PWN

thats a fucking incredible story.

3/29/2005 2:49:28 PM

Yeah, it was unreal. I was interviewed by the High Point newspaper about it, but it was really one of those things you just had to see to appreciate.

3/30/2005 12:22:49 AM

Rense.com: "WTC Jet Engine Confirmed NOT From Boeing 767"
http://www.rense.com/general63/wtcc.htm

4/5/2005 10:02:03 AM

best thread ever

4/5/2005 2:17:28 PM

That Jeff Rense article points out that Popular Mechanics named the engine model found at the WTC. Didn't you try to tell us that the PM article was government propaganda and disinformation?

1) Why does PM suddenly give a legitimate account of 9/11?

2) Why would government propaganda reveal the engine model if it damages their case?

4/5/2005 2:25:03 PM

i like hanging out in DC and pretending like the planes taking off are gonna hit the washington monument

4/5/2005 2:28:07 PM

i just like to push buttons

4/5/2005 4:25:26 PM

i wish we had an easy button

4/5/2005 4:34:01 PM

'Experts' Offer Yet Another Contradictory Conclusion For WTC Collapse
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2005/060405wtccollapse.htm

Quote :

"NEW YORK - Federal investigators said Tuesday the World Trade Center buildings probably would not have collapsed Sept. 11, 2001, if fireproofing had adhered firmly to columns and floors. The NIST, which issued three reports on the attacks, did not blame designers or builders for the buildings' collapse. However, Shyam Sunder, who led NIST's fire and safety investigation, said there are now better ways to ensure fireproofing adheres to steel. "Even with the airplane impact and jet-fuel-ignited multifloor fires, which are not normal building fires, the buildings would likely not have collapsed had it not been for the fireproofing that had been dislodged," he said. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0406wtc06.html"

4/6/2005 2:00:13 PM

salisburyboy, please respond to JH Price's post. Is he lying?

4/6/2005 2:14:24 PM

What is contradictory about that? The impact removed much of the fireproofing, allowing burning jet fuel to soften the steel enough to allow a catastrophic collapse. Whats so hard to believe about that?

Also:

Quote :

"That Jeff Rense article points out that Popular Mechanics named the engine model found at the WTC. Didn't you try to tell us that the PM article was government propaganda and disinformation? 1) Why does PM suddenly give a legitimate account of 9/11? 2) Why would government propaganda reveal the engine model if it damages their case?"

Quote :

"salisburyboy, please respond to JH Price's post. Is he lying?"

Quote :

"Its still completely implausible to think that enough demolition charges could be discreetly hidden in both of the twin towers. This would have been the largest controlled demolition in the history of man. To demolish a building one needs to drill into the support structure of a building and plant explosives within them. No one noticed men in black coats drilling holes in the walls in the days and weeks preceding the attack. Likewise, no one noticed the miles of wire that would have to be in place to set off the charges. The people who reported hearing "bombs" have no training the area and probably have little idea of what a bomb sounds like. Hearing successive floors collapse on one another created a pretty loud noise. The only similar sound in our collective consciousness (and the first one to come to mind) would be the sound of a bomb."

Quote :

"We don't know that, it hasn't been proven. People compared the collapse to an explosion because that is one of the few events in our collective consciousness that could compare to something so catastrophic. These aren't facts, everything that you've presented is conjecture and creative interpretation based on extremely circumstantial evidence."

These are a just a handful of the rational objections to your story that you have never gotten around to explaining.

4/6/2005 2:26:37 PM

Yeah salisburyboy, where you at? Am I lying? Please tell me that I am because I'd really love to rip into you on this one.

4/6/2005 4:40:10 PM

Quote :

""Even with the airplane impact and jet-fuel-ignited multifloor fires, which are not normal building fires, the buildings would likely not have collapsed had it not been for the fireproofing that had been dislodged," he said."

wait a sec..now mysteriously the impact was indeed an airplane? not a cruise missile? lol...i love how you post "evidence" that clearly contradicts your other "evidence". its almost like your, ahem, sources cant get their stories straight with what theory to go with.

