hey salis....respond to Mr. Joshuas last post

8/8/2006 5:10:26 PM

Quote :

"You don't even bring of valid points or address questions anymore. All you do is quote bomb articles from news sources that no one has ever heard of that tout the popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Have you completely given up on defending your ideas, instead choosing to show us statistics about people who agree with you? If your case is so airtight, why can't you defend it?"

8/8/2006 5:37:12 PM

8/8/2006 5:43:05 PM

Quote :

"And now you're offline. You log on, post your article, and then log off without even attempting to have a discussion. You're like a little hermit crab that only sticks its head when it needs to and then spends the rest of its time in its little shell. Now you're just trolling."

8/8/2006 5:53:11 PM

http://story.malaysiasun.com/p.x/ct/9/cid/b8de8e630faf3631/id/7cca827f00576d2a/

Quote :

"Presbyterian Church publishes 9/11 conspiracy theory Malaysia Sun Tuesday 8th August, 2006 The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)'s publishing arm has released a book that says President Bush organized New York's Sept. 11 attacks. The decision by the 160-year-old Westminster John Knox Press, the trade and academic publishing imprint of the Presbyterian Publishing Corp., to attribute the attacks on the World Trade Center brings into the U.S. religious mainstream a conspiracy theory long held by the world's jihadists. In 'Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action,' author David Ray Griffin calls the United States the world's 'chief embodiment of demonic power, says he initially scoffed at 9/11 conspiracy theories. But after investigating he concluded that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition, military personnel were given stand-down orders not to intercept hijacked flights and the 9/11 Commission, ostensibly created to uncover the truth behind the events of 9/11, 'simply ignored evidence' that the administration was involved in the attacks. Griffin further asserts that such events such as that of 9/11 are part of a long history of 'false-flag attacks,' attacks orchestrated by governments against their own people to garner popular support for military action."

But remember kids, it's not as if Bush masterminded the whole thing himself. Bush and our elected "leaders" are just the puppets of the real power behind the scenes...the forces of international Judaism/Zionism.

Now that the fact that 9/11 was an inside job is going mainstream, the MSM and other gatekeepers are going to try to spin it that only Bush and a few others around him orchestrated the whole thing....which does nothing to hinder the plans of those who hold the real power and who really masterminded 9/11.


[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 8:02 AM. Reason : `]

8/9/2006 8:02:00 AM

Quote :

""And now you're offline. You log on, post your article, and then log off without even attempting to have a discussion. You're like a little hermit crab that only sticks its head when it needs to and then spends the rest of its time in its little shell. Now you're just trolling.""

your movement is going nowhere...in 20 years...noone will know you moonbats existed

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 8:04 AM. Reason : asdf]

8/9/2006 8:03:45 AM

Quote :

"your movement is going nowhere...in 20 years...noone will know you moonbats existed"

Please. In 20 years, you won't be able to find anybody who believes the "official" story on 9/11, and the "moonbats" will be those lone few who still believe the government's account.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_william__060808_hope_for_all_9_2f11_tr.htm

Quote :

"Hope for all 9/11 truth seekers. The guilty are beginning to crack. by William Douglas August 8, 2006 Today's AOL poll 50 percent of voters now believe the government is involved (AOL was a few months ago filled with Bush lovers). Today's CNN Poll showed 70 percent believe 9/11 was an inside job. ...as we've all realized, the 9/11 lies are so incredibly transparent, once people get thru the media blockade of propaganda and realize how absolutely transparent the 9/11 fraud was. Millions have done that. The few thousand of us that were bouncing off the walls to get the truth out, have now been replaced with reinforcements. People not burned out from our years of struggle. People with fire and energy, and a burning need to get truth out far and fast. [...] Even the most conservative 9/11 poll shows one in every three people you meet on the street in America know the Administration is complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Most polls show between 50 percent and 70 percent do."

8/9/2006 9:37:27 AM

Quote :

"In 20 years, you won't be able to find anybody who believes the "official" story on 9/11, and the "moonbats" will be those lone few who still believe the government's account."

please...

Quote :

"your movement is going nowhere...in 20 years...noone will know you moonbats existe"

8/9/2006 11:10:24 AM

Lame hit piece...

http://www.sheboygan-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060809/SHE06/608090510/1110/SHEopinion

Quote :

"Editorial: We've had enough of 9/11 conspiracy theorists Nonsense. [...] While we acknowledge every citizen's First Amendment right of freedom of speech, we also claim ours. And our opinion remains steadfast that it was a terrorist attack that brought the towers down. The conspiracy theorists claim, in part, that the twin towers collapsed because of internal explosions and not as a result of the hijacked airlines plowing into them. To back this contention, they say the government deliberately reacted slowly to the reports of hijacked planes."

Commentary on lame hit piece...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/090806plainstupid.htm

Quote :

"9/11 Hit Pieces Get Just Plain Stupid: Part 1 Writing "nonsense," and giving the word its own paragraph is not a satisfactory rebuttal Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | August 9 2006 [...] This has to be my favorite 9/11 hit piece of all time, even topping Betsy Hart's 'argument' that 9/11 skeptics are wrong because they fear Muslims. It is the most inept and manifestly ridiculous attempt at arguing for the official line that I have ever encountered. Amazingly it's written by the entire editorial staff - their best and brightest - which must mean that the rest of their journalists are a mixture of kindergarten kids and Rhesus monkeys. Maturely titled, 'We've had enough of 9/11 conspiracy theorists', this pathetic excuse for an article dismisses WTC demolition evidence by proudly announcing, "Our opinion remains steadfast that it was a terrorist attack that brought the towers down." [...] I can't even adequately lower myself to their demented moronic level of thinking to fully communicate how utterly stupid and retarded their claims sound. So Mr. Professor, what caused the collapse of the towers and Building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, the first time any steel building had collapsed from fire damage in history? "It gotta be 'dem 'dirty low down stinkin' terrorists dat done dem cole-apses, uh huh and 'dat's for damn sure." It gets worse - in one instance they try to scientifically disprove claims that the government's version of 9/11 is a lie by typing the word, "Nonsense" And giving that word its own paragraph. Cue their heavyweight historical 'fact' that also proves 9/11 was carried out by 19 dunderheads with box cutters that couldn't even fly Cessna's. [...] Our illustrious editors wrap it all up by throwing their toys out of the pram and saying they don't want to hear any more about it. Unfortunately, following the publication of this expose they'll be hearing more about it. A lot more."

