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: Raymond Duray who wrote (9305)	12/15/2004 5:16:37 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Respond to of 20039

Conclusion [...] We live in a fast-paced world dominated by television imagery. Increasingly this video imagery is not real. For example, Major League Baseball advertisers are changing background images between innings. That means you can watch Mike Mussina pitching with one advertisement behind home plate which is a new, digitally-rendered ad the next inning. The technology to alter live images is also very advanced and is a subject of interest for the Pentagon. Essentially, video movies are now being quickly constructed with live imagery combined with older imagery that will fool just about everyone in the audience. Also, it is worth remembering that CNN, the source of much of the video shown on 9/11, is known to allow PSYOPS personnel from the CIA to work there. I encourage those who have read this far to put on your tin-foil caps and investigate these ideas for yourselves. *Scott Loughrey* With thanks and admiration to Plague Puppy, Eric Hufschmid and the Webfairy. 911hoax.com

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (9305)	12/15/2004 8:19:45 AM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

That's really elementary... Only if you seek to explain it without providing concrete evidence. Which is business as usual here, and I don't tire of making that as obvious as possible. ...and you understand it completely... What I understand, completely, is that it is "elementary" for conspiracy theorists to plot points, draw lines connecting them, and as the points disappear (or are undermined by contradicting evidence) turn to defending the previously-drawn lines with little more than emotion and ad hominem arguments. That's what you were referring to, wasn't it? ...you continue malevolently to play the sinister devil's advocate here. I'm "malevolent" and "sinister" for raising issues and asking hard questions? The interest of the perpetrators was to "shock and awe" the general populace. Merely blowing up the buildings would have not done that. That's a rather gratuitious, self-serving and utterly unfalsifiable assertion, isn't it? ROFL! And it would have led to a lot of questions about how the explosives could have been placed. I haven't yet seen any evidence backing the assertion that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade Center. Have you got any? And again - solid, credible documentation, please: no blogs, personal websites, or editorials. (Thanks.) Regarding credibility... Are you sure you're in any way qualified to discuss issues surrounding credibility? Message 20823179 Message 20632903 Message 20590287 Message 19127439 Or, from another perspective: if credibility is indeed an issue, how do you reconcile hanging, or claiming to hang, a peace sign... siliconinvestor.com ...with the absolutely horrific post that got you booted from SI a few months back (described here)... Message 20136719 ...or, recommending the execution of individuals with dissenting opinions... Message 20760615 ...or, perhaps a few other posts - one from Thanksgiving 2001, in particular, comes to mind - that you've made? These sentiments seem to express anything but a "peace[ful]" or "illuminated" mind at work. So far on SI you've been Ahhaha, LPS5 and now e. I used to use the handle LPS5, and now I use 2.718281828459045235. After over six years - and heading into an exciting new undertaking - I thought a change was in order. You don't like 'e'? Ahhaha is a different individual, but one with whom I happen to agree on the topic of regulation, especially (though not exclusively) where financial markets are concerned. He's a Republican, though, so our opinions diverge at junctures. Quite rapidly, at a few. If you are asserting that I am, in fact, violating the Silicon Investor Terms of Use by employing more than "one active membership," I would strongly advise you to contact the Administration to report me at once. I insist that you do so, in fact. Why are you so interested in being a serial imposter? What, or who, are you suggesting that I am purporting to be? Are you, as I detect by this question, equating skepticism and a desire for exactness, to yet another conspiratorial tale? Who are you, really? "Really," as opposed to the zero information you know about me already? What do you hope to gain by lying? I'm "lying" by asking questions such as these? How can you possibly think your long-winded and silly arguments make up for the fact that you are lying and dissembling for the most part these days? I'd like you to point to a single "l[ie]" I've told. Thanks in advance - e