4/6/2005 8:03:08 PM

full page of pwnage

4/6/2005 9:06:42 PM

Quote :

"wait a sec..now mysteriously the impact was indeed an airplane? not a cruise missile? lol...i love how you post "evidence" that clearly contradicts your other "evidence". its almost like your, ahem, sources cant get their stories straight with what theory to go with. "

I NEVER stated that it was definitely a cruise missile that hit the WTC. Never. What you are referring to is a post where I linked to an article that questioned if it was possibly a cruise missile. I post some things here for the consideration of the reader. The reader can look at the evidence and make up their own mind. Just because I link to an article does not mean that I agree with the main point of the article. And it certainly doesn't mean that I agree with every single point in the article.

Quote :

"salisburyboy, please respond to JH Price's post. Is he lying?"

There are different eyewitness accounts in regards to the Pentagon attack. Some witnesses report seeing an airliner similar to a Boeing 757. Others report seeing an aircraft much smaller than a Boeing 757.

Beyond the eyewitness testimony, I think physical evidence should take precedence. The physical evidence I have seen in regards to the damage and wreckage at the Pentagon tends to not support the official story. The damage to the Pentagon is not consistent with a Boeing 757 hit and there was little to no identifiable wreckage of a 757 present.

There are other inconsistencies in the official story. The official story is that Hani Hanjour piloted Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Yet, we know from mainstream sources that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon made a difficult manuever in the approach to the Pentagon that only a very experienced pilot could have made. One FAA official said he thought it was a "military plane" based on the manuever in the approach to the Pentagon. We also know that Hanjour was a poor pilot. He did not have the skills TO EVEN FLY a Boeing 757, LET ALONE TO MANUEVER IT THE WAY THE AIRCRAFT DID THAT HIT THE PENTAGON.

On top of this, there were many cameras that captured the aircraft that hit the Pentagon. The FBI has confiscated some of these, and they have not been released to the public. What are they hiding? And the 5 frames of video the government did release does not show a 757.

It's hard to say conclusively what hit the Pentagon, because of the difficulty in obtaining the evidence. The government is withholding access to critical evidence.

Anyways, the Pentagon issue is just ONE OF DOZENS of issues raising red flags in regards to 9/11. The Pentagon is not among the biggest smoking guns. For that reason, the focus should be on the other issues that more clearly show government lies about 9/11...including the demolition of WTC building 7 and the twin towers, the shoot down of Flight 93, the fake bin Laden tapes, the government prior knowledge, the lack of response by NORAD, etc.

Quote :

"full page of pwnage"

In reality, no. You just wish that was the case.


[Edited on April 6, 2005 at 10:56 PM. Reason : 10]

4/6/2005 10:28:47 PM

You're an idiot. Maybe one day you'll realize that. Maybe. If and when you do, you should definitely put all this energy into something worthwhile.

4/6/2005 11:12:55 PM

Quote :

"The physical evidence I have seen in regards to the damage and wreckage at the Pentagon tends to not support the official story. The damage to the Pentagon is not consistent with a Boeing 757 hit "

When did you become an expert on high speed aircraft collision?

Quote :

"There are other inconsistencies in the official story. The official story is that Hani Hanjour piloted Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Yet, we know from mainstream sources that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon made a difficult manuever in the approach to the Pentagon that only a very experienced pilot could have made. One FAA official said he thought it was a "military plane" based on the manuever in the approach to the Pentagon. We also know that Hanjour was a poor pilot. He did not have the skills TO EVEN FLY a Boeing 757, LET ALONE TO MANUEVER IT THE WAY THE AIRCRAFT DID THAT HIT THE PENTAGON."

1) "mainstream sources" - Can we trust these now? If they're controlled by the government, why wouldn't they just report that Hanjour was a very good pilot?

2) "military plane" - How many times does an ATC ever see a commercial jet ever make a 270 degree turn?

3) "didn't have the skills" - I am a pilot, although I have never flown a 757, I feel confident that I could crash one into a building. Most of the accounts I've read (from real sources) make it sound like the FAA was reluctant to certify Hanjour because his english was very bad (english is essential for radio use)

Quote :

"And the 5 frames of video the government did release does not show a 757."

You're right. It shows a blur. Which is exactly what an object doing 500+ mph looks like to a low grade security camera.

Quote :

"full page of pwnage"

Agreed.

4/7/2005 11:15:18 AM

Hani Hanjour...

Fighter Pilot Ace?

