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: Raymond Duray who wrote (4835)	12/30/2003 9:02:15 PM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Hmmm... Thanks for the post, it was informative. Which items do you think are really over the top? They all seem to pretty much fit into the picture of 9/11 that I see. One item caught my interest that I wasn't aware of: 3) On Sunday night, September 17, 2001 CBS's "60-Minutes" revealed that President Bush's close associates had suddenly, and inexplicably, sold all their airline stock just days before the terrorist attacks. The story was completely overlooked by mainstream newspapers thereafter. If that's true, it would be a very strong indication that the Bush Adminstration knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand and warned their associates to sell their airlines stocks (some of them must have brought PUTS as well). Has anyone seen this reported elsewhere?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (4835)	12/31/2003 3:40:12 AM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Ray, Most of what I saw are items I've run across that I'd consider to be reasonably well documented. From what I've seen, Ruppert is conscientious about documenting his sources, but I'd probably consider it a flaw for the author to quote Rupert rather than quote source documentation provided by Ruppert. I vaguely recall seeing various articles by Horowitz and I think the same reasoning applies; quote the research not the researcher. Some of the points are a bit fuzzy and there seems to be a bit of conclusion jumping involved, plus there's a pattern of quoting sources selectively. All things considered though, I don't think it's all that bad from the point of view of sharing information. I think the hardest part of sharing information on 9/11 is the body of evidence is so huge, it's something of a challenge to selectively choose which items to present for the highest impact. Also, depending on the observer, the information shared is bound to be a function of the research done. Which smoking gun is the "best" one? Personally, I think the Baker Report is the most damning evidence of premeditation, especially when combined with stuff from PNAC, not to mention the build up to hit Afghanistan. Then you get into the evidence of fore warnings, derailed investigations, executive orders to halt investigations, persons who were warned outright, etc.. A person would have to blind folded and dead not to pick up on what was about to happen. Then you have the actual morning of the attacks with the military stand down, the AWOL President, buildings falling down by themselves, etc. Then you have the cover ups with missing steel, missing terrorists, missing airplanes, missing investigations, etc. Then you have the war profiteers scooping up tax money with both hands. Which one looks the worst? Truly, my heart goes out to anyone attempting to produce a short informative email on the topic. Since there aren't many professional writers addressing the subject, I'd probably say the amateur efforts should be judged on their sincerity rather than on literary style. That may sound odd after blasting the post about options, but I think there's a big difference between unresearched drivel and an honest effort to share the results of what a particular individual has been able to uncover as of any given date.