mere "contingency plans." War plans are "contingent" when you haven't already made the decision to go to war, and you are merely drawing up plans in case you are attacked or otherwise need to go to war. The Zionists and neo-cons controlling our government wanted to go to war in the Middle East and Central Asia to further their goals of world hegemony and domination. It wasn't contingent on anything. They had already decided to go to war. They were pushing for these wars, and have been for years. The only problem was they needed the necessary "crisis" as a pretext to go forward with the wars. That's where 9/11 comes in.

It's similar to how the Iraq War played out. The Zionists and neo-cons were planning to go to war in Iraq, and they fabricated the WMD threat as the pretext. The plans to go to war in Iraq were not mere "contingency plans." They had already decided to go to war.


Sydney Morning Herald: US Prepared to Wage War For Control of Oil Resources
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/25/1040511092926.html

Quote :

"Defence redefined means securing cheap energy December 26 2002 [...] As far back as 1975, Henry Kissinger, then secretary of state, said America was prepared to wage war over oil. Separate plans advocating US conquest of Saudi oilfields were published in the '70s. So it should come as little surprise that in May last year - four months before the terrorist attacks on Washington and New York - a battle plan for Afghanistan was already being reviewed by the US Command that would carry it out after September 11. Military strategists were highlighting the energy wealth of the Caspian Sea and Central Asia and its importance to America's "security"."

4/11/2006 1:35:32 PM

Are you aware of how little oil is in Afghanistan? The US could have bought it all at market value for less than the cost of an invasion.

So yes, little buddy, it was a contingency plan.

4/11/2006 1:58:43 PM

Quote :

"Are you aware of how little oil is in Afghanistan?"

Oh, so you don't think I and others know about the importance of Afghanistan in regards to the oil pipeline that was to be built there to transport the oil in the Caspian Sea region to the coast?

Just how stupid do you think we are?

4/11/2006 2:10:48 PM

Who is this we?

4/11/2006 2:13:43 PM

Quote :

"Who is this we?"

Those "in the know" and not living in a state of denial.

4/11/2006 2:16:10 PM

"i'm starting with the man in the mirror..."

4/11/2006 2:22:03 PM

i would hope that our country is ready to go to war to protect our oil, we need it
protection of our national interests is ok with me, and at the very least i would expect them to have plans in place

4/11/2006 2:36:08 PM

Quote :

"i would hope that our country is ready to go to war to protect our oil, we need it"

Oil in the Middle East and Caspian Sea region is "our" oil?

Quote :

"protection of our national interests is ok with me, and at the very least i would expect them to have plans in place"

These wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and possibly Iran are NOT for "our national interest." That is the reason they put out through the MSM and other government mouthpieces for public consumption, similar to saying the war in Iraq is to "spread freedom", "eliminate the WMD threat", or any of the other bullshit reasons. The real reason for these wars is that they further the interests of the Zionist Cabal.

They are fighting these wars to control the oil resources and take down countries/regimes that resist their "new world order" agenda (ie, Zionist global domination). They are not fighting these wars for the interest of America or to lower the price of oil. Heck no. The price of oil has skyrocketted since these wars began, as was planned. Higher oil prices mean bigger profits for the Zionist-owned oil companies. Control over this oil and the conflicts of war give them the means and excuse to hike the price of oil.

4/11/2006 3:16:39 PM

im not even claiming these wars were for oil, im saying i agree with statements made by Kissinger
who was the secretary of state IN THE 70'S

4/11/2006 3:18:03 PM

Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Pakistan agreed to build a natural gas pipeline in 1998. Unocal pulled out after US missile attacks on Afghanistan following the bombing of the US embassies in Africa, citing political instability in the area. Unocal led a consortium of companies from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Japan and South Korea hoping to build the pipeline. While Unocal and the other companies involved would have profited from winning such a large contract, the real winners would have been Turkmenistan, who would have been able to transport their natural gas to market much more economically, Pakistan, who would have shipped it to world markets, and Afghanistan, who have collected large fees for the use of their land. Contrary to what you may think, the vast majority of this natural gas would have gone to India, not to western countries. At full swing, the pipeline would have transported 30 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually. Almost three trillion cubic meters of natural gas are consumed globally. The export of natural gas from Turkmenistan to India via Afghanistan really wouldn't do shit for the price of oil or natural gas here.

