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: Don Earl who wrote (9803)	2/7/2005 4:07:31 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

Don > there aren't many people who know the subject as well as I do. Yes, I'll second that. All the same you might enjoy reading this piece (pdf file) by Webster Tarpley. I'm sure nothing new for you except, perhaps, the last paragraph which I have to admit is over my head. reopen911.org

To: Don Earl who wrote (9803)	2/11/2005 1:42:20 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Whether or not you read anything other than your own posts is something of a mystery to me, or perhaps the problem is more one of comprehension. How could I either "not have read anything other than [my] own posts" or not have "comprehen[ded]" what is posted here, and yet come up with these challenges? Message 21023532 It's quite possible your poor grasp of the English language... I'm not sure that it's my grasp of the English language that should be called into question; how many times have I simply asked that you support your assertions, only to receive a reply such as this one? Replies specifically, even conspicuously, long on what I might only characterize as unrelated (perhaps evasive) verbiage, and with nothing even approaching documentation supporting your claims? ***** By way of another example - if comprehension is to be discussed, which I think is a worthy concern in this forum - in my previous post, I specifically addressed the cowardly practice of attempting to avoid information challenges by suggesting that one do "their own research," reiterating that I'm not an actual or potential collaborator: "...And lest you assert, once again, that I should do 'research' supporting your claims, allow me to reiterate that this is not a collaborative effort. Stand on your own two feet, taking responsibility for and documenting your assertions...or simply accept looking terribly foolish." Message 21023532 Rather, I seek to ask posters of undocumented, specious, or absurdly-reasoned information hard questions which will cut to the core of their issue. Which, of course, led to a reply containing the following line: "If you want me to sort through the articles for you...I'll be glad to [post links] if you seriously want the information and are too lazy to look it up yourself." Message 21024969 So much for "grasp[ing]" the English language, eh? :-) ...has forced you into the only profession where that lack may be considered an asset, and since you don't have enough talent to drive a wheelbarrow, you became an attorney. More childish invective. You don't think that such nonsense is going to make me stop asking you hard questions, do you? Perhaps more to the point, how does that sort of invective mesh with your whining that, Most days I don't mind going along with a polite request for more information on a particular aspect of 9/11. Your "requests" are never polite. I don't think it's reasonable, at this juncture, to expect me to be "polite." And I'd note that early on...notably, in what amounts to my very first challenge to your conspiracy theories..I was nothing but* polite. I have spent literally thousands of hours researching 9/11 over the past 3 years and there aren't many people who know the subject as well as I do. Ah, yes. So well that - to this day - you haven't been able to provide a credible link substantiating this* assertion? Message 19177234 That's one example. Shall I provide a few more? Here are 195,000 sites with more information for you on Flight 93[.] I didn't ask for thousands of sites. I asked only that you support your assertions, as I don't feel that there is either sufficient or credible evidence given here to support what you are asserting as "truth." I think the plane may indeed have been shot down, as I've said; what I don't understand is how you'd expect anyone to simply accept your assertion unquestioningly, let alone to [evidently] become angry or hurt when they (read: I) don't. ***** There's no need to get upset or respond at length, although I welcome both; I greatly welcome both if they come as a response to a simple request to provide a credible link, a source backing a claim, or some other documentation. Simply back your assertions, or let it be seen that you can't, won't, or simply don't. Have a great weekend - e