Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country

    United States

Posts posted by atomizer

  1. may well NOT be related to nLite, i'm just checking.

    can someone with xp and nLite 1.3 or one of the 1.3 RC builds check to see if they have this key:

    HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Group Policy\History

    does the "history" key exist?

    are you getting a 1047 error in event viewer in the application log?

  2. nuhi rox!

    features for 1.4 eh?


    display local zone (my computer) on the security tab of the internet properties UI

    HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\Lockdown_Zones

    Change the Flags DWORD to remove the 0x00000020 flag and now you should be able to see the My computer icon in the Security Tab in inetcpl UI.

    ability to set basic default security options for IE (low, med, high, etc) for all zones

    ability to make the "search for file and folders" app search for text strings in ALL file extensions (see method 2 here: http://www.petri.co.il/windows_xp_search_bug.htm)

    set default save location (instead of having the "save as" dialog go to "my documents" all the time)

    and for the big finale...

    get rid of that blasted "my documents" folder shortcut that's on top of the list (split pane view) in every explorer window you open. would be good to be able to set the default directory when you run explorer too instead of having it start in "my documents".

  3. you're probably going to get that a LOT using Comodo (i use it myself). pay particular attention to WHERE it's sending the packet. you can always do whois.

    i only understand these messages partially; for instance, if you open your email client and click on a hyperlink, the client will launch the browser with a parameter and Comodo will warn you (depending on how you have the alerts configured). in your case, i don't know what's happening and i suggest going to the Comodo forums. this is something i need to research myself because i get a lot of similar warnings. Comodo is really a decent up and coming firewall/malware tool though. i like it a lot.

  4. it would be a nightmare i think, unless you're only referring to windows components. if you mean 3rd party s/w, OUCH! i gotta say that i love the Linux installers though, like you said, with some you start with the minimum and then build on that instead of the other way around. with windows i'd guess it'd be a lot harder though because of all the dependencies. that's one of the things that's always bugged me a bit with nLite; you actually HAVE to read the descriptions in order to prevent removing something that something else depends on. for instance, you can easily remove IE, then keep something that needs it, so you just broke that app. if you start with nothing but the core OS and build on that, that would make it more of an "intelligent" app, if you will.

  5. just a reminder to nuhi if you want to fix this...

    if you boot the OS and don't log on before the screensaver, you can't log on at all and have to reboot.

    also, something is screwy with the screensaver and password protect -- i can never get the password option to work, even though i don't set it in nLite (as i think you suggested a while back).

    also, question: do you HAVE to format the partition if you set 'documents and settings' to another physical drive?

  6. i do, yes.

    i forgot about this post :)

    i think what might of happened is that i ran nLite on an already nLite'd directory by accident. i have it working fine now. still stumped as to why i couldn't create permissions on the registry keys though. never had a problem there before.

    thanks nuhi!

  7. this is a first...

    Several times before i integrated drivers for both my VIA and Promise SCSI/RAID controllers and never had a problem. This time nLite generated an error for both drivers because it was unable to open the 2 associated registry keys:



    There were no permissions set for any users of either key. Although nLite didn't offer the option of setting up permissions before continuing the build, i tried to add system and administrator permissions manually just to make sure i could and i was not able to do so.

    I just integrated both drivers successfully a day or 2 ago using the same build of nLite. The only thing i did different this time was to remove a LOT of windows components (i'm building a USB mem stick installation). I checked the driver entries in 'last session.ini' against the 'last session.ini' from the install i did a couple days ago and they are identical. The only thing i can think of that may have triggered a problem was that i selected a driver for integration, then changed my mind and deleted the entry (from the UI, not from the actual ini file).

    see attached

    While i'm at it, i had another error the other day when i was working with nLite. I had just started and i think i forgot to integrate a service pack or something, so i did that with Ryans' tool, then went back in nLite and refreshed the source files view and it generated a memory error (i think) and crashed.



