Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Classic TA Workplace -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AllansAlias who wrote (13211)	9/12/2001 3:35:00 PM
From: oldirtybastard	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 209892

I propose occupation, and would like to propose it be done AFTER extensive air strikes to minimize the loss of more lives (those of our soldiers). The collateral damage caused by the air strikes would be caused by the infantry anyway (in more sadistic ways, as I found out after speaking with a few gulf war vets), but it sounds much better on the news if we kill them with guns and die trying than just bomb them.

To: AllansAlias who wrote (13211)	9/12/2001 3:51:12 PM
From: Poet	Respond to of 209892

I know you all were speaking earlier about how the terrorists could have gotten into the cockpits, etc. I thought you'd be interested in this post: To:Boulevard Shagnasty who wrote (2088) From: cosmicforce Wednesday, Sep 12, 2001 2:06 PM View Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2094 I agree that it is way too early to look for perpetrators. I'm a former aircraft avionics technician for a large multiengine turboprop. This operation required no more sophistication than the Internet (for plane schedules) and cell phones (to send last minute coded messages), IMO. A group of 12-15 people could have coordinated this. The possession of one flight manual and some time behind the stick on some aircraft type would be helpful, but hardly unattainable to anyone who wasn't backed by a government. Aircraft have an On/Off switch for the transponder (and a breaker). Not too hard to disable.

To: AllansAlias who wrote (13211)	9/12/2001 3:55:08 PM
From: ru2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 209892

After getting some sleep and thinking about this I am having a hard time believing the official line on what happened. I may have the time line wrong. I only had access to the net yesterday for info, largely through this thread because almost all web sites carrying info on this were to slow to use through my ISP. Here is what I thought happened based on bits and pieces coming in through the thread. A Large commercial jet plane crashes into the WTC. I believe at that time it was already labeled a terrorist act. Ten to twenty minutes later another plane crashes into the other tower. At this point it definitely was labeled a terrorist act. Then at lest ten minutes or more later another plane hits the pentagon? If this is correct I find this impossible to believe and we are getting feed some really big lies by the media. Can some one tell me what the time line was. I must have time of the Pentagon crash wrong. Maybe it was at the same time as the first plane hit the WTC. I just cannot believe that an plane could hit a building and be labeled a terrorist act and then ten minutes or more later a slow moving ( compared to a fighter jet )commercial plane invades DC airspace and hits the pentagon with the military knowing. No way I believe this. I must have the time line wrong. Can some some one straighten me out on the time line. TIA Ru