Now if you want to talk about oil in the Caspian Sea region, the Afghanistan route was the longest and most expensive option on the table. That is why a BP-led consortium recently built a pipeline to the Turkish seaport of Ceyhan. So no, Afghanistan was not invaded for the sake of a non-existant pipeline.

Basically you are wrong about everything.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caspgrph.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Caspian/Background.html

4/11/2006 3:23:42 PM

Quote :

"im not even claiming these wars were for oil"

Well the Sydney Morning Herald reported (see above article) that the war in Afghanistan was planned before 9/11, "with the energy wealth of the Caspian Sea and Central Asia and its importance to America's 'security'" being the prime reason.

And the BBC has reported that the war in Iraq was over oil as well:

BBC- "Secret U.S. Plans For Iraq's Oil"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

Quote :

"MACON,GA.- The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed."

4/11/2006 3:24:50 PM

SO WHERE IS THE NEW AFGHANISTAN OIL PIPELINE, LITTLE BUDDY?

4/11/2006 3:29:50 PM

Quote :

"SO WHERE IS THE NEW AFGHANISTAN OIL PIPELINE"

A deal to build a gas pipeline was signed in 2002, but construction of the pipeline has been delayed by the current situation. Do you think it is easy or favorable to undertake construction of pipelines across Afghanistan when a WAR is going on in the country? Or when the political situation in the country is unstable?

And maybe the elite prefer it that way for now. Restricting oil supply allows them to keep prices high, maximizing profits.

As I said before, this is all about CONTROL of oil and other natural resources. The elite are not interested in maximizing supply and production levels (and thus drastically dropping prices). They don't care, for example, if oil fields and production facilities are damaged in Iraq. That is good for them because it provides another excuse to hike the price of oil.


[Edited on April 11, 2006 at 3:53 PM. Reason : ```````]

4/11/2006 3:47:00 PM

AHAHAHA excuses excuses. Face it, little buddy, there is no oil pipeline. You're basing your entire claim on a piece of evidence that does not exist. GO FIND ME A PIPELINE IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE WITH THIS NONSENSE.

However, there is a natural gas pipeline that does not effect the US at all.

But now I'm curious...Who blew up the US embassies in 1998 and why? I assume that you blame it on the US government. Heres the problem: they could have built the pipeline in 1998, but then the embassies were bombed, ending those plans and forcing an invasion, as you claim. Wouldn't it have been easier for our Elite Zionist Overlords to just build the pipeline in 1998 without having to take military action?

Quote :

"The elite are not interested in maximizing supply and production levels"

So your argument is that the elite invaded Iraq to secure the supply of oil then you turned around and said that they don't care about supply? Do you ever just stop and think about what you're saying?

[Edited on April 11, 2006 at 3:55 PM. Reason : 666]

4/11/2006 3:53:00 PM

Quote :

"GO FIND ME A PIPELINE IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE WITH THIS NONSENSE"

I never said that the elite want the pipeline built right now. I simply stated that Afghanistan was crucial (as a location) for the building of such a pipeline.

Again, this is all about CONTROL of the oil resources, including being able to manipulate the supply levels to control price and profits. Perhaps they don't want the pipeline built for now. And perhaps they would like to build it, but cannot due to the current chaotic situation inside Afghanistan or for other reasons.

Quote :

"So your argument is that the elite invaded Iraq to secure the supply of oil"

NO. I never said they wanted to "secure the supply of oil". As I have consistently stated, this is all about CONTROL over the oil resources.

Quote :

"Do you ever just stop and think about what you're saying?"

Do you ever actually read and comprehend what I'm saying?

Quote :

"Edited on April 11, 2006 at 3:55 PM. Reason : 666"

I've noticed you doing that several times now in this thread. Are you signaling your allegiance to Satan?


[Edited on April 11, 2006 at 4:03 PM. Reason : ```]

4/11/2006 4:00:23 PM

GOOD FUCKIN' JOB THE DUKE

THIS FUCKIN' GUY...

