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 (9960)	2/15/2005 2:58:31 PM
From: LPS5	Respond to of 20039

The evidence of destruction of evidence, and a multitude of examples of cover ups and intimidation of witnesses, is as hard as it gets. What documentation do you have showing that evidence was either "destroyed" or that witnesses were "intimidat[ed]"? The evidence the WTC complex was destroyed by explosives is rock solid. What "evidence" - of the 'rock solid' variety, in particular - is there that the WTC was "destroyed by explosives"? The evidence that investigations were intentionally derailed is rock solid. What evidence is there that investigations were "intentionally derailed"? The evidence that our defense network was intentionally compromised is rock solid. What "rock solid" evidence can you provide that our defense network was "intentionally compromised"? The evidence Bush knew the attacks were coming is rock solid. If the attacks of September 11th, 2001 were in fact an orchestrated, home-grown conspiracy, he would have to have known, wouldn't he? Even so, I'd love to see this "rock solid" evidence you're referring to - The evidence Bush appointed members of PNAC to positions which gave them direct control over allowing the attacks to proceed is rock solid. Who, and to what positions? And isn't the relevance of this - assuming it's true, which it may be - completely predicated upon evidence, which I'd expect that you have, of PNAC being involved in the so-called conspiracy? The evidence that Mossad agents were directly involved in operations related to 9/11 is rock solid. What evidence is there that "Mossad agents were directly involved" in the terror attacks of September 11th, 2001? [T]here s a ton of circumstantial evidence that ties everything together in a neat package that completely eliminates any possibility of reasonable doubt. If the package were as "neat" as you are asserting, you wouldn't have to cite editorials and rumors as "evidence." In addition, I have to believe that you wouldn't be so reluctant to address simple challenges for documentation if, in fact, the 'evidence' was so "neat" as you're suggesting. There was considerably less evidence in the Scott Peterson trial of a few months ago. And there was heavy circumstantial and direct evidence in the O.J. Simpson trial roughly ten years ago. What's your point? You've looked at as much of the evidence an anyone. I'm now appointing you to the jury. Is Bush innocent or guilty? How I could I convict anyone without having been shown any evidence? e

To: Don Earl who wrote (9960)	2/15/2005 3:38:45 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

Don > The evidence the WTC complex was destroyed by explosives is rock solid. Yes, to me that's the strongest evidence there is. > The evidence that investigations were intentionally derailed is rock solid. Yes, but it would be argued there were cogent strategic reasons to do so > The evidence that our defense network was intentionally compromised is rock solid. Yes, but it would be argued that there was confusion because of tactical exercises which were being conducted at the time > The evidence Bush knew the attacks were coming is rock solid. Certainly Ms Rice did. It's hard to know what W knows. In fact, I don't believe anyone could possibly know what W knows. > The evidence Bush appointed members of PNAC to positions which gave them direct control over allowing the attacks to proceed is rock solid. Cheney must have known. The people at the Pentagon should have known. Likewise the FBI. But I'm in no position to say what they actually did or didn't know. > The evidence that Mossad agents were directly involved in operations related to 9/11 is rock solid. I'm not sure who you mean -- the "art students" or the five who were caught taking videos? Those are the only ones I know of. > there is a ton of circumstantial evidence that ties everything together in a neat package that completely eliminates any possibility of reasonable doubt. Yet more than half of Americans have that 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. Now all you need to do is bring W to trial and it's a slam dunk he'll be convicted. > 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 I beg your pardon but I haven't missed anything. It's obvious that not only them but no-one, other than bin Laden, Al Qaeda and Saddam, has been held responsible. In fact, no American has even been held accountable for negligence, dereliction of duty, anything. > You've looked at as much of the evidence an anyone. I believe so, your honor. > I'm now appointing you to the jury Thank you, your honor, but unfortunately I have to decline. I have already been appointed to the jury at the Michael Jackson trial which, as you know, is the trial of the century. > Is Bush innocent or guilty? Let me whisper .... between you and me, your honor, and off the record of course, he's as guilty as sin. > Did those PNAC members he appointed to oversee every aspect of 9/11 aid and abet the crime? Again, off the record, your honor, they're all guilty. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Zackheim, the lot. > Did the Kean Commission, Mayor G, and FBI agents aid and abet the crime by hiding and destroying evidence? What a question, your honor! Is the Pope a Catholic?! Every last one. They're all guilty. Excuse me, your honor, when will sentencing take place? I presume it'll be the death sentence for all of them.