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: nz_q who wrote (5638)	3/14/2004 8:15:41 PM
From: Secret_Agent_Man	Respond to of 20039

Just tell me WHY WHY WHY this does not get any MEdia time- is so friggen obvious- It makes me SICK!

To: nz_q who wrote (5638)	3/14/2004 8:46:32 PM
From: Rock_nj	Respond to of 20039

It is rather amazing to think that a 757/767 or similiar plane would make that sort of damage. That little hole?!? I mean we don't have much experience with that kind of impact, but still you'd expect a much wider hole and more extensive damage if it was a huge jumbo jet. And how did an untrained pilot fly a jumbo jet into a building at such a low angle? And why weren't those ever-present media copters and reporters following this hijacked plane as it approached DC and catch it hitting the Pentagon? Amazing!

To: nz_q who wrote (5638)	3/14/2004 10:15:24 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

I think this article related to flight 77 has been posted before, but I think it's worth a look: rense.com I also ran across this site which has a collection of various perspectives on the crash: newsfollowup.com One aspect of the official story that doesn't seem to get much air time is that Bush gave the order to shoot down flights 77 and 93. I've seen accounts related to the Pentagon video which provide a convincing argument that the version released is not the original tape, and has been edited. Since there was plane wreckage in and around the building, the fact the plane is missing from the video would make a better case for the image of the plane being missing, rather than the plane itself being missing. Based on available information, I think it would be easier to make a case for pieces of the plane hitting the Pentagon, rather than the plane hitting the Pentagon, or something other than a plane hitting the Pentagon. The debris field from flight 93 shows the plane was falling apart long before it hit the ground. The impact holes in the Pentagon "might" suggest it was hit by larger chunks of plane that broke off after it exploded. The evidence proves the official story is NOT the truth, but I don't think it's possible to prove what IS the truth without more information. The original tape would likely prove to be most enlightening. Do you suppose the 9/11 Commission has a copy, or did they get the same doctored version released to the public?