  8. i d/l'd that earlier today and there was no directory list functionality, force delete, and others were missing. i d/l'd it again and the contents of the archive were the same. uninstalled/reinstalled and all the functionality is restored. this is on a fresh xp install.

    the MD5/CRC signatures never match those posted however.

    this is mine: BB13F647E786CF6743A7F36DB4C060C5

  9. i think the bigger issue is "who" will handle content in the future. like many other freedoms in the US, and world-wide, the age of "freedom of information" on the internet is coming to a close as the government and major corporations (one of the same) are exercising more control over the content and who can access what. i watched a very disturbing hearing or meeting on CNN a few months back in which it was blatantly obvious that all of the major players (verizon, comcast, google, M$, etc., they were all there) are, and will continue, to cave in to government pressure regarding censorship. also in the pipe is how content will be made available, so, as a "paying" customer, verizon, for instance, will have more bandwidth dedicated to their servers for distributing products and services while 'joe homie', who has no corporate connections, will have bandwidth to his site cut because he can't afford to compete. in effect, this will help "steer" people to where the corporate giants want you to go.

  10. what version of CS are you playing? CS:S?

    on the Source engine there's several variables for controlling mouse input, while on the HL (Quake) engine there's only a couple. Also, do use mouse accel in windows? i used to have it on in the OS and HL/CS, then i stopped using it in the OS and disabled it in CS as well. however, i didn't like not having on in CS and i noticed right of way that my accuracy was off while fine-tuning my aim right before a shot. i started playing with the variables in CS:S and never did find a combination i liked.

  11. ...Oil is not just needed for cars to run - every plastic item - every computer chip - steel - iron nylon goods need it. Its about the ability to get the oil out of the ground and thats all the war was about - so that it would stabilize the world economy

    I'm certain the war is about much more than stabilizing the economy. Iraq was considering switching (or was actually ready to switch) to the euro, which would've collapsed our economy. I think that played a significant role as to why we are in the ME -- we just needed a reason the public would support. Also you can't deny that controlling the largest part of the worlds remaining supply is without its advantages :)

    As for the importance of oil, you hit the nail on the head. I don't think a lot of people understand this; you drive a petroleum powered tractor to plant the seeds, then spray petroleum based fertilizer and insecticides on the crops, irragate the crops with pumps that run on petroleum, harvest the crops with petroleum powered equipment, package them in petroleum based plastics, ship them off to market in petroleum powered trucks/trains and cook them in appliances that are powered by electric that is generated with petroleum and eat them in your petroleum powered home. This is why "alternative" energy is largely a joke. At this point, there is no complete replacement for oil and natural gas. Hydrogen is a joke because it takes far more energy to produce it than what you get out of the process. There isn't any nuclear powered trucks, hydro-electric based plastics or wind powered trains that i know of.

    It's easy enough to see that controlling oil is equal to controlling the world; you shut off the supply to any country in the industrialized world and you literately kill its ability to produce food, plastics, power, etc., and destroy its infrastructure and ability to fight wars. Peak oil or not, this still holds true.

    We've been looking for a way to increase our military presence in the ME for some time. 9/11 was the golden gate. Although i'm certain it was a false flag op, it really doesn't matter at this point. We've got a lot more to worry about as our freedoms are being stripped and we are being groomed for a fascist state -- grommed hell, we're already there. If some one can point out the difference between the US and Nazi germany as they rolled into war, i'd like to hear about it. I'd like to know how sacrificing our freedoms that will NEVER be given back, even if the Patriot act is trashed, is helping me to feel more secure. I'd like to know how the NSA tapping domestic phone calls isn't a violation of my right to privacy. I'd like to know how i can feel secure when the government can enter MY home without telling me and plant surveillance equipment. I'd like to know what the holding facilities that Haliburton was awarded 300+ billion to build in the US will be used for. I'd like to know the fundamental difference between "fatherland security", as germany called it, and "homeland security". I'd like to know the difference between how Hitler came to power (he never won a public election) and how Bush became president after hijacking the "election" and stopping the recount. I'd like to know the difference between the Reichstag fire and 9/11. I'd like to know...


  12. re:transponders -- I agree that it is an identity tag of sorts, but from what i understand about transponders. Is that when one is turned off it looks like any other blip on their radar making it very hard to find one plane.

