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 (9689)	1/17/2005 11:52:54 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Re: The point of the pictures is to demonstrate unambiguously that if a woman could actually stand on the very floor where the plane struck the building,... ... then there was NO plane to begin with! Bombs were secretly planted and detonated in WTC offices --which prompted employees and visitors from nearby, undamaged offices to rush to the blown-up offices to see what happened. If the holes really had resulted from airplane crashes then the "burning fuel theory" could have been used... to rule out the possibility for anyone to come THAT close of the impact hole! Think about it: the impact floor would have been drenched in kerosene, preventing people inside the WTC from walking up to the gaping crash-hole.... Gus

To: sea_urchin who wrote (9689)	1/18/2005 12:50:21 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

RE: "The point of the pictures is to demonstrate unambiguously that if a woman could actually stand on the very floor where the plane struck the building, the fire could not have been too bad." I have a friend who is a pretty hard core skeptic when it comes to the idea 9/11 was something other than what the official story describes. I suppose some of the discussions I've had with him influence the way I look at a lot of the evidence. I think the majority of us who participate on this board on a regular basis have looked at most of the evidence. IMO, it takes looking at a large part of that evidence to reach a point where the official story breaks down in a big way. It's not that the official story is well supported, it's that the truth is a very terrible truth. A blurry video of a guy with a hat and beard is evidence OBL confessed, but a blurry photo of a lady standing in a place that is supposed to be hotter than a blast furnace is not. It may or may not be a rationalization but the arguments go something along the lines of, "Well, maybe she came out of a room that hadn't gotten hot enough to melt yet and was going to jump because of the heat.". The argument may or may not be weak, but it's difficult to discount with nothing more than a blurry still, taken out of context. Of the items I've gotten my friend to sit still long enough to look at, the two that seemed to make the greatest impression was the fire chief talking about bombs in the building in the Alex Jones video, and clips of the WTC 7 implosion. Watching the penthouse fall into the center of the building ahead of the collapse, frame by frame, along with the squibs going off in sequence down the top corner, seemed to make an impression. When the fire chief told of the bombs going off in the towers, he actually jerked as if struck from behind. He isn't quite as adamant in his defense of the official story since then, but he'd still rather believe I'm a bit off in the head than accept his heros on talk radio are flunkies for a guy who murdered 3000 Americans in cold blood to gain money and power. To get an idea of the extent to which the American public has been deceived, one of the questions he asked me about the WTC 7 collapse was, "Where did the plane hit that one?". Most people are not aware of the fact three skyscrapers were destroyed on 9/11, not two. If pressed they may vaguely recall something about another one, but it wasn't a very big building. A building 150 feet taller than the Space Needle in Seattle went poof, and no one noticed. I didn't mean to discount the validity of the photo you mentioned. As far as it goes, I think it makes a point. It's more that I think that unless the evidence hits hard enough to produce a "struck from behind" reaction, it isn't going to make much of a dent in the minds of the faithful.