Quote :

""The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." http://web.archive.org/web/20011024150915/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/2020_011024_atc_feature.html"

Quote :

"A:Whoever flew at least three of the death planes seemed very skilled. Investigators are impressed that they were schooled enough to turn off flight transponders -- which provide tower control with flight ID, altitude and location. Investigators are particularly impressed with the pilot who slammed into the Pentagon and, just before impact, performed a tightly banked 270-degree turn at low altitude with almost military precision. http://www.detnews.com/2001/nation/0109/13/a03-293072.htm"

Or clueless pilot?

Quote :

""I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had," said Peggy Chevrette, the manager for the now-defunct JetTech flight school in Phoenix. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml"

Quote :

"Instructors at a flying school in Phoenix, Arizona express concern to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials about the poor English and limited flying skills of one of their students, Hani Hanjour. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1992852.stm"

archive: http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/hijackers.html


[Edited on April 7, 2005 at 11:52 AM. Reason : 5]

4/7/2005 11:43:56 AM

First article:
Hanjour flew a 757 like he had flown a small plane in training. Commercial pilots never fly that way because no one wants to fly on a passenger jet making wild banks and turns at high speed. It is unsafe for the passengers on board to be thrown about during manuevers.

Second:
Is it that hard to flip a switch and turn off a transponder? It only requires knowing where the switch is.

He approached DC from the north, then used landmarks to get his bearings. If you look at his flight path he went directly over the white house, washington monument, etc. After orienting himself he performed the 270 degree turn and flew towards the pentagon. Contrary to what you may think, there is very little skill required to turn an aircraft and this is one of the first things that any pilot will master.

Clueless pilot?
From the same article that you cited:

Quote :

"That instructor said he told agents that Hanjour was "a very average pilot, maybe struggling a little bit." The instructor added, "Maybe his English wasn't very good.""

Two of the hardest parts of flyng are take offs and landings. Hanjour obviously had no need to be good at either. He simply needed to know how to point a plane at a target and gun the engines.

4/7/2005 11:57:26 AM

^

Weeeeelllllllllll, excuse me.

I didn't know you were a more qualified expert in flying and piloting than experienced commercial airline pilots, experienced air traffic controllers, and managers and instructors of flight schools.

Your "expert opinion" is CLEARLY the final word on this topic. End of discussion. Case closed.

[Edited on April 7, 2005 at 1:57 PM. Reason : 5]

4/7/2005 1:48:40 PM

When did I ever say that my opinion was better than theirs?

I was simply pointing out more flaws in your interpretation of information.

4/7/2005 2:01:03 PM

Quote :

"When did I ever say that my opinion was better than theirs? I was simply pointing out more flaws in your interpretation of information."

My "interpretation of information"? You were responding to a post by me that BASICALLY CONTAINED ONLY QUOTATIONS FROM ARTICLES. Furthermore, you were disputing the claims by experts made in those articles.

4/7/2005 3:06:19 PM

Quote :

"My "interpretation of information"? You were responding to a post by me that BASICALLY CONTAINED ONLY QUOTATIONS FROM ARTICLES"

Your selection of articles makes your opinion very clear.

Quote :

"Furthermore, you were disputing the claims by experts made in those articles."

Where did I dispute? I was simply giving my own input. I never said that anything stated was wrong.

Also, who are you to call someone out for disputing experts?

4/7/2005 3:17:48 PM

On 911 An Ill Wind Blew To Booker School
http://www.rense.com/general63/wte.htm (interesting article)

Rudolph Giuliani Got Warning WTC Towers Were Going To Collapse
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2005/090405gotwarning.htm (video)

[Edited on April 9, 2005 at 12:57 PM. Reason : 1]

4/9/2005 12:55:13 PM

^ My beef with the first article:

1) Why is good weather necessary to crash a plane into a building?

2) Why is a helicopter needed to fly the plane by remote? That seems a little too out in the open (helicopters are easy to see). Why didn't they just fly it from afar - like a predator drone? Even a predator requires more space for equipment than is available inside a small helicopter.

3) VIPs like the president rarely announce trips to more than a few days in advance for security reasons.

4) I didn't see a realistic propwash in any of the pictures.

4/9/2005 7:42:24 PM

OUTSTANDING website with many videos and articles related to 9/11:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/911.html


[Edited on April 9, 2005 at 10:24 PM. Reason : 2]

4/9/2005 10:16:35 PM

Mossad - The Israeli Connection To 911 by Christopher Bollyn
http://www.rense.com/general64/moss.htm

4/14/2005 1:20:50 PM

^ Full of errors. Five Israelis dies on 9/11, along with many other American Jews.

