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 (8457)	10/4/2004 1:23:43 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

"I suspect it is possible for steel to sheer in such a catastrophic event. You?" The force on columns is down - by definition. They don't sheer (sideways motion) under load bearing conditions. It's conceivable they could buckle (which didn't happen), but getting chopped into neat 1 story sections - hundreds upon hundreds of neat 1 story sections, one floor at a time - is just plain impossible. It was a calm day and there was no sheer force being applied to the buildings, which were designed to withstand hurricane force winds. Anything that even resembled sheer force of that magnitude would have caused the buildings to fall sideways like a chopped tree. Not to mention that the same sheer force would have to have been applied to the massive central columns at the same time. Again, one floor at a time, all at the same time, all the way around and in the middle at once, and all with no natural sheer force of any kind present. The only way the buildings could have collapsed the way they did is as a result of the columns being removed, which is exactly what happened and what the photographic evidence clearly shows. "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" Fuel is heavy. The more you carry, the more you use to carry it. Planes carry as much as they need to reach their destinations, plus a safety margin, no more. A cross country flight would not carry anything close to what would be necessary for a trans Atlantic flight. There isn't a single analysis, official or otherwise, that is based on accurate data on how much fuel was actually on board the flights. Do I want records? Of course I want records. Without that information it is impossible to reach any conclusion that is other than pure conjecture. The photographic evidence does show the majority of the fuel was consumed on impact and that the remaining fires were oxygen starved. The photographic evidence also shows isolated pockets of fire, rather than whole floor raging infernos, which is confirmed by eye witness accounts of both firemen and civilians. "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..." They are. "...and we'd know." We do. "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?" That would be pretty silly, now wouldn't it? If the scam was to blame Arab hijackers for destroying the buildings with airplanes, it would be rather difficult to come up with an official explanation for how and why they planted explosives before they went flying. "Why would the perps use two methods and try to hide one of them?" Two reasons: 1. A building with a hole in it is nowhere near as showy and frightening as a building turned to powder. 2. If the plane damage was such that the buildings would have to be demolished anyway, bringing them down on the day of the show is a lot simpler than spending 5 years in legal battles and law suits to do it later. While you may not have stopped to think about it, the entire WTC complex, with 7 buildings, was completely destroyed on 9/11. Building 6 got a nice big crater right smack in the middle of it, and Building 7, a block away from the towers, fell down all by itself. The Israeli fellow, who bought the complex a few months before, made a neat hundred mil on the deal and for awhile thought he'd be able to double his money. "Did "they" frame al qaedo for flying the planes?" I assume that's a rhetorical question. Right? "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?" What makes you think al Qaida had anything to do with the attacks? bin Laden denied having any involvement with 9/11. The only other source for the claim is a person who has never been publicly produced, and the hearsay attributed to that person after several years of torture. The "hijackers" have never been positively identified, and if you want to see the official statements to that effect, I'll be glad to dig them up for you. Right now you believe Osama bin Laden and al Qaida were behind the attacks. What you don't know is why you believe that, in spite of the fact you have never been offered one shred of credible evidence to support that belief. "Did Bushies know the attacks were coming" That's a proven fact. The information had been leaked for months prior to 9/11 and the impending attack was common knowledge in the world intelligence community. The reports received by the White House are numerous and well documented. "did Bush then go kill Al Qaeda and Taliban dudes in Afghanistan as a part of their pact?" What pact? Removing the Taliban opened up new pipeline routes and put $200 billion a year in heroine back on the market. Removing Saddam Hussein doubled the price of oil and gas, eliminated a source of support for Palestine, and potentially opened an old pipeline route for Iraqi oil to Israel. If al Qaida was behind the attacks, they sure shot themselves in the foot by handing their enemies everything they ever wanted on a silver platter. Since al Qaida had nothing to gain from the attacks, and did in fact gain nothing, standard police work dictates you need to look at who did in fact gain from the attacks if you're ever going to establish a suspect with a real motive. The political and economic gains which resulted from 9/11 were huge and very limited to a small number of people. al Qaida is not on that list. Once you establish motive, you then examine the list for means and opportunity. al Qaida is not on that list either. The massive diversion engineered to enable the planes to reach their targets unopposed is enough to eliminate al Qaida as suspects.