LOL

8/9/2006 12:01:28 PM

Salisburyboy, I didn't mind you coming on and presenting your ideas and then defending them when people pointed out the problems with them. In fact it was kind of fun to watch. What you are doing now is spamming. That is grounds for suspension. No, I'm not trying to silence you because of your views, so don't even try to play that card.

What is noteworthy about this article? Alex Jones managed to find a superficial poke at 9/11 conspiracy theorists. It isn't trying to debunk any theories, it is just a statement of opinion (thats what editorials do, little buddy).

Quote :

"This has to be my favorite 9/11 hit piece of all time, even topping Betsy Hart's 'argument' that 9/11 skeptics are wrong because they fear Muslims. It is the most inept and manifestly ridiculous attempt at arguing for the official line that I have ever encountered."

Can a statement of opinion be considered a hit piece? If I were to write an editorial about how good chicken nuggets are are Wendys, would you immediately label it a "McNugget Hit Piece"? Why can't Alex Jones address the articles that are actually written to point out the gaping holes and tremendous problems with 9/11 conspiracy theories? Has prisonplanet adopted the same lame strategy as you: never defending your ideas, but instead linking to "hit pieces" and statistics about 9/11 theories?

Quote :

"Amazingly it's written by the entire editorial staff - their best and brightest - which must mean that the rest of their journalists are a mixture of kindergarten kids and Rhesus monkeys"

Alex sure is giving himself a lot of credit there, isn't he? The "best and brightest"? I'm sure that the local chapter of the zionist cabal in Sheboygan got together and told the editorial staff, "You must all get together and write a brief editorial about how you are tired of 9/11 conspiracy theories! Alex Jones and salisburyboy are getting too close!" Where does the article say "Written by the best and brightest of the entire editorial staff.

Quote :

"It gets worse - in one instance they try to scientifically disprove claims that the government's version of 9/11 is a lie by typing the word, "Nonsense" And giving that word its own paragraph."

The editorial doesn't try to disprove anything.

Quote :

"Cue their heavyweight historical 'fact' that also proves 9/11 was carried out by 19 dunderheads with box cutters that couldn't even fly Cessna's."

You've never addressed any of my questions about statements like this. Are arabs just stupid stupid people who can't do anything right? Whenever there is any kind of terrorist attack, the first thing that you do is immediately dismiss the possibility that a simple" arab could pull it off.

Quote :

"Big city papers scoff at 9/11 skeptics, but have trouble getting names right."

Hahahahahaha. 50,000 people live in Sheboygan. Of course, the article was actually printed by a paper in Green Bay, a bustling metropolis of 100,000 people. Those sure are some big cities!

Did you notice the wording of the article?

"mixture of kindergarten kids and Rhesus monkeys"
"pathetic excuse for an article"
"demented moronic level of thinking"
"how utterly stupid and retarded their claims sound"
"inept idiots who couldn't win a debate with a 3-year-old"

If Alex Jones is such a brilliant man, why can't he write a response to an editorial without foaming at the mouth and throwing around slanderous names like that?

By the way:

You don't even bring of valid points or address questions anymore. All you do is quote bomb articles from news sources that no one has ever heard of that tout the popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Have you completely given up on defending your ideas, instead choosing to show us statistics about people who agree with you? If your case is so airtight, why can't you defend it?

Here are some videos of actual building implosions:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3734778582740389904&q=implosion

Hear the deafening explosions long before the building even moves?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6979955002470780153&q=implosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6209867556562706196&q=implosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5446838557512388694&q=implosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5360235832416833797&q=implosion

This is the same building. Notice the clearly visible explosions all over the building? Notice how the building collapse begins at the bottom instead of the top falling first?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5515424451823800690&q=implosion

Same features, different building. Loud explosions. Collapse begins at the bottom, not the top. I know that you love to point out the cloud of dust shot from the window during the collapse of the WTC, but the simple fact is that there is absolutely no need to set off additional explosions as the building is collapsing - momentum will do the job.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8719593880031165898&q=implosion

Heres the same thing in Raleigh, no less. There is no need to set off more charges during collapse. What you saw during the WTC collapse was air being forced out as the floors pancaked.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7000444892387259083&q=implosion

Heres a building in Las Vegas. Notice the many clearly visible sequenced explosions? Where were those when the WTC came down? One plume of dust coming out of a window is not evidence of a controlled demolition.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6449270076349123045&q=implosion

Heres another one. Notice the explosions all took place before the collapse, not during.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4451252877216031192&q=implosion

Heres a dorm in Minnesota. Loud and clearly visible sequenced explosions prior to collapse. There are even plumes of dust ejected from the windows during collapse, just like the WTC. Notice that you don't hear any explosion accompanying the dust plume.

There are a lot more videos out there if you want to see more. All of those buildings were significantly smaller than the World Trade Center, yet still produced deafening explosions. How many tons of explosives would have been needed to bring down two 110 story skyscrapers? Why doesn't a single video of the event include the sound of sequenced explosions?

Look at the explosions themselves. They all happened before the collapse. In every single video you see and hear charges going off followed by a dead silence, and then the collapse of the building. Ever single piece of evidence that you bring to the table lacks this. Instead you point to puffs of dust near windows as the prrof of explosives. Find me a video that features explosives being set off underneath a collapsing structure as it falls.

All of these building begin collapse at the bottom. The tops of the WTC (above the point of impact) fell into the rest of the builing with sufficient momentum to bring the towers down. Find me a video of this technique being used to collapse a high rise.

8/9/2006 2:55:15 PM

Same questions....34 pages later...

Who is avoiding a rational argument?

No, bin Laden didn't have any motive to carry out the 9/11 attacks.

Its not like he issued a fatwah or anything urging muslims to kill americans.

Keep ignoring evidence, little buddy.

Quote :

"Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans Published in Al-Quds al-'Arabi on Febuary 23, 1998 Statement signed by Sheikh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin; Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of the Jihad Group in Egypt; Abu- Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, a leader of the Islamic Group; Sheikh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan; and Fazlul Rahman, leader of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh ... All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al- Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said "As for the militant struggle, it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life." On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God." This is in addition to the words of Almighty God "And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated and oppressed--women and children, whose cry is 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'" We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson."