Although it is another creative attempt to blame Jews for the evils in the world.

4/14/2005 1:31:19 PM

http://www.rense.com/general64/para.htm

Quote :

"I believe that the most significant event in American history was the mass murder frameup known as 9/11, in which the highest levels of the multinational financial elite contracted a series of deep cover operatives to stage a mind-boggling event in order to change the character of the U.S. from a nominally corrupt democracy to a tightly regimented police state, a caper that turned out to be spectacularly successful in terms of ill-gotten profits from subsequent wars that, of course, were all based on nothing but more lies of the same caliber that killed all those people in New York City. But I don't hear a whisper of that opinion on television, in major newspapers, or from the lips of most Americans, no matter how they classify themselves politically. It's all still mysterious Arabs to a majority, who have not bothered to notice there was no evidence presented, that the investigation into that tragic day was never conducted, and that the people who profited from this demonic charade are exactly the ones who claim to be its principal victims. Nor do I hear a whisper that the suspicious pre-9/11 investors, who made millions off their apparent foreknowledge of the attacks, were mostly Israelis, whom the FBI has now conveniently cleared of any wrongdoing. Most Americans have also failed to notice that among the thousands of Muslims who were detained after the 9/11 disasters, not even one has even been convincingly charged of having anything to do with 9/11, yet two wars against the Islamic world have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people - including thousands of Americans - without a shred of verifiable evidence that any of these aggressive acts were ever necessary. Osama bin Laden could still not be convicted in a legitimate court of law. But that's not what you hear on television. These crass courtesans are constantly proclaiming the great strides being made in the War on Terror. From my perspective, the only strides being made involve the systematic elimination of freedom throughout the world, and the astonishing profits being accumulated by the corporate criminals on the basis of their lies and their prearranged terror provocations. "

well said

[Edited on April 14, 2005 at 2:45 PM. Reason : 2]

4/14/2005 2:40:30 PM

i didnt know salisburyboy w an expert on airplane wreckage

did they have a graduate program at campbell for that?

4/14/2005 2:50:59 PM

Why be an expert when you can just use google?

4/14/2005 3:09:54 PM

^^^ well said indeed, if you ignore the complete lack of proof for anything he says

How to Set up a Blog
http://weblogs.about.com/cs/blogcreatetools/ht/blogger.htm

[Edited on April 14, 2005 at 3:12 PM. Reason : mossad]

4/14/2005 3:12:21 PM

salisburyboy


Saw this - http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2413 - reminded me of you.

4/15/2005 9:27:46 AM

so these people could pull off this conspiracy but your intenet investigation has uncovered them?

4/15/2005 9:33:43 AM

NYC Photos, Flight 93 Witnesses Identify 9/11 White Jet
http://www.rense.com/general64/white.htm

[Edited on April 15, 2005 at 11:53 AM. Reason : 1]

4/15/2005 11:52:48 AM

Like I said previously:

Quote :

"Why is a helicopter needed to fly the plane by remote? That seems a little too out in the open (helicopters are easy to see). Why didn't they just fly it from afar - like a predator drone? Even a predator requires more space for equipment than is available inside a small helicopter."

Why not just set up a control station on the ground somewhere? That would be a lot less conspicuous than a helicopter hovering as the plane crashed. Flight 11 seemed to crash just fine without a control helicopter in the immediate vicinity, why was flight 93 any different?

Of course, despite a carefully planned conspiracy, the perpetrators would still leave enormous clues like control aircraft at the scene. Oh let me guess, the NWO has a huge ego and likes to flaunt its power in front of the ignorant masses, just like the did with the $6.66 pack of stamps.

4/15/2005 12:44:15 PM

CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp.) program on 9/11
Video here: http://www.freepressinternational.com/CBC911.html (entire program)

This CBC program addresses a few of the issues brought up by skeptics of the official 9/11 story, but passes them off as merely "conspiracy theories." Even though the program is trying to defend the official story on 9/11, it admits that the skeptics have legitimate questions that need to be answered. The program documents the close ties between the Bush and bin Laden families. It also documents the Saudi Royal Family's support for Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11, and the close ties between the Bush family and the Saudi Royal Family.

[Edited on April 15, 2005 at 3:10 PM. Reason : 5]

4/15/2005 2:54:10 PM

So does the elitist Jew media control CBC? It seems rather silly to defend the official story by admitting that legitimate questions exist.

