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: Dan B. who wrote (8389)	9/29/2004 1:30:19 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20039

LOL!!! And the inassailable argument: "I'm putting you on ignore!" ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!! Good work!

To: Dan B. who wrote (8389)	9/29/2004 8:03:01 AM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

That's an excellent post, Dan. Skepticism is the soul of discovery. I note, in particular, that the responses to your post were completely emotional in nature, and didn't dare undertake any evidentiary or logical refutation of the points you made. In my extensive experience where refuting conspiracy theories is concerned...that's an excellent sign. Make no mistake about it. :-) LPS5

To: Dan B. who wrote (8389)	9/29/2004 9:15:03 AM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Che chic "Many of the early leaders of the Cuban revolution favored a democratic or democratic-socialist direction for the new Cuba. But Che [Guevara] was a mainstay of the hard-line pro-Soviet faction, and his faction won. Che presided over the Cuban revolution's first firing squads. He founded Cuba's 'labor camp' system — the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents and AIDS victims. To get himself killed, and to get a lot of other people killed, was central to Che's imagination. "In the famous essay in which he issued his ringing call for 'two, three, many Vietnams,' he also spoke about martyrdom and managed to compose a number of chilling phrases: 'Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become. ... ' — and so on. ... "Che was an enemy of freedom, and yet he has been erected into a symbol of freedom. He helped establish an unjust social system in Cuba and has been erected into a symbol of social justice. He stood for the ancient rigidities of Latin-American thought, in a Marxist-Leninist version, and he has been celebrated as a free-thinker and a rebel. And thus it is in [Walter] Salles' [film] 'Motorcycle Diaries.' " — Paul Berman, writing on "Don't Applaud 'The Motorcycle Diaries,'" Friday in Slate at www.slate.com

To: Dan B. who wrote (8389)	10/2/2004 1:29:21 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 20039

The simple thing to do is watch video of the first tower's collapse. It did NOT "pancake". The top 30 floors came apart from the bottom up. It was only after those floors had been completely turned to powder than the lower 80 floors began to collapse. In other words, the lower 80 floors were strong enough to absorb the entire force of the top 30 hitting them, and only began to collapse after the destruction of the top was complete. If the official story were true, the top of the building would have been even with the 50th floor as the collapse progressed in both directions, not at the 80th. The photographic evidence clearly shows the three story columns cleanly chopped into 1 story lengths. They are not bent, they are cut. The official story calls for the floors pancaking straight down, with the walls pealing off like a bannana. The videos show nothing of the sort happened. You can find seismic records of massive spikes just prior to the collapse of both towers. The shock wave shows up in at least one video and the concussion of a huge explosion was reported by literally hundreds of eyewitnesses. Your attempt to debunk the fuel estimates has some merit, but calling it irrefutable makes you sound like Powell before the invasion of Iraq. The simple fact of the matter is no one knows how much fuel was on board, because that information has never been released to the public. There should certainly be maintanance records and documentation on how much fuel was on board each flight, as running out of gas in an airplane is not desirable. The amount of fuel consumed should be easy to calculate. It is hardly a secret to airlines and a normal part of their expense projections. The distance the planes traveled is well documented. The problem isn't any more complicated than figuring out how much gas your car uses on the way to work. The real problem with basing any theory on the amount of fuel used on impact is no one knows how much fuel there was to use. Attempting a negative proof under the circumstances is absurd. What can be shown however is the buildings were brought down with explosives. The evidence supporting controlled demolitions is plentiful and conclusive. In addition, it is also easy to demonstrate the amount of effort expended to cover up at least part of that evidence. Federal law prohibits the destruction of evidence in a major building failure, yet the WTC steel was destroyed as fast and as systematically as possible. There is not, and never has been, a single demolitions expert involved in any study of the collapses. In fact, there isn't a single study which mentions the possibility of controlled demolitions, even to refute the possibilty. If you're going to take time in attempts to debunk theories, why not try that one? Prove the towers were not destroyed as a result of controlled demolitions. Start with photos included in the subject post and explain how the columns got chopped into little pieces. That should be fun. I'll be glad to provide other helpful links in case you get stuck. Let me know if you need anything