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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (15298)	1/15/2005 10:37:59 AM
From: Michelino	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Frankly Ray, that "ejecta" in first photo looks likes an artifact of the perspective of the photo, which is made clearer when you examine the photographer's next frame. And the other source says "You have to realize that most of the top section had not been affected by the aircraft strike or fires and was thus still the same immensely strong structure that had supported the building for more than 30 years. If this section was going to fall at all, this section would fall as one piece (like a tree in the forest). " puhlease...this is total nonsense. We've been over it before. You've shown this freeze-frame link to me, probably several times. Have you noticed that Satan's face appears starting in frame 117 and and that he jumps over to the North Tower by frame 251 ? Yes, I know what a "false flag" is. It's kinda like the whole planted explosives explanation for 9-11. The data they/you present is of such apparent "moon-hoax" quality, that I wonder if the whole point isn't to divert and marginalize anyone who would go along with whole line of garbage. If you were to find the leader who set these conspiracy theories in motion, I'm betting his or her prized possession is either: A) A complete set of "X-Files" season DVDs or B) A letter of thanks from Karl Rove. Personally, I ain't got no more time for this snipe hunt or any more like it.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (15298)	1/15/2005 1:00:30 PM
From: BubbaFred	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

The media doesn’t publish everything and have what I call parallel channels. Message 20952581 <<The publishing business is not like a factory which acquire inputs to be transformed in the final product. Not all the material a newspaper gather reaches its readership. Insider and sensitive information that doesn’t fit the newspaper policy find a channel to reach not the general public but only to a targeted readership. That is an additional source of revenue for newspapers and magazines. The Economist has its Intelligence and Conference Units. and a Foreign Report. The Intelligence Unit “... give you the information, advice and contacts your company needs to stay ahead of events.” Its Foreign Report “...is a confidential newsletter, ...and includes items which are not reported in the major newspapers and magazines but which provide a vital background for political forecasting and business decision-making. Foreign Report is not afraid to name names, nor is it afraid to say what will happen next. Its prose is terse and hard-hitting.” Why don’t they publish all the Foreign Report contents’ in their weekly issue? The Frankfurter Allgemeine its Informations Dienst.; which: “Besides reviewing major political and economic events, German Brief provides you with a close look at the key sectors of German Industry and insights on likely developments. The BusinessWeek International its Newsletter for Information Executives which: “...is a thought-provoking report for senior professional. ...it brings you vital news, competitive ideas, and perspectives you can’t get anywhere else.”>> Readers of those parallel channels pay more to get to the ‘meat’. To its limited readership they can tell all. To the public at large, that reads they usual channel, they have to limit themselves. They have to avoid controversies else, readers will threat to cancel subscriptions, advertisers can call the publishing managers if they publish something that would damage Sony, VW, Citibank, or Alcatel. I'm reading three/four months of The Economist I brought back. My wife accumulated in Brazil and I didn’t have the time to read on line here. I'm coming to the same conclusion that, they are not seeing it. Or aren’t they? When one write in the language of power to powerful people, writers/analysts are corseted by the rules of their own game. There are certain social conventions they have to abide to, that block the writer and rend the piece worthless. Fearing alienating the readership, he can't talk straight and be hard hitting. It is 'political correctedeness by other name. "You don't talk about ropes in the presence of someone whose relative was hanged." We delegate to Stratfor, The Economist or the Financial Times, the task of finding what is important and relevant, and tell us. But they are failing in delivering the goods. This makes more important to harness the collective wisdom, and go to the pain of sorting the wheat from the chaft.