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 : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Earl who wrote (481)	4/30/2003 4:32:26 PM
From: Rock_nj	Respond to of 20039

I doubt Flight 93 was shot down. But, what about TWA Flight 800 off the south shore of Long Island back in 1996? A lot of eyewitnesses on the beach in Long Island reported seeing a light moving up towards the 747 shortly before it exploded and fell out of the sky. The official explanation was that TWA 800 exploded due to a center fuel tank with faulty wiring. But, that had never happen before or since TWA 800. Seems like a cover story for a terrorist attack on a U.S. airliner by a surface to air missile from a ship off the coast of Long Island. Another in a long list of government coverups and lies. all-natural.com

To: Don Earl who wrote (481)	4/30/2003 9:14:27 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

FLIGHT 93 Don, Thanks for the link. It seems to be well researched, while remaining open-minded about what to conclude from the facts. Re: The above site appears to favor the theory the plane was shot down, I agree. What I don't understand is why the government would be reluctant to admit to shooting the craft down. Perhaps liability and public relations considerations are paramount? In a situation where the plane were under the control of "terrorists", it would seem the government could successfully argue a court case that shooting the plane down was a prudent and necessary intervention. I haven't got a clear answer why the Bushies seem to be covering up the truth on how Flight 93 was brought down. *** Re: So, for some reason, power to the recorder was cut prior to impact. This would be perfectly consistent with a theory that the plane was hit mid-air by a missile which broke the plane apart. Which also explains the wide debris field. **** Re: It's physically impossible for stuff to fly up into the air from the point of impact and travel against the wind for several miles, which is what the official theory calls for. Hey, Don. This is in Pennsylvania, after all. Arlen Specter is on the case. Remember his whopper, er, plausible speculation about the JFK assassination and the "single bullet theory"? *** Re: I don't buy the theories the planes were remote controlled. The concept strikes me as too complicated to be practical. What is perfectly clear is that the Dept. of Defense has the capability to do so. They've demonstrated it with the Predator drones and other aircraft types. But remote control is only one option. The other is automated control which does not need to rely on line of sight radio control, AWACS mission control or actually any human intervention once the program gains control of the aircraft. It can be accomplished by automating a flight plan by means of GPS coordinates without any human intervention whatsoever. There was a troubling aspect to the two impacts on the WTC towers that has bothered me since I first saw the image of the second WTC plane on final approach. What the plane did, curiously, was to corkscrew so that at impact, it was not in level flight, but rather was tilted at about 35-40 degrees off level. The purpose for this is obvious. It spreads the jet fuel on several floors rather than on one or two. What I've questioned is whether such a sophisticated and subtle a maneuver would be obvious to a rank amateur pilot who would have to be feeling a wee bit tense about the impending end of his existence. Such a degree of control indicates an extraordinary grace under pressure by rank amateur pilots. I've always thought that sort of maneuver would be much more likely to have been programmed in a simulator and installed in an automated flight control system. *** Re: Remember security was controlled by an Israeli company, and getting someone on board for 10-20 minutes to place charges wouldn't be a big deal. That is an interesting detail. Do you happen to have the name of the Israeli security company? *** Re: If, as many of us suspect, it was a government project, The remarkable lengths that Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft have gone to to obstruct investigations into the matter clearly is deeply troubling. Frankly, I'm a bit amazed at the fact that the American public isn't up in arms over the fact that we are obviously being stonewalled and lied to by the government. *** Re: Means, motive and opportunity. With the DoD spending $1 Billion per day, just in known projects, there certainly is the means within that octopus. Black budgets, being what they are, will always be something to be suspicious of. The motive, of course, is obvious. Since 9-11, military/intelligence budgets have skyrocketed, offering vast rewards to the sector. I always like to ask cui bono? regarding something like the attacks on 9/11. Osama Bin Laden's al Qaeda clearly weren't winners. DoD clearly was. As far as opportunity, I'm reminded of Operation Northwoods. Message 17525586 As the saying goes, "the best way to predict the future, is to create it". -R.

To: Don Earl who wrote (481)	5/2/2003 2:09:25 AM
From: Steve	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

My initial thoughts on September 11th were that Flight 93 was intentionally shot down by fighter planes. IMO, it is unfortunate if that is actually what happened because evidence suggests that passengers had regained control of plane. OTOH, considering what took place earlier with the other planes, we can't fault whomever made the decision to shoot it down. Therefore, I don't see any malice in this particular incident. The only conspiracy I see here is possibly covering up the fact that our military shot down the plane. In this case, unfortunately it may be best that the truth not be told.