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: Doug R who wrote (8690)	10/26/2004 4:36:25 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

The excerpt you've offered evidently comes from a writing entitled "The Man Who Knew Too Much About 9-11", attributed to a "Jim Moore." Not only haven't I any idea who the author is - and therefore, what amount of credibility I can afford his work - I can't access the alleged article; the link to the article is a dead end. Unsurprisingly, I'm compelled to add. ***** Furthermore, regarding that completely undocumented item of unverifiable veracity, I note the following... "...Calling that number, [attorney Slansky] asked the Department of Defense operator to locate the office of Lt. Delmart Vreeland. Just moments later, the operator confirmed Vreeland’s posting, his rank as Lieutenant O-3, his room number and provided his direct-dial number. I don't read that to indicate that the Vreeland-in-question necessarily resides there. Indeed, I only read that there is an individual with the same name stationed there. Or, perhaps, this individual was formerly stationed there. Or, that...as the Toronto Star reported...an individual with the same last name and first initial resides there. ***** Incidentally, why do you suppose that he had his attorney suggest that he resides there by calling directory assistance instead of verifying such conclusively, as might be accomplished by calling PERSCOM, contacting his commanding officer, or something to that effect? Unusual, isn't it? ***** So what dawg do you have in this hunt? I asked before - when you laughably raised issues about how quickly I responded to your post, only to respond twice as quickly in a subsequently post - what you're implying. Make no mistake; I understand the argumentative and logical structure of conspiracy theories completely, not the least of which is the requirement that they expand to include those groups and individuals who discard or question them. Is that where we're at? I posted some related info and you seem to have a problem with that. I have no problem with posting information, none whatsoever. Do you have a problem with my challenging specious information, undocumented assertions, or desperate, reaching conclusions? Considering you're nitpicking minor irrelevant details... You're asserting that the individual is some sort of undercover military officer, and citing inconclusive details...many of which are evidently provided by the individual himself...(to) support(ing) that conclusion. On a thread endorsing the notion that the terror attacks of September 11th, 2001 were actually some variety of homegrown conspiracy, those details wouldn't seem to be either "minor" or "irrelevant." In fact, the value you impart to this story seems to be quite major. Is it not? ...it seems like you'd rather not discuss a more important facet of the post...namely that Vreeland is warning of four devices planned for detonation and shrub will use that to institute martial law and postpone or cancel the elections. On what basis do you take the claims of that individual, in any way, seriously? You did read the entire article, didn't you? LPS5