    I don't know the answer to this question, but i wonder how may planes were running around without transponders that day? I'd bet very few, if any. Furthermore, you have multiple sources of radar including NORAD, the FAA and the Pentagon, plus satellite tracking i think.

    re: the pet goat -- I'm not completely sure of the time line of these events, but i agree that the protocol was for him to be escorted out. But, when only one plane had hit i know that i did not think this was a terrorist attack or otherwise. Just that it was an accident of some kind.
    You can check the 9/11 time line to be sure, particularly this section.

    The id*** sat on his behind until well after the second attack. Let me rephrase that: The Commander in Chief, responsible for taking immediate action to protect the United States of America, did NOTHING. Obviously there is no way he could possibly be safe where he was, much less could the children be safe anywhere near him, yet he STAYS there. The SS doesn't usher him out, as they did with Cheney. He doesn't make any decisions. He doesn't do squat. This is why i think there is a possibility that if the stuttering moron were involved, it may not have been deeply. From the look on his monkey face, he appeared to be completely bewildered. Got to give it to him though, he was the very first, and only person on earth, to have watched the first attack live on TV in a room where there was no TV. He gets a 10 for that one.

    re: government support/supporters -- I agree with that, i was talking more about the supporters outside of the government.

    If you mean supporters of the official version, there are quite a few. They just happen to ignore details that don't support their story. The problem with supporting the official version is that you don't have a lot of hard evidence to back you (and i'm not saying YOU specifically, i mean anyone). However there are mounds of evidence compiled by eyewitnesses, scientists, experts in their fields, video, photographs, news articles, etc., etc. that poke so many holes in the official version that it can be used to build a screen door. The 9/11 commission report is a joke, the NIST reports keep changing reasons for the collapses and fail to address crucial evidence and the FEMA reports are worse. None seriously address WTC 7. None address the piles of molten metal. None address eyewitness testimony that mentions demolition charges. All of this, and much more, is addressed by links i've already provided.

    Yes, we have been demolishing buildings for a very long time. But like i said before one this size has never been demolished making it very hard to predict what would happen.
    Still, this does not excuse any structure from physics. These 3 buildings fell at nearly free-fall speed. There was very little resistance below the collapse points in WTC 1 and 2 which came apart from the top down. WTC 7 came apart from the bottom up and more closely represents a classic demolition. All of the fell symmetrically into their own basements. Buildings like 7 were demolished before and there is a better history established. What history has shown is that at no time has a building collapsed from fire or fire and damage, and certinly has no steel building ever fell symmetrically in its own basement at free-fall speed.
    re: where's the terrorists now? -- I'm pretty sure that if they hijacked a plane and then crashed it that they would be dead. :whistle:

    Sorry, i mean the 1000+ "terrorists" (according to Cheney) that were arrested in connection to 9/11. Where are they? How many were charged? How many have been released? To my knowledge all but ~6 have been quietly released. The FBI doesn't have enough evidence to put "9/11" on bin Ladens page.

    At this website 9/11 Five Years Later there is a rather large list of confirmed terrorists that have been captured. Among other things that a related to the so called "War on Terror". Now, i know this is the the white house's website, but if you google the names of the people mentioned there are many sources for what they speak of.

    I just glanced at that, but i didn't see any that were convicted for connections to 9/11.

    re: William Rodriguez vid -- Like i have said before what you remember is dependent on your surroundings. I would like to point to an article by Elizabeth Loftus which talks about memory and the limits of memory. Elizabeth Loftus

    Yes, but there are dozens of these accounts, not just one. NIST (pretty sure) was forced to release the testimony i quoted earlier. It's on audio that people were being ordered to evacuate the base of one of the towers because of a bomb.

    It has been said that once NORAD knew about the threat that they should've been able to intercept the planes very quickly at speeds about MACH 1. Previous to 9/11 fighter jets were not allowed to travel at mach speeds over civilian areas which makes their travel time allot greater.
    I would think that in a state of emergency, they would be able to adapt. They also had over 1.5 hours to intercept the last plane. They didn't intercept because i don't think they knew what was happening because of the exercises mentioned earlier.
    And finally i'm wondering what you're proposing the meaning behind that PDF you posted and the picture you posted at the end are."

