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 (9953)	2/15/2005 5:42:16 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Re: Who am I to argue with US jurisprudence? I speak merely for myself. But I would have thought that circumstantial evidence is not proper evidence. Indeed, as someone who candidly believes in the HISTORICAL existence of Jesus Christ, who are you to challenge Don's circumstancial evidence? Do you have EVIDENCE of Mr Jesus' existence as a real person? Can you adduce contemporary testimonies OTHER THAN the apocryphal gospels? Did some Roman author ever mention the so-called Jesus? Footnote: Christians make much of the few non-Christian references to Jesus. As you shall see below, none of these sources are sufficient evidence to prove that there was an historical Jesus; viz., historical enough to overturn the speculation of some scholars that the legend was seeded by an Essene teacher executed around 100 BC. As I have shown in History of Christ, [...] the silence of Paul in his Epistles is prima facie evidence for the Gospels being too unreliable to be considered a source for the life or for the teachings of Jesus. The Pagan sources are no help to the Christians. [...] jeromekahn123.tripod.com

To: sea_urchin who wrote (9953)	2/15/2005 1:56:31 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

RE: "I would have thought that circumstantial evidence is not proper evidence." First of all, much of the evidence surrounding 9/11 is far from circumstantial. Aiding and abetting a criminal act, in law, is the same as committing the act. The evidence of destruction of evidence, and a multitude of examples of cover ups and intimidation of witnesses, is as hard as it gets. Under the Patriot Act, PNAC by definition is a terrorist organization, simply by endorsing a "New Pearl Harbor". The evidence the WTC complex was destroyed by explosives is rock solid. The evidence that investigations were intentionally derailed is rock solid. The evidence that our defense network was intentionally compromised is rock solid. The evidence Bush knew the attacks were coming is rock solid. The evidence Bush appointed members of PNAC to positions which gave them direct control over allowing the attacks to proceed is rock solid. The evidence that Mossad agents were directly involved in operations related to 9/11 is rock solid. In addition to the above, there is a ton of circumstantial evidence that ties everything together in a neat package that completely eliminates any possibility of reasonable doubt. There was considerably less evidence in the Scott Peterson trial of a few months ago. Means, motive and opportunity were established and the case eventually hinged on evidence he made weights to sink the body. All of that aside, I think the point you're missing is not only has the Bush Crime Family not been convicted based on the evidence, the Bush Crime Family has not been named as suspects based on the evidence. You've looked at as much of the evidence an anyone. I'm now appointing you to the jury. Is Bush innocent or guilty? Did those PNAC members he appointed to oversee every aspect of 9/11 aid and abet the crime? Did the Kean Commission, Mayor G, and FBI agents aid and abet the crime by hiding and destroying evidence?