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: LPS5 who wrote (9725)	1/26/2005 3:47:56 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Respond to of 20039

Re: The operant term is "evidence." The links you provide are almost exclusively to what I'll charitably call 'editorials' or, in some cases, your own personal theories as posted here on SI. Likewise, let me teach you another word: ev·i·dence [...] NOUN: 1. [...] 2. [...] 3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law. education.yahoo.com The operant terms are "material objects". CNN footage, the Naudet brothers video, statements by Pentagon yesmen, the official conspiracy theory as outlined in the "911 Commission Report" (), the official spiel about Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, etc. don't add up to "evidence". You tacitly intimate that just because some guy is talking about 911 with the Great Seal in the background what the guy says is "evidence". Let me remind you that "official" doesn't mean "evident" --it doesn't even mean "true" or "likely". The official 911 theory is just another "theory". So let me ask you a simple question: you relish playing the know-it-all about 911... you keep debunking conspiracy theorists by "charitably" dismissing their "clues" and premises as mere "opinions". Fine with me, that's your right! But why doesn't your intellectual "charity" extend to the official theory? Why don't you exert as much energy debunking the official baloney about Bin Laden and al-qaeda? Of course, I know the answer: debunking both the official crap and the conspiracy theorists would lead you nowhere --you would wind up in a circular reasoning positing that it's impossible for the layman to know ANYTHING about 911... It would somehow turn you into the ultimate conspiracy theorist: are you REALLY sure the WTC towers were destructed??? As far as I'm concerned, I can testify the towers were still standing back in 1991 when I visited them... But it's quite possible that the towers are still there: from my vantage in Brussels, Manhattan is sort of a Schroedinger box () --I cannot tell what's actually* in the box before I actually peer into it! Why should I trust CNN? Gus () gpoaccess.gov (*) qtc.ecs.soton.ac.uk