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm

Could you please address these questions? I'm not trying to redirect or distract here. I'm genuinely curious. You made statements regarding all of these questions in this very thread, I would just like you to explain them before moving on. I questioned these claims when they were originally made, but you ignored me. Why won't you answer them?

Why didn't they build a pipeline in 1998? Why did they blow up their own african embassies and then launch a missile attack on Afghanistan? They were set to build a natural gas pipeline with the Taliban then. Why mess that up for no reason?

You don't believe that Afghanistan was invaded for the sake of a pipeline? Then why are you defending that theory so stubbornly?

You just said that Afghanistan was invaded so that a pipeline could be built. Now you're saying that the zionists wanted to prevent the building of a pipeline - just like how Iraq was invaded to secure the oil supply even though the zionists don't care about the oil supply. How do you reconcile all of the conflicting information that you spout off on here?

By the way, how did the zionists cause the Revolutionary War?

Do you even know anything about american history? To say that the Civil War was caused simply by "illuminati agitators" is to ignore almost every detail of the decades that preceded the conflict.

Can we get some proof that John Wilkes Booth was an agent of the NWO rather than an upset Confederate sympathizer?

I would also like to see some proof that Pearl Harbor was caused by the evil edomite zionists.

You have provided absolutely no evidence at all that the Rothschilds are the zionists at the top running world events. They were a prominent family that supported the creation of a jewish state, that is all. Please provide some evidence other than "Here are some rich jews!"

So why should anyone believe your rantings anyway You have admitted that you hate jews. As such, you are far from an impartial source when you blame jews for every problem in the world.

So when was the Israeli false flag terrorist attack in Washington state?

What about the train bombing in Mumbai? Was that a government inside job? Whenever muslim terrorists attack western interests you immediately blame it on the zionists, what about this one?

Why is it spamming if I repeat unanswered questions, but it's ok for you to repost the same article in the same thread five times?

Can I get your take on this? I posted it in your Mel Gibson fan club thread but you must have missed it:

Here is Wikipedias definition of a conspiracy theory. Your Zionist NWO plot is in line with ever single point.

1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.

2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.

3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.

4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.

5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.

6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;
Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.

7. Appeals to 'common sense';
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.

8. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;
Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.

9. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.

10. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.

11. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.

12. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.

13. The conspiracy is claimed to involve just about anybody;
Conspiracy tales grow in the telling, and can swell to world-spanning proportions. As the adherents struggle to explain counter-arguments, the conspiracy grows even more (see preceding item). Conspiracy theories that have been around for a few decades typically encompass the whole world and huge portions of history.

14. The conspiracy centers on the "usual suspects";
Classical conspiracy theories feature people, groups or organizations that are discriminated against in the culture where the story is told. Jews and foreigners are a common target. Likewise, organizations with a bad or colorful reputation feature prominently, such as the Templars, the Nazis and just about any secret service.

8/9/2006 2:56:13 PM

John McCain slams 9/11 truth seekers. And Popular Mechanics is apparantly coming out with a book to counter the 9/11 truth movement...

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0810nowicki0810.html

Quote :

"McCain rebuffs 9/11 revisionists Aug. 10, 2006 12:00 AM Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., rebukes the crackpot Sept. 11, 2001, revisionists in the foreword to a new book titled Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts from the editors of Popular Mechanics magazine. "We cannot let these tales go unanswered," McCain writes. "The 9/11 conspiracy movement exploits the public's anger and sadness. It shakes Americans' faith in their government at a time when that faith is already near an all-time low. It traffics in ugly, unfounded accusations of extraordinary evil against fellow Americans." The book is an expanded version of a March 2005 Popular Mechanics piece that relied on cold, hard science to knock down various wild-eyed, Internet-distributed conspiracies about the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. McCain again from his foreword: "The CIA was not involved in 9/11. Our military did not bring about the destruction of the World Trade Center. Bombs or missiles did not fell the towers. A white jet did not shoot down Flight 93." The authors also take apart what to me is perhaps the kookiest theory: that the damage to the Pentagon was not consistent with a strike from a Boeing 757. At the time, I was living down the street on Columbia Pike in Arlington, Va. I passed the Pentagon every day on the way to work in downtown Washington, D.C. I'm no expert, but it sure seemed to me like a plane could have caused the destruction, the horrendous black smoke and burning fuel stench."

Wow. Lots of disparaging and insulting adjectives thrown around. Looks like a sound argument to me.

That quote from Ghandi comes to mind again...

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

8/10/2006 12:14:24 PM

check the thread about the plane that hit the pentagon salisbury

8/10/2006 12:20:57 PM

sooo..let me get this straight....anytime anyone disagrees with you in any way.....its just confirmation that you are right??

thats a pretty sweeet deal...

8/10/2006 12:22:09 PM

How is John McCain slamming conspiracy theorists by calling their accusations "ugly" and "unfounded"? They are.

If you want to see lots of disparaging and insulting adjectives thrown around, take a look at the last Alex Jones article that you posted.

"mixture of kindergarten kids and Rhesus monkeys"
"pathetic excuse for an article"
"demented moronic level of thinking"
"how utterly stupid and retarded their claims sound"
"inept idiots who couldn't win a debate with a 3-year-old"

Somehow you missed the slander that filled his little article. You didn't mention that it proved that he was fighting a losing battle, and definitely didn't quote Ghandi aftwerwards.

So whenever someone in the mainstream calls a conspiracy theorist anything disparaging, it proves that they are wrong and desperate to silence opposition, but whenever a conspiracy theorist says anything insulting about the mainstream, you post it, followed with "LOL". Thats quite a double standard.

By the way:

You don't even bring of valid points or address questions anymore. All you do is quote bomb articles from news sources that no one has ever heard of that tout the popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Have you completely given up on defending your ideas, instead choosing to show us statistics about people who agree with you? If your case is so airtight, why can't you defend it?