4/11/2006 4:01:13 PM

Quote :

"GOOD FUCKIN' JOB THE DUKE THIS FUCKIN' GUY..."

Attack of the troll!

4/11/2006 4:03:50 PM

ATTACK OF THE NUTJOB!






this fuckin' guy...

4/11/2006 4:04:19 PM

Maybe off-topic, but I have a question Sals-Boy.

Assuming that most of our wars have been planned or permitted by the elites...has there ever been a major conflict that wasn't? A war that wasn't an Inside job.

In other words, when was the last unplanned conflict between "good" guys and "bad" guys?

I'm really curious.

4/11/2006 4:04:39 PM

shit

the zionists caused everything

you wouldn't have even posted that if the zionists hadn't told you to

you're a fucking edomite if i've ever seen one

EDOMITE MOTHERFUCKER DO YOU SPEAK IT

4/11/2006 4:05:46 PM

goddamned edo




THIS FUCKIN' GUY

4/11/2006 4:07:12 PM

Quote :

"I never said that the elite want the pipeline built right now. I simply stated that Afghanistan was crucial (as a location) for the building of such a pipeline. Again, this is all about CONTROL of the oil resources, including being able to manipulate the supply levels to control price and profits. Perhaps they don't want the pipeline built for now. And perhaps they would like to build it, but cannot due to the current chaotic situation inside Iraq or for other reasons."

More excuses. So there is no pipeline, nor are there plans to build one. This is all just in your head. I get it. Once again you are making wild claims without a single shred of evidence.

Quote :

"NO. I never said they wanted to "secure the supply of oil""

You posted this as evidence of the elite's plans.

Sydney Morning Herald: US Prepared to Wage War For Control of Oil Resources
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/25/1040511092926.html

Quote :

"Defence redefined means securing cheap energy December 26 2002 [...] As far back as 1975, Henry Kissinger, then secretary of state, said America was prepared to wage war over oil. Separate plans advocating US conquest of Saudi oilfields were published in the '70s. So it should come as little surprise that in May last year - four months before the terrorist attacks on Washington and New York - a battle plan for Afghanistan was already being reviewed by the US Command that would carry it out after September 11. Military strategists were highlighting the energy wealth of the Caspian Sea and Central Asia and its importance to America's "security"."

Now please answer this:

Quote :

"But now I'm curious...Who blew up the US embassies in 1998 and why? I assume that you blame it on the US government. Heres the problem: they could have built the pipeline in 1998, but then the embassies were bombed, ending those plans and forcing an invasion, as you claim. Wouldn't it have been easier for our Elite Zionist Overlords to just build the pipeline in 1998 without having to take military action?"

[Edited on April 11, 2006 at 4:16 PM. Reason : 666]

4/11/2006 4:11:36 PM

McDanger hasn't stood up for salisburyboy in a while has he?

haven't noticed him...



THIS FUCKIN' GUY

4/11/2006 4:13:37 PM

he doesnt come in here
he just posts in my thread cause he has a crush on me

4/11/2006 4:19:42 PM

Quote :

"Assuming that most of our wars have been planned or permitted by the elites...has there ever been a major conflict that wasn't? A war that wasn't an Inside job."

There's probably been major conflicts that weren't engineered or fomented by elites. But haven't most wars historically been started by political leaders (eg, Alexander the Great, the conquests of the Roman Empire, etc.)? Major conflicts and wars generally require an official action (or declaration of war) from heads of state and government leaders. Otherwise, the conflict is just a "skirmish" or actions of "vigilantes" (or "terrorists" in today's terms).

Now, if you're talking specifically about the Zionist elite who are pushing for this "new world order"...The Zionist banking elite who now exercise enormous power over Western (and other) governments of the world did not rise to power until around the mid to late 17th Century with the rise of the Rothschild banking family.

Most of the major wars of the past 3 centuries (ie, those involving the European and Western Nations) were directly fomented and engineered by this Zionist Cabal working through the Zionist bankers, including even the American Revolutionary War and the War Between the States. Wars require vast amounts of money capital, which essentially only banks can provide. Banks can even control the outcome of the conflict to an extent by withholding loans, preventing one side from arming itself.

