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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (1019)	7/13/2003 9:44:43 PM
From: Sidney Reilly	Respond to of 20039

Were those your words? (Oh, yes. You know that how?) Message 19106707 So a gov't that is so controlled by Zionists that it will tolerate an attack on one of its military vessels by them was relaying info to the Zionists enemy? To help that enemy? Do you see an inconsistency here? Yes to the first part. And to the second part it was and still is about oil. Balancing the pro-Israel sentiments with the oil barron's lock on government. They both have a lot of clout. They hoped Israel would never find out. It was a stab in the back for Israel. There are factions in our government. It's not all "one mind". Warring factions each pulling for it's own interests. Better tell that to Ray. He thinks a submarine-launched cruise missile hit the Pentagon. But another question: You know THAT how? I posted this already today. One idea on how it could have been done. seebo.net

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (1019)	7/14/2003 5:58:31 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

Re: Better tell that to Ray. He thinks a submarine-launched cruise missile hit the Pentagon. You cannot find that in the record. I never said that. You are being typically dishonest. Just as Al Gore never said he invented the Internet, I've never speculated about a submarine launched attack. Today, I'm satisfied that AA 77 actually impacted the Pentagon. This is after many months of sorting through evidence that is being deliberately covered up by the Bush junta. It's not unreasonable to create theories to account for the gaping holes in the "official" story. As I shoot down various theories, I replace them with facts when they can be found, or other theories that do fit the paltry amount of evidence we have to work with. I find the site the Sidney provided, seebo.net to be indicative that there is a greater likelihood that the attack on the Pentagon was carried out by a rogue element of the Air Force who have been in advanced research and development of remotely operated aircraft. The four "hijacked" jets on 9/11 could conceivably have been controlled either from an airborne AWACS command and control platform, or else from a remote ground station. Since the military alone has access to large swaths of the electro-magnetic spectrum, the possibility that independent surveillance of the activities of those operating the craft remotely would be infinitesimally small. So, the best theory I have today that fits the facts I've been able to unearth is that all four jets were being remotely operated, three successfully completed their missions, and the fourth was destroyed when a civilian uprising was about to uncover the actual nature of the hijacking. The notion that amateur pilots could effectively engage in the maneuvers required to tilt the two jets attacking the WTC at about 35 degrees in order to ignite several floors of the towers rather than one or two, and the radical manuever to divert AA 77 about 270 degrees to the least damaging face of the Pentagon is simply too far fetched to be believable. Furthermore, the collapse of WTC 7 remains completely inexplicable, except by suggesting that explosive charges has been placed in order to implode the structure. Here's some very troubling data on the WTC 7 collapse: whatreallyhappened.com