Here are some videos of actual building implosions:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3734778582740389904&q=implosion

Hear the deafening explosions long before the building even moves?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6979955002470780153&q=implosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6209867556562706196&q=implosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5446838557512388694&q=implosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5360235832416833797&q=implosion

This is the same building. Notice the clearly visible explosions all over the building? Notice how the building collapse begins at the bottom instead of the top falling first?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5515424451823800690&q=implosion

Same features, different building. Loud explosions. Collapse begins at the bottom, not the top. I know that you love to point out the cloud of dust shot from the window during the collapse of the WTC, but the simple fact is that there is absolutely no need to set off additional explosions as the building is collapsing - momentum will do the job.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8719593880031165898&q=implosion

Heres the same thing in Raleigh, no less. There is no need to set off more charges during collapse. What you saw during the WTC collapse was air being forced out as the floors pancaked.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7000444892387259083&q=implosion

Heres a building in Las Vegas. Notice the many clearly visible sequenced explosions? Where were those when the WTC came down? One plume of dust coming out of a window is not evidence of a controlled demolition.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6449270076349123045&q=implosion

Heres another one. Notice the explosions all took place before the collapse, not during.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4451252877216031192&q=implosion

Heres a dorm in Minnesota. Loud and clearly visible sequenced explosions prior to collapse. There are even plumes of dust ejected from the windows during collapse, just like the WTC. Notice that you don't hear any explosion accompanying the dust plume.

There are a lot more videos out there if you want to see more. All of those buildings were significantly smaller than the World Trade Center, yet still produced deafening explosions. How many tons of explosives would have been needed to bring down two 110 story skyscrapers? Why doesn't a single video of the event include the sound of sequenced explosions?

Look at the explosions themselves. They all happened before the collapse. In every single video you see and hear charges going off followed by a dead silence, and then the collapse of the building. Ever single piece of evidence that you bring to the table lacks this. Instead you point to puffs of dust near windows as the prrof of explosives. Find me a video that features explosives being set off underneath a collapsing structure as it falls.

All of these building begin collapse at the bottom. The tops of the WTC (above the point of impact) fell into the rest of the builing with sufficient momentum to bring the towers down. Find me a video of this technique being used to collapse a high rise.

8/10/2006 1:01:36 PM

Same questions....34 pages later...

Who is avoiding a rational argument?

No, bin Laden didn't have any motive to carry out the 9/11 attacks.

Its not like he issued a fatwah or anything urging muslims to kill americans.

Keep ignoring evidence, little buddy.

Quote :

"Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans Published in Al-Quds al-'Arabi on Febuary 23, 1998 Statement signed by Sheikh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin; Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of the Jihad Group in Egypt; Abu- Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, a leader of the Islamic Group; Sheikh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan; and Fazlul Rahman, leader of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh ... All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al- Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said "As for the militant struggle, it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life." On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God." This is in addition to the words of Almighty God "And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated and oppressed--women and children, whose cry is 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'" We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson."

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm

Could you please address these questions? I'm not trying to redirect or distract here. I'm genuinely curious. You made statements regarding all of these questions in this very thread, I would just like you to explain them before moving on. I questioned these claims when they were originally made, but you ignored me. Why won't you answer them?

Why didn't they build a pipeline in 1998? Why did they blow up their own african embassies and then launch a missile attack on Afghanistan? They were set to build a natural gas pipeline with the Taliban then. Why mess that up for no reason?

You don't believe that Afghanistan was invaded for the sake of a pipeline? Then why are you defending that theory so stubbornly?

You just said that Afghanistan was invaded so that a pipeline could be built. Now you're saying that the zionists wanted to prevent the building of a pipeline - just like how Iraq was invaded to secure the oil supply even though the zionists don't care about the oil supply. How do you reconcile all of the conflicting information that you spout off on here?

By the way, how did the zionists cause the Revolutionary War?

Do you even know anything about american history? To say that the Civil War was caused simply by "illuminati agitators" is to ignore almost every detail of the decades that preceded the conflict.

Can we get some proof that John Wilkes Booth was an agent of the NWO rather than an upset Confederate sympathizer?

I would also like to see some proof that Pearl Harbor was caused by the evil edomite zionists.

You have provided absolutely no evidence at all that the Rothschilds are the zionists at the top running world events. They were a prominent family that supported the creation of a jewish state, that is all. Please provide some evidence other than "Here are some rich jews!"

So why should anyone believe your rantings anyway You have admitted that you hate jews. As such, you are far from an impartial source when you blame jews for every problem in the world.

So when was the Israeli false flag terrorist attack in Washington state?

What about the train bombing in Mumbai? Was that a government inside job? Whenever muslim terrorists attack western interests you immediately blame it on the zionists, what about this one?

Why is it spamming if I repeat unanswered questions, but it's ok for you to repost the same article in the same thread five times?

Can I get your take on this? I posted it in your Mel Gibson fan club thread but you must have missed it:

Here is Wikipedias definition of a conspiracy theory. Your Zionist NWO plot is in line with ever single point.

1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.

2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.

3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.

4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.

5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.

6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;
Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.

7. Appeals to 'common sense';
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.

8. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;
Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.

9. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.

10. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.

11. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.

12. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.

13. The conspiracy is claimed to involve just about anybody;
Conspiracy tales grow in the telling, and can swell to world-spanning proportions. As the adherents struggle to explain counter-arguments, the conspiracy grows even more (see preceding item). Conspiracy theories that have been around for a few decades typically encompass the whole world and huge portions of history.

14. The conspiracy centers on the "usual suspects";
Classical conspiracy theories feature people, groups or organizations that are discriminated against in the culture where the story is told. Jews and foreigners are a common target. Likewise, organizations with a bad or colorful reputation feature prominently, such as the Templars, the Nazis and just about any secret service.

8/10/2006 1:02:07 PM

Prisonplanet response to the lame Popular Mechanics hit piece in light of the news that they are issuing a book to attack the 9/11 truth movement:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/100806popularmechanics.htm

Quote :

"Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies Nepotism, bias, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | August 10 2006 Popular Mechanics has re-entered the media circus in an attempt to continue its 9/11 debunking campaign that began in March of last year. A new book claims to expose the myths of the 9/11 truth movement, yet it is Popular Mechanics who have been exposed as promulgating falsehoods while engaging in nepotism, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics. [...] Popular Mechanics' March 2005 front cover story was entitled 'Debunking 9/11 Lies' and has since become the bellwether reference point for all proponents of the official 9/11 fairytale. [...] The arguments presented in the article have been widely debunked by the 9/11 truth community as an example of a straw man hatchet job - whereby false arguments are erected, attributed to 9/11 skeptics, and then shot down. [...] Popular Mechanics are sure to make a tidy sum of money from their latest publication, but their credibility is certain to dwindle in light of the fact that they are willingly acting as collaborators by aiding the cover-up of a crime that resulted in the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and untold more to come as a result of how the attack changed US foreign policy."

