Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (770)	6/9/2003 4:20:20 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (1) of 20039

Ray, I hadn't seen that site before and there's a lot of stuff there I haven't run across elsewhere. It's worth a bookmark IMO. As I see it, the anthrax attacks are still one of the key pieces that point to 9/11 being of domestic origin. Not that there aren't a ton of other pieces of evidence, but a lot of very damning information about the anthrax letters became public before the cover ups started. I don't buy Hatfill as the most likely suspect. He looks more like a scapegoat who was disposable and was tossed to the media as a red herring. I thought this article was more than a little interesting and fits in nicely with recent discussions of examples of the media refusing to report facts when they don't fit the current media agenda. sunspot.net I haven't had time to go through the entire article you posted, but I seem to recall another prime suspect I don't think was included on that particular site. I'll post a follow up when I have some spare time to go through my bookmarked anthrax links. On another note, the New York Times seems to still be sticking to the Jason Blair school of journalism. story.news.yahoo.com By the time the average person gets to the end of it, the impression would be the terrorists were lying and Bush had other evidence to support terrorist ties to Iraq. Unfortunately for the average person, there was never a speck of credible evidence to support that claim, and it took an unholy amount of spin to make up the incredible evidence. It's a mystery to me how the New York Times ever gained a reputation for factual reporting. It's nothing more than a tabloid quality, propaganda rag.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next