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 (6020)	4/16/2004 10:41:25 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Respond to of 20039

Re: That website is total crap. You should be embarrassed for trying to pass off something that amateurish. Amateurish?! But tell me, what was NOT amateurish that pertained to 911? To start with, US intelligence as a whole was pretty "amateurish" in preventing it... then all the US media were even more "amateurish" in covering (up) the whole mess.... Anyway, that's not the point. Every attempt to investigate and elucidate the 911 conspiracy is doomed to look "amateurish" because of inconsistencies and discrepancies that can only be cleared up by those who know the truth. The reason I personally find Leonard Spencer's theory interesting is that it substantiates my own, somewhat different, theory.... Spencer has brilliantly exposed the inconsistencies of the footages of the crashes, sifting through them frame by frame. But then, as you curtly put it, his conclusion/explanation is disappointingly amateurish: Immediately before the plane strikes it fires a missile that blows a hole in the building's façade. This is the cause of that brief flash. The plane then begins to disappear neatly into this hole, leaving no wing impressions. LOL indeed! "Immediately before the plane strikes it fires a missile...." Isn't it ludicrous? More likely, the footage was doctored by some FBI or NSA lab: FBI/NSA artists mixed two different footages together --one showing a Boeing and the other showing the actual bomb blast within the WTC tower! Of course, if the video mix is botched, it will inevitably conceal glitches that only a frame-by-frame analysis can reveal. So, let's use Occam's razor to sort it out: no planes ever hit anything on Sept 11, 2001. At best, four civilian airliners were really hijacked --and subsequently shot down. Then the coverup consisted quite simply of setting off four bombs at the four alleged targets.... Then, a sub-coverup of sorts was needed to dispel the absence of aircraft debris around the WTC --hence the controlled demolition of the WTC towers.... QED The controlled demolition of the WTC towers and the use of remotely controlled Boeing-turned-drones are somehow incompatible with each other: indeed, if remotely controlled Boeings were used to smash the towers then their debris would have strewn the area and the collapsing of the towers would not have been necessary.... Of course, one may argue that the corpses of the passengers would still be conspicuously missing... True, but authorities would have easily explained it away by claiming that they got all burnt up in the blaze. The same explanation, obviously, couldn't be used for the absence of the aircraft itself.... Gus