I thought that you made it clear that bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11. I'm also fairly certain that bin Laden has been disowned by his family and has little or no contact with them, so I doubt that any relationship between the two families is anything special.

4/15/2005 3:04:17 PM

Quote :

"Osama bin Laden could still not be convicted in a legitimate court of law. "

admission of guilt doesnt qualify?

4/15/2005 3:19:47 PM

Quote :

"admission of guilt doesnt qualify? "

What "admission"? The "admission" from the Dec. 2001 video with an OBVIOUSLY fake "bin Laden"?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/ret.bin.laden.videotape/
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/12/14/ret.bin.laden.video/index.html?related


[Edited on April 15, 2005 at 3:48 PM. Reason : 1]

4/15/2005 3:45:48 PM

And the other video from last October. Oh let me guess! That one is fake too?

Look at "this". If I put "random" words in "quotation marks" it makes it "the sentence" look a lot "cooler".

4/15/2005 3:48:29 PM

The Oct. 2004 tape is a fraud as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape2.html

Look at the picture of the man in the tape. That isn't the real bin Laden.

4/15/2005 3:51:38 PM

how do you know?

do you know him? do you call him at home? DO YOU HAVE A DORSAL FIN???

4/15/2005 3:59:01 PM

Do you consider that proof? A guy with a domain name posts two pictures and says there aren't the same guy?

4/15/2005 4:03:10 PM

Quote :

"You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe"

i doubt dude was concerned for the safety of his passengers

4/15/2005 4:11:25 PM

Evidence points to 911 was executed by Mossad, with High governmental Pro-Zionist help
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/04/315848.shtml

[Edited on April 21, 2005 at 1:46 PM. Reason : 1]

4/21/2005 1:46:21 PM

Its hard not to believe an anonymously written article with such horrible english and grammar.

When you go home over breaks, do you tell your family all about what you've uncovered? I can just imagine Thanksgiving dinner at your house when you explain to your family that satanic jews are behind every single world event. Are your parents supportive? Do they roll their eyes when you explain the conspiracies, or do they tell you to keep up your quest for "the truth"? I'm very curious.

4/21/2005 2:19:25 PM

The Rest Of The 911 Street Engine Story
http://www.rense.com/general64/wth.htm

9/11 - ALL THE PROOF YOU NEED
http://tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_-_all_the_proof_you_need.html

4/22/2005 11:26:02 AM

Quote :

"Some things are so disturbing that they are almost impossible to believe. That is why, in the 9/11 enigma, less is more. There is a real danger of frightening everyone off by offering too much information. Therefore, if we think of the problem as a chess game, two strategic moves can lead to checkmate."

This is the same crackpot logic that everyone pushing a conspiracy theory uses. That by making some sort of connection between two events, a larger truth will magically appear. This logic is not used in the real world, it is limited to people on the internet with no understanding of causation. Regardless, the connection that he makes between put options and WTC 7 is flimsy at best, and nonexistant under scrutiny.

4/22/2005 11:37:25 AM

One-Time GOP Insider Claims He Has Sept. 11 ‘Smoking Gun’

Architect of GOP Resurgence Says Boeing 737, not 767, Struck South WTC Tower

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/one-time_gop_insider.html

Quote :

"Schwarz admits he had a “whole lot” of luck when running across the video footage in a French foreign film entitled The Barbarian Invasion. Contained in the film unrelated to 9-11, is a 1 minute, 52 second, video segment, shot by an unknown amateur photographer at the WTC, which Schwartz says clearly shows a Boeing 737 airliner striking the south tower. “We tracked down the filmmaker and he acquired the original WTC segment from the Canadian News Service,” said Schwarz, adding that he has had the tape analyzed by experts proving it’s not a fake. “We are tracking down the original photographer and want to get to him before the government does in order to prove its authenticity. “This segment, however, conclusively shows a 737 hit the south tower, not a 767 as previously reported. This in itself should be the smoking gun, which proves the whole story given to us by the government about 9-11 is untrue.” Originally, the government claimed the second jetliner en route to Los Angeles was a Boeing 767. However, Schwarz said the video will not only show the airline dimensions to be those of a 737, but that he also has evidence that the engine recovered in the WTC wreckage was a model type CFM56, which propels a 737, not a 767."

Interesting.

4/23/2005 3:00:31 PM