8/10/2006 1:23:57 PM

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=425504

8/10/2006 1:24:39 PM

The Pentagon is just one issue dude. Even if a 757 hit the Pentagon just as the government says, that would do nothing to address the MANY other problems with the official conspiracy theory.

8/10/2006 1:26:55 PM

salis....yours is the ONLY conspiracy theory...and you know it

^(and to be dramatic like salis would )....the conspiracy thoery is coming unraveled. Look at the way he avoids discussion. Soon, everyone will know the truth. Insane muslims attacked the WTC.



and dont even bother with your typical answer of "yeeeeaahhhh right"

[Edited on August 10, 2006 at 1:32 PM. Reason : asdf]

8/10/2006 1:27:40 PM

Quote :

"official conspiracy theory"

oxymoron

8/10/2006 1:45:23 PM

Quote :

"Prisonplanet response to the lame Popular Mechanics hit piece in light of the news that they are issuing a book to attack the 9/11 truth movement"

If it is such a "lame hit piece", why can't you debunk it? All that you can do is try to dismiss it without consideration, which is what you have been doing since it was published.

Quote :

"The Pentagon is just one issue dude. Even if a 757 hit the Pentagon just as the government says, that would do nothing to address the MANY other problems with the official conspiracy theory."

So did a 757 hit the pentagon or not?

8/10/2006 2:33:02 PM

Mr. Joshua, you're even more of a tard than saliburyboy, for trying to seriously rationalize with him. there's enough soabox heroes. sit down already.

8/11/2006 12:57:56 AM

RAWK!

8/11/2006 2:25:49 AM

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/110806linkstruthers.htm

Quote :

"CNN's Amanpour Links 9/11 Truthers With Sky Terrorists Says Muslims, "succumbing to the conspiracy theories" Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | August 11 2006 CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour equated yesterday's alleged sky terrorist liquid explosive plotters with the 9/11 truth movement, the latest brazen attempt to vilify anyone who disagrees with the official 9/11 fairytale. Here's the quote in full. "And there is some evidence that is coming out now, five years after 9/11, that many, many Muslims in England and around the world, according to documentaries that have been produced, are really succumbing to the conspiracy theories. They're really now saying that 9/11 was not al Qaeda; it was a U.S./CIA, Mossad/Israel, Zionist plot, basically designed to cause a war against Islam.""

How much longer until the government is claiming that those in the 9/11 truth movement are "terrorists" / "terrorist sympathizers" / etc ?

8/11/2006 12:08:05 PM

Haha, I don't see how they allow this trolling

8/11/2006 12:13:47 PM

I havent been following this too much, but quick question for you.

You claim that explosive were set off at the ground level of the WTC towers, right? Assuming this, because this is how all demolition is executed and the only way explosives would leave a similar debris pattern.

If explosives were set off at the ground floor, how did thousands of rescue workers enter the buildings and thousands of people escape?

And if they weren't set off at ground floor, why did the entire structure become demolished and not just the portion above the explosion?

8/11/2006 12:16:10 PM

Quote :

"Haha, I don't see how they allow this trolling"

As anyone knows who's read my posts over the ~4 years I've posted on TWW, I'm entirely serious in what I post. I say what I believe.

If you want to harp on trolling, how about the blatantly obvious (and even admitted) trolling by people who hate me and have tried to silence me and run me out of the soap box (eg, JonHGuth, Woodfoot, 30thAnz, etc.)?

Most likely, you know damn well I'm not trolling. You're just another troll yourself trying to run me out of here.

8/11/2006 12:18:08 PM

Can you answer my question?

8/11/2006 12:31:18 PM

Quote :

"You claim that explosive were set off at the ground level of the WTC towers, right?"

Yes. But not only at the ground level. The entire buildings were rigged with explosives, including the basement levels.

Quote :

"If explosives were set off at the ground floor, how did thousands of rescue workers enter the buildings and thousands of people escape?"

Most of the explosives in the buildings detonated just prior (and during) the collapse of the towers. However, I think that a few explosives detonated on the ground level well prior to the collapses. But these explosions did not totally destroy the ground floors and make it impossible for people to enter/exit the buildings.

8/11/2006 12:58:50 PM

Wouldn't some of the people inside that survived and the rescue workers have noticed enough explosives being set off to level 2 110 story buildings?

Also, what about the people that were trapped at the bottom and survived? How did they survive the explosions that allegedly caused the structure to fail?

8/11/2006 1:07:29 PM

Its trolling because you dont respond to the questions that have torn apart your argument. I think thats trolling, its something.

8/11/2006 1:13:03 PM

Quote :

"Most of the explosives in the buildings detonated just prior (and during) the collapse of the towers."

Why would anyone set off explosives during the collapse of the building? Once you ruin the structural integrity of the building, the downward momentum of the upward portion will level the building. Do some research into the controlled demolition of buildings (since you put so much emphasis on in depth research). Find me one example of a controlled demolition that includes explosions during collapse.

Quote :

"However, I think that a few explosives detonated on the ground level well prior to the collapses. But these explosions did not totally destroy the ground floors and make it impossible for people to enter/exit the buildings."

Why on earth would they set off explosives in the basement well prior to the collapse? How did explosives in the basement create the top-to-bottom collapse that destroyed the WTC? Some people were burned in the basement. Can you prove that this was a result of explosives and not the result of jet fuel pouring down the elevator shafts to the bottom of the building after the aircrft impact?

Quote :

"Most likely, you know damn well I'm not trolling. You're just another troll yourself trying to run me out of here."

"I'm not a troll! You're a troll!"

Brilliant work.

I had no problem when you posted your ideas in your own words and defended them (to the limited degree that you did) when questioned by others. In fact, I was on your side in one of the "Suspend Salisburyboy" threads. I welcome the introduction of new ideas, but this is a discussion board - as such you are expected to discuss your ideas, otherwise you are just wasting time.