    The PDF copy of the PNAC document (Rebuilding Americas Defenses)? The relevance is the line that is highlighted. That document, which you can read in its entirety, deals with how to rebuild the military and calls for massive amounts of money to be spent, then states that this may not be possible without something like a new Pearl Harbor. Well we got our new Pearl Harbor.

    edit: I have now discovered its a really bad idea to directly edit posts this large. :realmad:

    Yeah :) We should try to focus on fewer items at a shot i think.

    Also, i think i was rather "edgy" here. I don't mean to take anything out on you personally, it's just that some of this stuff makes my hair stand on end :) It takes a long time to properly reply to these posts because i have to locate the resources to back up my statements. I'm getting lazy. I think about every point you've brought up is well addressed by many other resources, but you have to do 2 things if you want to find them: 1) be willing to let the chips fall where they may and and start with a clean slate and 2) go and find this stuff.

    I swallowed the official version for a long time, but then i found reason to question it. So off i went poking around and many of the resources i found were garbage (there were no planes/it was aliens/a global hawk did it/it was a hologram/yada yada yada). That crap was interesting at first, but it got boring fast. So i started to read the official reports (NIST, FEMA, 9/11 Commission) and found that a LOT of creditable people were poking a LOT serious holes in them. I started researching events both before and after 9/11. It didn't take long until the pieces came together and i formed the opinion that 9/11 was a false flag operation to facilitate the pursuit of a political agenda. Some folks will never be willing to accept that possibility and therefore you can throw all the evidence and proof at them you want and they'll simply ignore it. Further complicating this mess is that it's a complex event and there is no one, tidy package that proves anything. It's only when you look at all of what's available that the answers become clear.

  13. My point here was that if this was a war for oil (which has been proposed) shouldn't the attack have started immediately after after approval from congress was achieved?

    I don't see where a delay would support either side of the argument. If the war is about -- let's say CONTROL, more than oil, as i am asserting it is, there is no need to rush. However i'm not presenting that as evidence of anything. The fact is, i don't know why the delay and i assume it has to do with final preparations.

    So, even though WMD's were not found i think its very likely that they were hidden before the inspectors arrived.
    If they had them, why didn't they use them? And why have we STILL not found them? The only people that new they had them were in the white house. This is one of the biggest hoaxes that's the easiest to disprove. The inspectors found virtually nothing. The CIA had been saying for years that Iraq posed no threat. There are no aerial photographs of any WMD manufacturing plants that have any evidence backing them as such, other than white house staff saying "see? those are WMD plants". Then we have white house staff claiming that some of the stuff found was WMD's, but the problem is that the chemicals had a shelf life of a couple months and were already years old. When the white house could find no labs, all of sudden they come up with "mobile labs" and show an "artist rendition" of what a "mobile lab" looks like -- no photographs though. Of course the inspectors did find some stuff, including crates marked with US labels because it was stuff we sold them long ago. The media doesn't like to show you those pictures though. They are in one of the videos i linked to earlier.

    Now we have the problem of many thousands of troops getting sick after desert storm (and the same thing is happening now). Some say this is evidence of chemical weapons. Well, it is, but the US is the one that used the weapons! We shot depleted uranium rounds all over the place. I won't link to photographs here, but there are thousands of children being born that are totally screwed up and this is happening at an unprecedented rate -- missing arms, one eye, no legs, arms sticking out of their heads, massive tumors, missing organs, etc.. I've seen all kinds of photographs of Iraqi children playing on vehicles that were taken out with depleted uranium rounds. Our troops did the same thing because they were not, and are still not aware of the danger. Iraq is littered with depleted uranium. Everybody's happy though because we gained a critical foothold in the ME, defense contractors made a fortune, oil companies are making record profits, we got rid of a bunch of toxic waste and the civilians -- no one cares about them. Our "precession" bombing was anything but and Iraq will be paying the price for a long, long time.

    I think it makes sense to move to a computer model when attempting to simulate a building of that size. There's no way they could physically test a structure that large effectively. As far as them tweaking the settings a little bit, well there's not much to prove that they did or didn't do so.

