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 (9770)	1/28/2005 11:00:54 AM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

RE: "But as of this point, I haven't seen any convincing evidence of such." Flight 93 was flying with a tail wind and debris was scattered for 8 miles along its flight path before it crashed. Alleged phone calls from a passenger on the plane reported an explosion. That information has been posted on this board more than a few times and is easily researched by typing "flight 93" into your favorite search engine. That should leave you with three possibilities: 1. The plane was shot down. 2. There was a bomb on board the plane. 3. There was some kind of explosive mechanical failure. While there may not be enough evidence in the public domain to prove conclusively which of the three possibilities was the cause, it is possible to conclusively rule out the possibility of persons on board the plane being the cause of the crash. You may also add in quite a bit of circumstantial evidence such as numerous reports of a low flying, unmarked, military style jet in the vicinity of the crash site, one report by a vet who heard what he believed to be a missile being fired, and Rumsfeld claiming the plane was shot down. You also have the fancy foot work to cover up the cause of the crash; as in hiding all of the physical evidence such as black boxes, recordings, plane parts, etc.. Under the circumstances, mechanical failure would be the least likely explanation and a shoot down the most likely. The question is why, if the plane was shot down, was it shot down as soon as passengers attempted to regain control of the plane?

To: LPS5 who wrote (9770)	1/29/2005 4:44:48 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Respond to of 20039

Re: It is conceivable to me that the flight was shot down; quite, even. But as of this point, I haven't seen any convincing evidence of such. Nor have you seen any "convincing evidence" to the contrary. Re: But, like all other assertions, it needs to be proven, and that hasn't happened yet. Like ALL other assertions, indeed --including the official one. Re: However: if it is - as the above statement suggests - of critical importance to you that I accept your theories, you're going to have to work much harder than you have been. LOL... I'm not that demanding. It's of critical importance to me that I keep discussing "current events" with other fellows --no matter how hard-nosed they are.... You should not forget, however, that this is the internet --or, more accurately, the blogosphere-- therefore you cannot expect to find "hard evidence" or first-hand testimonies deemed reliable and acceptable by a court! There are limits --technical limits-- to any cyber-investigation.... I mean, if I really were able to adduce evidence as understood by lawyers, I'd probably be feeding fish next to Mrs B. Olson down the Gulf of Mexico... Hence it's somewhat futile for you to expect lawful evidence and quibble over the lack thereof... So I'd suggest that you view the 911 blogs not as police investigations stricto sensu but as mere "explorations", as mind games... We are explorers, not lawyers. Gus