However, now you are blatantly trolling. You log on, post an article that you have cut and pasted from prisonplanet, and then log off. You no longer respond to the questions asked of you or discuss your ideas, you just spam the board with articles from Alex Jones.

By the way:

You don't even bring of valid points or address questions anymore. All you do is quote bomb articles from news sources that no one has ever heard of that tout the popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Have you completely given up on defending your ideas, instead choosing to show us statistics about people who agree with you? If your case is so airtight, why can't you defend it?

Here are some videos of actual building implosions:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3734778582740389904&q=implosion

Hear the deafening explosions long before the building even moves?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6979955002470780153&q=implosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6209867556562706196&q=implosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5446838557512388694&q=implosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5360235832416833797&q=implosion

This is the same building. Notice the clearly visible explosions all over the building? Notice how the building collapse begins at the bottom instead of the top falling first?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5515424451823800690&q=implosion

Same features, different building. Loud explosions. Collapse begins at the bottom, not the top. I know that you love to point out the cloud of dust shot from the window during the collapse of the WTC, but the simple fact is that there is absolutely no need to set off additional explosions as the building is collapsing - momentum will do the job.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8719593880031165898&q=implosion

Heres the same thing in Raleigh, no less. There is no need to set off more charges during collapse. What you saw during the WTC collapse was air being forced out as the floors pancaked.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7000444892387259083&q=implosion

Heres a building in Las Vegas. Notice the many clearly visible sequenced explosions? Where were those when the WTC came down? One plume of dust coming out of a window is not evidence of a controlled demolition.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6449270076349123045&q=implosion

Heres another one. Notice the explosions all took place before the collapse, not during.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4451252877216031192&q=implosion

Heres a dorm in Minnesota. Loud and clearly visible sequenced explosions prior to collapse. There are even plumes of dust ejected from the windows during collapse, just like the WTC. Notice that you don't hear any explosion accompanying the dust plume.

There are a lot more videos out there if you want to see more. All of those buildings were significantly smaller than the World Trade Center, yet still produced deafening explosions. How many tons of explosives would have been needed to bring down two 110 story skyscrapers? Why doesn't a single video of the event include the sound of sequenced explosions?

Look at the explosions themselves. They all happened before the collapse. In every single video you see and hear charges going off followed by a dead silence, and then the collapse of the building. Ever single piece of evidence that you bring to the table lacks this. Instead you point to puffs of dust near windows as the prrof of explosives. Find me a video that features explosives being set off underneath a collapsing structure as it falls.

All of these building begin collapse at the bottom. The tops of the WTC (above the point of impact) fell into the rest of the builing with sufficient momentum to bring the towers down. Find me a video of this technique being used to collapse a high rise.

8/13/2006 4:42:58 PM

Same questions....34 pages later...

Who is avoiding a rational argument?

No, bin Laden didn't have any motive to carry out the 9/11 attacks.

Its not like he issued a fatwah or anything urging muslims to kill americans.

Keep ignoring evidence, little buddy.

Quote :

"Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans Published in Al-Quds al-'Arabi on Febuary 23, 1998 Statement signed by Sheikh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin; Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of the Jihad Group in Egypt; Abu- Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, a leader of the Islamic Group; Sheikh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan; and Fazlul Rahman, leader of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh ... All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al- Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said "As for the militant struggle, it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life." On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God." This is in addition to the words of Almighty God "And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated and oppressed--women and children, whose cry is 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'" We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson."

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm

Could you please address these questions? I'm not trying to redirect or distract here. I'm genuinely curious. You made statements regarding all of these questions in this very thread, I would just like you to explain them before moving on. I questioned these claims when they were originally made, but you ignored me. Why won't you answer them?

Why didn't they build a pipeline in 1998? Why did they blow up their own african embassies and then launch a missile attack on Afghanistan? They were set to build a natural gas pipeline with the Taliban then. Why mess that up for no reason?

You don't believe that Afghanistan was invaded for the sake of a pipeline? Then why are you defending that theory so stubbornly?

You just said that Afghanistan was invaded so that a pipeline could be built. Now you're saying that the zionists wanted to prevent the building of a pipeline - just like how Iraq was invaded to secure the oil supply even though the zionists don't care about the oil supply. How do you reconcile all of the conflicting information that you spout off on here?

By the way, how did the zionists cause the Revolutionary War?

Do you even know anything about american history? To say that the Civil War was caused simply by "illuminati agitators" is to ignore almost every detail of the decades that preceded the conflict.

Can we get some proof that John Wilkes Booth was an agent of the NWO rather than an upset Confederate sympathizer?

I would also like to see some proof that Pearl Harbor was caused by the evil edomite zionists.

You have provided absolutely no evidence at all that the Rothschilds are the zionists at the top running world events. They were a prominent family that supported the creation of a jewish state, that is all. Please provide some evidence other than "Here are some rich jews!"

So why should anyone believe your rantings anyway You have admitted that you hate jews. As such, you are far from an impartial source when you blame jews for every problem in the world.

So when was the Israeli false flag terrorist attack in Washington state?

What about the train bombing in Mumbai? Was that a government inside job? Whenever muslim terrorists attack western interests you immediately blame it on the zionists, what about this one?

Why is it spamming if I repeat unanswered questions, but it's ok for you to repost the same article in the same thread five times?

Can I get your take on this? I posted it in your Mel Gibson fan club thread but you must have missed it:

Here is Wikipedias definition of a conspiracy theory. Your Zionist NWO plot is in line with ever single point.

1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.

2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.

3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.

4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.

5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.

6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;
Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.

7. Appeals to 'common sense';
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.

8. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;
Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.

9. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.

10. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.

11. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.

12. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.

13. The conspiracy is claimed to involve just about anybody;
Conspiracy tales grow in the telling, and can swell to world-spanning proportions. As the adherents struggle to explain counter-arguments, the conspiracy grows even more (see preceding item). Conspiracy theories that have been around for a few decades typically encompass the whole world and huge portions of history.

14. The conspiracy centers on the "usual suspects";
Classical conspiracy theories feature people, groups or organizations that are discriminated against in the culture where the story is told. Jews and foreigners are a common target. Likewise, organizations with a bad or colorful reputation feature prominently, such as the Templars, the Nazis and just about any secret service.