    The point is, they made what they call accurate models of part of the buildings. If they are accurate, then they should react in a similar way to the real thing when subjected to similar forces. They did not. Not even close. You don't have to reconstruct 110 floors to find out what a single floor joist does when subjected to "X" heat for "X" period of time. Their model could not reproduce their theory until they increased heat, burn time and oxygen feed and even then it still failed to reproduce the results they wanted. Even a guy from Underwrites Laboratories (UL) wrote them a letter to tell them how screwed up their tests were and was promptly fired. [source]

    First was a link to this website. Confessions of a 911 hitman This article is by far one of the most far fetched i've ever seen.

    If you look at the bottom, you'll see it is a work of fiction :)

    10. "Their names do not appear on any passenger manifest." This one i'm not too sure about, before this i have not heard the passenger manifests mentioned. Either way he does not mention a source other than himself.

    http://www.geocities.com/mknemesis/passengers.html -- not a reputable resource. However, it shouldn't be too hard to verify this. This information is all over the place.

    9. "None of them were subject to any autopsy." This one seems pretty obvious to me, when you crash a plane into a building at speeds in excess of 600 mph there's not going to be much left of the cockpit. Let alone enough of a human body to perform and autopsy.
    Lots of bodies were identified, but no "terrorists" that i'm aware of.
    8. "Five to Seven at least have turned up living in the middle east, and have been interviewed by the BBC and the Guardian in the UK." This goes back to how screwed media can be, and since the media is his only source its authenticity its doubtful.


    September 16-23, 2001: People with Hijacker Names and Identifying Details Are Still Alive

    Reports appear in many newspapers suggesting that some of the people the US says were 9/11 hijackers are actually still alive:

    bullet Hamza Alghamdi: No media outlet has claimed that Hamza Alghamdi is still alive, but his family says the FBI photo “has no resemblance to him at all.” [Washington Post, 9/25/2001]bullet Saeed Alghamdi is alive and flying airplanes in Tunisia. [Los Angeles Times, 9/21/2001; Daily Telegraph, 9/23/2001; BBC, 9/23/2001] He says he studied flight training in a Florida flight schools for parts of the years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. [Arab News, 9/18/2001] The Daily Telegraph notes, “The FBI had published [saeed Alghamdi’s] personal details but with a photograph of somebody else, presumably a hijacker who had ‘stolen’ his identity. CNN, however, showed a picture of the real Mr. Alghamdi.” [Daily Telegraph, 9/23/2001] If this account is true, as of mid-2004 the FBI is still using the wrong photograph of Alghamdi.

    bullet Salem Alhazmi is alive and working at a petrochemical plant in Yanbou, Saudi Arabia. [Los Angeles Times, 9/21/2001; Daily Telegraph, 9/23/2001] He says his passport was stolen by a pickpocket in Cairo three years ago and that pictures and details such as date of birth are of him. [Guardian, 9/21/2001; Washington Post, 9/20/2001; Saudi Gazette, 9/29/2002]

    bullet Ahmed Alnami is alive and working as an administrative supervisor with Saudi Arabian Airlines in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. [Los Angeles Times, 9/21/2001] He had never lost his passport and found it “very worrying” that his identity appeared to have been stolen. [Daily Telegraph, 9/23/2001] However, there is another “Ahmed Alnami” who is ten years younger, and appears to be dead, according to his father. [ABC News, 3/15/2002] Ahmed Alnami’s family says his FBI picture is correct. [Washington Post, 9/25/2001]

    bullet Abdulaziz Alomari is alive and working as a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines [New York Times, 9/16/2001; Independent, 9/17/2001; BBC, 9/23/2001] He claims that his passport was stolen in 1995 while he was living in Denver, Colorado. [Los Angeles Times, 9/21/2001] “They gave my name and my date of birth, but I am not a suicide bomber. I am here. I am alive.” [Daily Telegraph, 9/23/2001; London Times, 9/20/2001]

    bullet Mohand Alshehri: The Saudi government has claimed that Mohand Alshehri is alive and that he was not in the US on 9/11, but no more details are known. [Associated Press, 9/29/2001]

