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 (8441)	10/2/2004 2:47:39 PM
From: LPS5	Respond to of 20039

Prove the towers were not destroyed as a result of controlled demolitions. At least you are consistent with respect to your seemingly complete lack of intellectual rigor: at this point, I'm just not sure whether you're intentionally using logical fallacies, or if in fact you're utterly stupid. Whatever the case, this is a classically disingenuous argumentative tactic framed in the manner described by the term "proving a negative." Specifically, this occurs when an individual asserts that a claim is true and subsequently attempts to avoid proving their assertion by shifting the burden of evidentiary support and proof on the challenger, rather than providing logic, evidence, or documentation to support their assertion as the claimant. Try again. LPS5

To: Don Earl who wrote (8441)	10/2/2004 3:10:47 PM
From: Skywatcher	Respond to of 20039

Lack of Single Terror Suspect 'Watch List' Criticized * Homeland Security's inspector general says agency 'is not fulfilling its responsibility.' By Richard Rainey, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON — Three years after the lack of coordination among federal security agencies contributed to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Department of Homeland Security has failed in its effort to create a single, comprehensive "watch list" of suspected terrorists, according to a government report released Friday. "DHS is not fulfilling its responsibility under the Homeland Security Act," said Clark Kent Ervin, inspector general of the Homeland Security Department, whose office conducted the study. The department's failure to produce a viable terrorist watch list stemmed primarily from a lack of leadership and intelligence agencies' continued failure to coordinate information, the report said. Without a central database containing the latest information about possible terrorists, border guards and other security personnel are hard-pressed to do their jobs, experts say. The absence of the watch list and information-sharing among agencies has been cited as a major factor in the Sept. 11 attacks. The inspector general's report comes at a critical time. The administration's handling of the war on terrorism has become a central issue in an unusually hard-fought presidential campaign. In the first presidential debate Thursday night, Democratic challenger Sen. John F. Kerry repeatedly accused President Bush of taking his eye off the ball and mismanaging the fight against terrorism, both at home and abroad. Bush insisted that he had made difficult but correct decisions, both in launching the Iraq war and in his efforts to bolster domestic security. And Congress is in the midst of a controversial effort to define the authority of a new national director of intelligence as part of a broad reform of the country's defenses against terrorism. Advocates of a strong national director saw Friday's report as vindication of their position. It "underscores the need for a strong intelligence director," said Leslie Phillips, spokeswoman for Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.). Lieberman and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) are co-authors of an intelligence reform bill that provides for creation of a Cabinet-level director with far-reaching power over all intelligence agencies. The Pentagon and other agencies, which would lose autonomy under such a system, have lobbied for a director with more limited authority. What makes the new report unusually difficult for the administration to criticize or dismiss is that it was prepared by Homeland Security analysts, not an outside group. Also, the issue of watch lists is particularly sensitive, because government investigators found early that they were one of the weak points in U.S. defenses. Not having a single, unified watch list is "a fundamental flaw in the system," Michael Greenberger, director of the Center for Health and Homeland Security at the University of Maryland, said. "You have people sitting at a desk [in the Terrorist Screening Center] running names through six different servers. You're not getting accurate information, you can't be sure each name is being run against the right list. "One of the fundamental border control tools used in making the border safe is having one reliable watch list that all agencies — that Immigration, the FBI, the CIA, all these agencies — can look at," he said. "Their failure to do this is just one in a long line that shows that the work to protect the homeland is not being done." In 2003, the Government Accountability Office — the investigative arm of Congress formerly known as the General Accounting Office — found that nine security agencies were using more than a dozen watch lists to screen for terrorist suspects. By not taking up its mandated role as manager, the inspector general's new report said, the Department of Homeland Security was leaving the challenge of consolidating watch lists to traditional intelligence groups, including the FBI and CIA. The original call for a master watch list surfaced after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, according to the Sept. 11 commission's report. At that time, immigration services and the State Department set aside "seed money" to begin a list of suspected terrorists. More than a decade later, the Sept. 11 commission found the information-gathering systems to be flawed. Intelligence agencies, ranging from the FBI and the CIA to more obscure organizations, had created their own watch lists from their own sets of guidelines, and routinely failed to match them with each other. "A lot of the different watch-list systems that are set up by different agencies really need overarching architecture," said Philip Zelikow, the Sept. 11 panel's executive director. We need "a system of systems to do a better job of getting a government-wide approach" to identifying terrorist suspects. Along with these guidelines, a system must be in place to deal with misinformation and mistakes, he said. In addressing civil liberties, Ervin said that his office would soon be taking extra precautions to examine potential breaches of privacy. According to the report, the master watch list should have been operational by spring 2003. Ervin said an initial watch list might be completed as early as December.

To: Don Earl who wrote (8441)	10/3/2004 11:02:52 AM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Don, I thought you might find this piece from "xymphora" interesting. Difficult as it is to do so, he attempts to compare, pictorially, the damage done to the Pentagon on 9-11 with damage done to the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade with cruise missiles. xymphora.blogspot.com >>Sunday, October 03, 2004<< This picture of the clearly defined hole in the outer wall of Pentagon is probably central to his (tacit) argument that the damage was not done by a Boeing 757 but by a cruise missile. amigaphil.planetinternet.be This one demonstrates the small amount of debris found photolibrary.fema.gov

To: Don Earl who wrote (8441)	10/4/2004 1:15:13 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

All in all, it seems to me I don't recall calling my argument "irrefutable," and don't believe you can find a place where I did. If you can't, I'll presume you just misprinted. In any event, I do recall Ray claiming his posted theory was "unassailably" correct, and I just don't think so and can suggest you be quick to call him to task on that, as I have. Taking your description on faith, in part, the then fact that the lower floors only collapsed after the top floors finished coming to rest upon them, simply doesn't seem surprising...it would, you see, come to be a lot of mis-distributed weight to carry by then. I suspect it is possible for steel to sheer in such a catastrophic event. You? But I will tell you this....it is impossible in any event, for the bulk of the building to come to rest upon the ground, without the floors having "pancaked" together, like the official version says, unless the floor flew off in various directions. Do you recall the video showing floors flying off some other directions? I don't recall that in the videos, but if you think the floors didn't fall essentially straight down, you are welcome to it...surely I can imagine some sideways slippage could occur during the fall. Fuel? You want records? Can't believe it 'til you see the pump guys scribble? Unless you start from the premise that the planes didn't take off with enough fuel to get to their west coast destinations, I think it is not in dispute that they carried a heavy load of fuel. To start with the premise that the planes carried little fuel, you'd have to provide evidence to prove they were underfilled for their destinations, first. If you accept it before proof, for the sake of "seeing how well it fits the theory", along with lots of other unproven notions at once, you will begin to believe these almost certainly baseless at bottom theories, themselves. It's been a while since I've seen video of the collapses, but I'll tell you I think demolition charges going off would be obvious to mnny observers, and we'd know. Really, does your theory offer some reason, if there were demolitions and al qaeda didn't set them, why wouldn't the perpetrators frame al qaeda for setting them? Why would the perps use two methods and try to hide one of them? Did "they" frame al qaedo for flying the planes? Were the demolitions planted by the powers that be just coindidental to al qaeda airplane attack, or were the "bushies" in cahoots with al qaeda itself? Or Saudis? Did Bushies know the attacks were coming, let it happen on purpose, figure out there would need to be demolitions to make the coming attack worse and plant them? Wooo, what a stretch. If not, and there was a pact, did Bush then go kill Al Qaeda and Taliban dudes in Afghanistan as a part of their pact? Dude...sigh. Dan B.