8/13/2006 4:43:22 PM

The all-knowing MSM is cranking out the hit/smear pieces against those questioning the kosher/politically correct/"official" story...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0608280199aug28,1,6552279.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Quote :

"9/11 conspiracies are a crying shame Dennis Byrne, a Chicago-area writer and consultant Published August 28, 2006 The fifth anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001, is two weeks away, but the screeching from the conspiracy monkey house already is upon us. The "9-11 truth squads" are planning a three-day gala in New York City to inform the world that Sept. 11 was a "catalyst" designed to set in motion a "global domination project" by overthrowing the American government, says NY911Truth.org. Which would be true, if you were talking about a plot by Islamic fascists. But they say it was by President Bush himself, "as a pretext for the current Middle East aggression." The organizers of the conspiracy jamboree urge "all movements for transformational progress" to converge on Gotham thusly: "If we want to put an end to war, use our treasury for productive purposes domestically, restore our Constitution, have a law-abiding government, create cooperative rather than antagonistic relationships with the rest of the world, heal our environment and be the creators of our own destiny, understanding 9/11 is required," say these "truth" activists. The blogosphere is buzzing with the things they want us to understand. Start at 911research.wtc7.net and follow the links into paranoia hell. Among other things, airliners didn't crash into the Pentagon (it was an American missile) or the World Trade Center, and even if they did, they didn't cause the towers to collapse--it was the result of "controlled demolition charges" placed by Bush agents in the buildings before they were struck. That the named hijackers were not the hijackers, if, that is, the planes actually were hijacked or even existed. Most incredibly, this intricate plot was pulled off by the world's most stupid head of state, George W. Bush. Such theories require extensive fabrications to back them up, such as the assertion that the towers collapsed at free-fall speed (false), and that one floor falling on top of another couldn't possibly "pancake" the buildings (actually it was scores of floors collapsing on each floor). The conspiracy nimrods, of course, won't be there alone. Mainstream media nimrods also will attend in great numbers. TV anchors will solemnly speak of "disturbing new questions" about Sept. 11 and break to interviews with charla-tans, incompetents, nut cases and the gullible, all united as fools. And they'll all be playing to the many Americans who take it seriously. More than a third suspect that federal officials either took part in or knowingly took no action to stop the Sept. 11 attacks, according to a Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll. The poll also found that 16 percent of Americans believe the bit about how secretly planted explosives collapsed the twin towers. Conspiracy documents are a hot read on college campuses and in Europe. Loonies come in all shapes, from the conservative Paul Craig Roberts (Ronald Reagan's supply-side guy) to, well, so many on the left. That's because the conspiracy theory resonates with their psychotic hatred of Bush, whom they can easily believe would engineer a deadly attack on Americans. Of course, by this theory, W. also engineered the attacks on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the U.S. Embassies in Africa and the Navy warship, the USS Cole. All while he was a slobbering drunk. British Prime Minister Tony Blair also is alleged to be a part of the plot against America, just as he, the U.S., Israel and Rupert Murdoch's media empire have now supposedly cooked up the plot to blow up American-bound airliners. The self-described "9-11 truth community" will try to appear reasonable by calling for an "independent" investigation"--which means that the committees still sniffing out the conspirators in the JFK assassination will have to clear out of the hearing room for the next four decades. No expert investigation, such as one by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, will be "independent" enough to suit them. Not that the professional engineering groups shouldn't be more forceful in rebuttal. I suppose they fear that speaking out would give the wackos credibility. But it is silence that gives them credibility. Failing a unified debunking by professionals, Popular Mechanics magazine took up the challenge. Popular Mechanics doesn't have the proper cache, so the theorists will ridicule or ignore its work, even though it's the most extensive rebuttal I've yet seen. Judge for yourself at popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html. Unless you believe that the magazine, too, is in cahoots with Bush."

Ooooooooh. Lots of deragotory names against those questioning the official story. Calling 1/3 of the country "nimrods", "loonies", "wackos", "paranoid", "psychotic", etc. Impressive. Quite a professional article. I'm convinced. I think I better support the official fairy tale now.

NY911Truth.org, by the way, is controlled opposition...pushing the lie that Bush & Cheney alone (and a few other puppet politicians) masterminded 9/11.

[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 8:00 AM. Reason : ``]

9/8/2006 8:00:13 AM

THE MERRY GO ROUND BROKE DOWN
AND WE WENT ROUND AND ROUND
EACH TIME T'WOULD MISS
WE'D STEAL A KISS
AND THE MERRY GO ROUND WENT

OOMPA PA OOMPA PA OOMPA OOMPA OOMPA PA PA

9/8/2006 8:04:37 AM

The all-knowing and eminently righteous government responds to those who don't buy the official fairy tale...

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=513599&category=STATEOTHER&BCCode=HOME&newsdate=9/2/2006

Quote :

"9/11 conspiracy theories come under fire Two separate reports combat belief by some that U.S. government had role in terror attacks By JIM DWYER, New York Times First published: Saturday, September 2, 2006 Faced with an angry minority of people who believe the Sept. 11 attacks were part of a plot run by Americans, separate reports were published this week by the State Department and a federal science agency insisting that the catastrophes were caused by hijackers who used commercial airliners as weapons. [...] On Wednesday, the National Institute of Standards and Technology issued a seven-page study based on its earlier 10,000-page report on how and why the trade center collapsed. The full report, released a year ago, and the synopsis are available online at http://wtc.nist.gov. The State Department report is titled, "The Top Sept. 11 Conspiracy Theories" and says, "Numerous unfounded conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11 attacks continue to circulate, especially on the Internet." The report is dated Aug. 28 and appears as a special feature on the department's web site, at http://usinfo.state.gov/media/misinformation.html."

[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 8:15 AM. Reason : 1]

9/8/2006 8:15:07 AM

Obey your all-knowing and eminently righteous government...

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=pubs-english&y=2006&m=August&x=20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355

Quote :

"The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories 28 August 2006 Numerous unfounded conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks continue to circulate, especially on the Internet. [...]"

9/8/2006 8:48:38 AM

salis's tone has changed from hardcore belief in this stuff...to sounding more like he knows hes been proven wrong and is just mad about it

9/8/2006 9:11:43 AM

Quote :

"salis's tone has changed from hardcore belief in this stuff...to sounding more like he knows hes been proven wrong and is just mad about it"

That's hardly the case. I'm more convinced that the official 9/11 story is bogus than ever.