    bullet The brothers Waleed M. Alshehri and Wail Alshehri are alive. A Saudi spokesman said, “This is a respectable family. I know his sons, and they’re both alive.” The father is a diplomat who has been stationed in the US and Bombay, India. [Los Angeles Times, 9/21/2001; Arab News, 9/19/2001] There is a second pair of Saudi brothers named Wail and Waleed M. who may have been the real hijackers. Their father says they have been missing since December 2000. [ABC News, 3/15/2002; Arab News, 9/17/2001] The still-living Waleed M. Alshehri is a pilot with Saudi Airlines, studying in Morocco. [Los Angeles Times, 9/21/2001; Associated Press, 9/22/2001] He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Dayton Beach in the United States. [bBC, 9/23/2001; Daily Trust (Abuja), 9/24/2001] He was interviewed by US officials in Morocco, and cleared of all charges against him (though apparently the FBI is still using his picture). [Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, 9/21/2001] The still living Waleed Alshehri is also apparently a pilot. [Los Angeles Times, 9/21/2001] He claims that he saw his picture on CNN and recognized it from when he studied flying in Florida. But he also says that he has no brother named Wail. [As-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), 9/22/2001]

    bullet Mohamed Atta’s father says he spoke to his son on the phone on September 12, 2001. [New York Times, 9/19/2001; Chicago Tribune, 9/20/2001]

    bullet Khalid Almihdhar: On September 19, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. distributes a “special alert” to its member banks asking for information about the attackers. The list includes “Al-Midhar, Khalid. Alive.” The Justice Department later calls this a “typo.” [Associated Press, 9/20/2001; Cox News Service, 10/21/2001] The BBC says, “There are suggestions that another suspect, Khalid Almihdhar, may also be alive.” [bBC, 9/23/2001] The Guardian says Almihdhar is believed to be alive, but investigators are looking into three possibilities. Either his name was stolen for a hijacker alias, or he allowed his name to be used so that US officials would think he died, or he died in the crash. [Guardian, 9/21/2001]

    bullet Majed Moqed was last seen by a friend in Saudi Arabia in 2000. This friend claims the FBI picture does not look like Moqed. [Arab News, 9/22/2001] The Saudi government insists that five of the Saudis mentioned are still alive. [New York Times, 9/21/2001] On September 20, FBI Director Mueller says, “We have several others that are still in question. The investigation is ongoing, and I am not certain as to several of the others.” [Newsday, 9/21/2001] On September 27, after all of these revelations mentioned above are revealed in the media, FBI Director Mueller states, “We are fairly certain of a number of them.” [south Florida Sun-Sentinel, 9/28/2001] On September 20, the London Times reported, “Five of the hijackers were using stolen identities, and investigators are studying the possibility that the entire suicide squad consisted of impostors.” [London Times, 9/20/2001] The mainstream media briefly doubted some of the hijackers’ identities. For instance, a story in the Observer on September 23 put the names of hijackers like Saeed Alghamdi in quotation marks. [Observer, 9/23/2001] However, the story will die down after the initial reports, and it is hardly noticed when Mueller states on November 2, 2001, “We at this point definitely know the 19 hijackers who were responsible,” and claims that the FBI is sticking with the names and photos released in late September. [Associated Press, 11/3/2002]

    source: 9/11 timeline

    7. "A special FBI agent has explained that the FBI knew the names of all of the hijackers due to a piece of luggage the FBI discovered."
    Problem is, the identity of several are in doubt and the story keeps changing. Then there's the "indestructible passports". Wish i had one of these babies!:

    CNN - it's him!

    whoops! it's not him!

    You'll find plenty more floating around.

    re: people standing in plane holes -- This pictures are incredibly fuzzy, the only i thought i was probably was the first one when it was zoomed in. But even then these pictures had to have been taken at quite a distance especially with the angle they are at.

    Sure they're fuzzy. They were resized, cropped and compressed for the web and obviously they would have to be taken from far away since the towers were so high. I linked to 2 camera angles, as you requested. I'm sure you'll find more if you look, including in one of the FEMA reports.

  • Create New...