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 (6893)	6/5/2004 2:54:43 PM
From: nz_q	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

You'd better take a look at this, heck all readers should, New York Firefighters Telling of 911 Controlled Demolition, Bombs letsroll911.org Is 9/11 panel investigating any of these? or any of these? Message 20181247 more firefighter and civilian reports from inside the WTC.

To: Don Earl who wrote (6893)	6/5/2004 5:56:06 PM
From: sea_urchin	Respond to of 20039

Don > The debris field shows conclusively that the plane was breaking up long before it hit the ground. Yes, I agree with you. I don't accept the version that it flew into the ground because of a fight in the cabin. Which means, as you say, it was either shot down or there was a bomb aboard, which exploded. And, as you suggest, both militate against the radio control theory, because a mid-air explosion would indicate (a) that it was shot down or (b) that hijackers blew it up, neither of which possibilities have been discussed in the media (to my knowledge). > interesting to know "if" home run was installed on the planes, and "if" it was being controlled from outside the plane, "if" it had a failsafe feature to prevent maneuvers likely to crash the plane Indeed, and if not, then why not? Apropos WTC7, I find this statement by Silverstein absolutely incredible, if not an actual give away. >>I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.<< Clearly, the building was imploded (the video leaves one with no doubt about that) and, therefore, it must have been a premeditated act. In the circumstances, it is reasonable to believe that WTC7 could not have been the only building in the WTC complex to have been prepared for demolition. Indeed, one could argue that the twin towers must also have been so prepared. But why? Does it mean that the demolition of the whole complex was anticipated? But what is the strangest of all is why does no-one ask Silverstein what he meant by the building being "pulled"? And why, when he clearly knows so much, being the owner, is he not being called to the 9-11 Commission? From the article: >>Thus the idea that officials decided to "pull" Building 7 after the attack serves as a distraction from the inescapable logic that the building's demolition was planned in advance of the attack, and was therefore part of an inside job to destroy the entire WTC complex. <<

To: Don Earl who wrote (6893)	6/6/2004 12:41:47 AM
From: sea_urchin	Respond to of 20039

Don, while you are looking at videos of the controlled demolition have a look at these --- especially the second one down the page. Starts 100% Loaded. thewebfairy.com What interests me are the two small, sharp puffs of smoke coming out on the right side of the building (? West wall of the North Tower) and which preceed the collapse of the structure above. To me, this is definite evidence that controlled explosions took place. There is also a hint of a puff in the picture above. PS. It is getting harder and harder to find videos of the 911 event and many seem to have been removed from the various URLs.