SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : Banned.......Replies to the A@P thread.
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Louie_al-Arouri who wrote (1842)1/10/2005 4:52:35 AM
From: Bill Ulrich  Read Replies (1) of 5425
 
He certainly alludes to it with a great deal of innuendo. But let's skip that point for a minute. How do you interpret the Hopster's writing in terms of of who's responsible for 9/11? What impression do you get from it, that is apparently different from Jeff's?

I did see one of Dan's articles up there that, in a fairly 'point-blank' manner, said it was Saudi elites, running drugs who didn't want their cover blown, and the Bush administration assisted in keeping it covered (because, via more innuendo, the CIA is in a cooperative drug-running biz, as well). I anticipate that you'll disagree, so how is Dan's writing getting misinterpreted from your POV? When you read Dan, who do you think he says is responsible for 9/11?

"NOWHERE at NO TIME did Dan EVER claim the Saudi's were responsible for 9/11."
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News