Quote :

"In other words, when was the last unplanned conflict between "good" guys and "bad" guys?"

Major conflict? I haven't researched in that area in order to provide an answer, but it probably goes back at least 3 to 4 centuries.

4/11/2006 4:28:45 PM

lets go ahead and get a ctrl+c, ctrl+v on why the zionists cared about panama

this should make me smile

4/11/2006 4:30:46 PM

even if we give you the rothschild argument (HAHAHHHAHAHA), why make the leap from some jews being in charge to all jews being in charge?

i sure as hell am not called about this shit.

4/11/2006 4:31:31 PM

^you just think you're a jew, salisburyboy will let you knwo that you are actually an Edomite

oh

and

which side were the zionists on in the civil war?

[Edited on April 11, 2006 at 4:32 PM. Reason : EDOMITE MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT?]

4/11/2006 4:31:33 PM

did jews start ww2?

[Edited on April 11, 2006 at 4:33 PM. Reason : an edomite? NO!!!!! <cutting wrists now>]

4/11/2006 4:33:05 PM

Quote :

"Most of the major wars of the past 3 centuries (ie, those involving the European and Western Nations) were directly fomented and engineered by this Zionist Cabal working through the Zionist bankers, including even the American Revolutionary War and the War Between the States."

Can we get some proof there, little buddy?

Quote :

"I haven't researched in that area in order to provide an answer, but it probably goes back at least 3 to 4 centuries."

So in reality you have no idea at all. This is just more baseless speculation. Better go check with prisonplanet!

So I guess that you won't admit that you were dead wrong about the non-existant Afghan oil pipeline?

Now please answer this:

Quote :

"But now I'm curious...Who blew up the US embassies in 1998 and why? I assume that you blame it on the US government. Heres the problem: they could have built the pipeline in 1998, but then the embassies were bombed, ending those plans and forcing an invasion, as you claim. Wouldn't it have been easier for our Elite Zionist Overlords to just build the pipeline in 1998 without having to take military action?"

4/11/2006 4:33:45 PM

^^OH CLEARLY

and salisburyboy can show you that less than 100,000 died in German "Work Camps"

RACISM IS FUN WHEN YOU DO IT THE CONSPIRACY ZEALOT WAY!

4/11/2006 4:34:03 PM

at first i would say the north, cause they won
but i think they would like the aristocratic south too


so really...

the zionists were on both sides, orchestrating the entire thing. they did it for some reason, im just not sure what that is.

4/11/2006 4:34:30 PM

Its not racism if you think that its the truth, right?

^ All of those fucking edomite plantation owners.

[Edited on April 11, 2006 at 4:35 PM. Reason : 666]

4/11/2006 4:34:55 PM

since salisburyboy is now telling us 9/11 was done for an oil pipeline

i guess the civil war was faught so we could get i-95 or something

i dunno

4/11/2006 4:35:33 PM

Quote :

"did jews start ww2?"

nah the edomites did it.

hitler and the real jews were someplace worshipping thor when the edomites made them go berserk.

see that, usage of the word berserk in reference to les nordiques? i'm a wordsmith.



THIS FUCKIN' GUY

[Edited on April 11, 2006 at 4:36 PM. Reason : *]

4/11/2006 4:35:46 PM

Quote :

"since salisburyboy is now telling us 9/11 was done for an oil pipeline i guess the civil war was faught so we could get i-95 or something i dunno"

nah the revolutionary war was fought for i-95. the civil war was more for US-1.

4/11/2006 4:36:54 PM

DID SOMEONE SAY "THOR"?

4/11/2006 4:36:54 PM

Quote :

" i guess the civil war was faught so we could get i-95 or something i dunno"

there are a lot of roads that follow old troop movements

INTERESTING

4/11/2006 4:37:45 PM

VERY INTERESTING.

THIS CAN'T BE A COINCIDENCE.



THIS FUCKIN' GUY

4/11/2006 4:39:02 PM

The Zionists wanted control of the world's cotton supply.

4/11/2006 4:39:42 PM

john wilkes boothe was the first model slash actor

4/11/2006 4:40:23 PM