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.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KonKilo who wrote (18572)	1/1/2003 3:13:24 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

Can anybody explain what happened to Barbara Olsen and the other people on the Boeing that hit the Pentagon if you believe this ridiculous insinuation? It's sick, that's what it is. what is the thread's opinion on this?

To: KonKilo who wrote (18572)	1/1/2003 4:05:41 PM
From: bearshark	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

>>>Remarkable...what is the thread's opinion on this?<<< TOTAL NONSENSE If you go to the link I posted within the last week that included accounts by 5 photojournalists, you will find the first one as an eyewitness to the plane crashing into the pentagon.

To: KonKilo who wrote (18572)	1/1/2003 5:57:20 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 93284

Hi ShilohCat, Unlike our RWE sycophants on the thread, I actually have made quite a study of this incident. Here's a complementary website to the asile.org page: govsux.com But wait, there's more..... govsux.com And did you realize that the missile that hit the Pentagon was aimed right at Don Rumsfeld's desk but miraculously took a 270 degree, high speed, high G's detour in order to hit the least populated portion of the Pentagon, an area that was undergoing renovations and held absolutely none of the JCS or civilian brass? Amazing but true. My opinion? Air launched cruise missile impacted the Pentagon as Flight 77 cruised at low altitude out to sea and on to a secret CIA landing field on a secure island in the so-called "Bermuda Triangle". Such private islands exist, some of which have been used by drug traffickers as way stations for light aircraft. Here's some more interesting websites discussing the Flight 77/Pentagon story with a great deal of skepticism regarding the "official" story. thepowerhour.com asile.org SNIP: Contradictions The official version is complex and contradicts itself, so read on carefully. To justify the absence of Boeing debris, the authorities explained that the aircraft was pulverized when it impacted with such a highly reinforced building as the Pentagon. To explain the disappearance of the aircraft's more resistant components, like the engines or brakes, we were told that the aircraft melted (with the exception of one landing light and its black boxes). To justify the absence of 100 tons of melted metal, experts attempted to show that the fire exceeded 2500 °C, leading to the evaporation of parts of the aircraft (but not of the building itself or, clearly, of the landing light or black boxes). To justify the presence of the hole, officials now state that it was caused by the nose of the aircraft, which, despite the rigors of the crash, continued careering through the three buildings. The aircraft thus disintegrated on contact with the Pentagon, melted inside the building, evaporated at 2500° C and still penetrated two other buildings via a hole 2 ½ yards in diameter. Questions need to be asked of Pentagon experts here. The official version has its own holes that need filling. END SNIP ********************** And in describing the damage to the three outer rings of the Pentagon structure, the damage is completely consistent with the use of a deleted uranium tipped cruise missile, and completely inconsistent with the impact of a Boeing 757. Quote: "An aircraft would have demolished the building rather than penetrate the walls. The question is: What type of device would have been capable of producing such damage? One possible answer is a missile. Missiles have heads that are much stronger than aircraft noses. They are made from depleted uranium and are designed for penetration. Depleted uranium is an extremely dense metal that friction heats up, increasing its penetrative capacities. Such missiles are particularly used to enter bunkers. An aircraft crashes and breaks apart whereas a missile of this type will penetrate its target. "Fire fighters attest to having seen part of a plane that they identify, albeit with difficulty, as an aircraft nose. The nose of an aircraft, however, would not survive such an accident. The three buildings could not have been penetrated by the nose of a Boeing. However, a missile head made of depleted uranium could well have been capable of such damage." End quote asile.org navytimes.com armytimes.com

To: KonKilo who wrote (18572)	1/2/2003 5:28:08 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

The "Where's the Boeing" conspiracy tin-foil has been debunked by a number of sources. Here are a few: snopes2.com urbanlegends.miningco.com paulboutin.weblogger.com Of course, it does nothing to disprove the well-known fact that the GOP faked the moon landing just to spite the bereaved Kennedy family and further enrich the military-industrialist complex in their efforts to enslave the common people. It's just another day of gettin' hassled by The Man. You heard about that thing in Greenland, right? All the test subjects in that CIA acetylsalipherotherimine experiments were on the second floor of the Pentagon. Don't hear much about them now, right? Ever notice how they never document the C-130 refueling stops in Reykjavik? It's part of the plan. What they don't want you to do is triangulate the flight path from Santo Domingo. See that? It's pretty clear why all those homeless people from Ozone Park disappeared during Operation: King of Queens. But they just feed pablum on the evening news. We know what really happened, right?! We need to keep getting the truth out how Boeing is just a mongrel lackey for the Bush/NASA/Honeywell/Campbell's Soup(!)/Popular Mechanics magazine joint venture driven to keeping us down, man!

To: KonKilo who wrote (18572)	1/2/2003 7:49:47 AM
From: zonder	Respond to of 93284

There is clearly something wrong with the official story. We have all seen many plane crashes, and in none of them have the plane and all its debris completely disappeared into thin air. I followed the link to the original story in your post, and there they have also quite convincingly discredited the simulation done by Purdue university about the Boeing crashing into Pentagon. Unfortunately, it is in French, but it may be worth doing a Google translation. reseauvoltaire.net Take a look at the simulation scenes. I especially liked "No: 4 - Antimatter Exists", where they are questioning the suggestion that the Boeing has been reduced to dust upon impact. 100 tons of matter still remains 100 tons even if it changes physical shape (a highly dubious proposition in any case - melted metal is ok, but dust??? ALL 100 tons???), so where is the 100 tons of dust?