Oh, and here's a more reasonable take on the convtroversy about the official 9/11 story from a Canadian paper...

http://www.vancourier.com/issues06/084206/opinion/084206op2.html

Quote :

"Doubt about official version of 9/11 widespread By Geoff Olson With the fifth anniversary of Sept 11 on the way, there will undoubtedly be a flood of television specials, terror-alert updates, and newspaper editorials. Yet a sizable portion of the public will likely remain dubious of the authorized version of 9/11. In a Zogby International poll from last May, 42 per cent of the sampled U.S. population believe the 9/11 Commission "concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence" in the attacks. In a Zogby poll two years earlier, 49 per cent of New York City residents said some U.S. leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on and around Sept. 11, 2001, and they consciously failed to act." In other words, intentionally let it happen. In Canada, a May 2004 Maritz Research poll had 63 per cent of respondents agreeing strongly or somewhat that "individuals within the U.S. government including the White House had prior knowledge of the plans for Sept. 11 and failed to take appropriate action to stop them." One thing is undeniable. If skepticism about 9/11 is the province of the "tin-foil hat crowd," things are looking up for the aluminum industry. Within this widespread constituency of doubters, there is a smaller, hardcore confederacy-those who believe 9/11 involved an "inside job." The so-called 9/11 Truth Movement is vocal and persistent, maintaining a huge number of websites and blogs, and meeting for annual conferences across North America. Yet this counterculture remains almost completely off the radar of both mainstream and alternative media. After spending time with the 9/11 material on the Internet, I can't say I've been overly impressed with heated speculation about a "pilotless drone" that supposedly penetrated the Pentagon, among other things. What's harder to discount are the truly resilient anomalies collected by independent researchers-the factual mass of contradictions, coincidences and discontinuities that respectable media and big government have chosen to ignore. (Google "WTC 7" for one of the most enduring mysteries in the official story) [...]"

9/8/2006 9:36:22 AM

Quote :

"I'm more convinced that the official 9/11 story is bogus than ever."

pardon...but your right...and im sure you are completely convinced...but its obvious to the rest of us that your tone has changed now that you realize the evidence is against you and that, while people are more aware of the conspiracy thoeries (which you can no doubt prove by posting articles all over the place) people are also not buying them

its ok, little buddy...maybe if you yell louder about jews people will believe you

9/8/2006 9:40:48 AM

Puppet politicians are "outraged" and call for censorship of those questioning the official 9/11 fairy tale...

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Professor%27s%209%2f11%20theories%20outrage%20NH%20leaders&articleId=0a013444-f391-4eaf-ae95-24cab674130b

Quote :

"Professor's 9/11 theories outrage NH leaders By STAFF REPORT Sunday, Aug. 27, 2006 A tenured professor of psychology at the University of New Hampshire believes an "elite" group within the federal government orchestrated the September 11th attacks on America. William Woodward has already raised that possibility in his classroom and later this year hopes to teach a class that would explore Sept. 11th "in psychological terms -- terms like belief, conspiracy, fear, truth, courage, group dynamics." He may not get the chance. Several state leaders yesterday criticized Woodward for bringing the radical theories into the classroom. "In my view, there are limitations to academic freedom and freedom of speech," said U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H."

Limits to freedom of speech?! Well why don't we just throw the Bill of Rights in the trash heap? Who needs freedom of speech when you have to enforce official/kosher/politically-correct lies by censoring the truth.

9/8/2006 12:07:42 PM

do you really disagree that there limits to free speach and freedom of expression??

9/8/2006 12:09:03 PM

So you're saying we should censor those questioning the "official"/government/MSM 9/11 story? What should we do? Pass a law making illegal to questioning the official account?

9/8/2006 12:15:15 PM

dont put words in my mouth....are you disagreeing that there are limits to free speach??...cause thats what you implied in that last post

and do you see how (like i said) you would feel the need to post article after article about someone who was talking about the conspiracy theory? why doyou have to do that? because you know that the vast vast vast majority of people arent buying it dude...like i said...we all know you can find articles about whackos (omgiknowitstruebecauseofadhominem) like yourself...but that doesnt mean anything...the more articles you post the more desperate we all know you are because no one is buying thie crap

[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 12:24 PM. Reason : asdf]

9/8/2006 12:15:50 PM

Why won't you answer my question? Because you think we should censor those questioning the "official"/government/MSM 9/11 story?

9/8/2006 12:22:09 PM

i asked mine first...are there limits to free speach??

yes or no, homie??

[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 12:25 PM. Reason : adsf]

9/8/2006 12:24:59 PM

Quote :

"Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

NO law. Zero.

And you can't even remotely compare speech about 9/11 and who really carried it out to something like yelling "fire" in a movie theatre. Speech about 9/11, immigration, or other political/government/societal issues clearly falls into the category of speech that is absolutely protected from any restriction.

The point here is that the notion of censoring people for their views on 9/11 is completely and totally unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment. Yet, our controlled political puppets would like to do just that.

9/8/2006 12:34:35 PM

cant get a yes or no answer....typical..ask the supreme court that question....

your pathetic man...freakin pathetic....

"no you are because you believe the zionist propoganda about 911"...yeah yeah....whatever man....you arent worth thetime...no one is buying tyhe conspiracy theory bullcrap....and you know...every time you post an article you prove my point....

but again...you arent worth the time ... im going to lunch

9/8/2006 12:36:52 PM

Quote :

"no one is buying tyhe conspiracy theory bullcrap....and you know"

Suuuuuuure. You'd like that to be true. The reality, however, is that a large portion of the U.S. public doesn't believe the official/government account of 9/11 and believes there was government involvement--at least 36% according to a recent poll reported in the MSM. And that number only grows each day and more and more people discover the evidence exposing that the official story is a fraud.

Quote :

"but again...you arent worth the time ..."

Uh, huh. And that's why you're taking all this time to respond to my threads/posts today? That's why you've responded literally hundreds of times in my threads over the past several months? Can we expect to see you posting in my threads in the future? We'll see.


[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 12:45 PM. Reason : 4]

9/8/2006 12:42:45 PM