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: sea_urchin who wrote (9273)	12/14/2004 6:16:02 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Re: 2. I say they were explosions to ensure an insurance pay-out As you know, I think the explosions at WTC-7, WTC-6, the State Dept., etc. were devised as "coverups" for the hijacked airliners... Hence the possibility/risk that the number of explosions don't add up with the number of hijacked planes (that were shot down by the USAF). Remember my theory of "meshing it all together", that is, connecting the dots of X hijacked planes with Y "suicide crashes" (on symbolic targets): Message 20038339 As for the mundane theory that "greedy Mr Silverstein & Co" contrived such a murderous scam to swindle their insurers, here's an interesting article that points to the fact that insurance policies usually DO NOT cover criminal acts: San Diego California lawyers - attorneys legal directory When does insurance pay for losses due to criminal acts? By Vicki Lankarge Insure.com Auto and home insurers do not cover losses for bodily harm if the injury or death caused by the insured was intentional — and that includes harm caused by the commission of a crime such as homicide. So how is it that the parents of the Columbine High School gunmen and one of the young gun suppliers settled $1.6 million in legal claims from using their home insurance policies? *"Auto and home insurance policies don't cover criminal acts, but they do cover negligence."* The parents of the dead and injured students "couldn't go after the kids, so they went after the parents instead," says Don Griffin, a spokesperson for the National Association of Independent Insurers. "The lawyers claimed the parents were negligent in their supervision of their children and the gun supplier was negligent for selling them the weapons used in the shooting. Auto and home insurance policies don't cover criminal acts, but they do cover negligence." [...] sandiegolawyerforyou.com Now don't get me wrong: I'm not looking to clear Mr Silverstein of any involvement in the 911 conspiracy but it would have been a long shot for him to destroy his WTC estate just to cash in on their insurances....

To: sea_urchin who wrote (9273)	12/14/2004 1:11:48 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20039

The way I see it, the various explanations for what happened on 9/11, from the most official, to the least official, fall into three categories. 1. Those where there is enough evidence to prove true. 2. Those where there is enough evidence to prove false. 3. Those where there isn't enough evidence to prove either true or false. No doubt category 3 contains some shades of gray, but the bottom line is the key pieces of information necessary to avoid pure speculation simply aren't there. Or perhaps it might be more fair to say the research hasn't progressed to the point of proof in many cases. 9/11 researchers have two real advantages; 9/11 is probably the most visually documented event in history, and the Internet has made an unholy amount of information available and accessible in a way unmatched in the past. In the case of WTC 6, the best evidence would be video taken from the air showing the progression of the dust clouds. I've seen such footage, but honestly couldn't tell you one way or the other if any of it covers a vantage of the area around WTC 6. If I run across something along those lines in the future I'll post a link. In the mean time, I can't help but wonder if while being critical of the official story, an almost religious willingness to believe anything that isn't official, as a matter of faith, isn't doing some very real damage in researchers capacity to remain objective. While I don't have a very high opinion of the TruthOut approach, which assumes there isn't enough evidence to prove anything, and which is identical to the failed efforts of the 9/11 Families, I also don't have a very high opinion of the excessively speculative stuff at the opposite end of the spectrum. IMO, someplace between the two is a point where it's possible to take the best evidence, connect the dots, and make a case that is pretty close to bullet proof.