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: Raymond Duray who wrote (10150)	2/28/2005 2:27:59 AM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

RE: "But a more interesting point to make is that that the common feature of all "pod theorists" is the absolutely lousy quality of the videos that they present in evidence." As close as I can tell, they are working with the best evidence available, which is admittedly not of the best resolution. If you're going to make that argument, then it applies equally to both sides. To state the pod isn't there because the resolution isn't the best, then in the same breath claim the photos are conclusive proof the pod is a standard feature on the plane, is ludicrous. To demonstrate the bogus claim by presenting a photo of an Airbus A330, claiming it's a 767, isn't just deceptive reasoning, it's bald faced lying. I've never had a hint of respect for the Oil Empire site, and as far as I'm concerned, this one just drives another nail in their coffin. Their self righteous appointment of themselves as the 9/11 evidence police is an instant turn off. Their arguments are absurd. Their constant personal attacks directed at anyone with views other than their own is juvenile at best. Then after spouting all their mindless drivel, demanding a higher standard of research of everyone else, they happily produce a photo of plane, which is not a 767, as evidence a pod is standard on a 767..

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (10150)	2/28/2005 9:44:52 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

SIBEL EDMONDS in Perspective -- The Whistleblower who knows too much rigorousintuition.blogspot.com [RGD: The following is speculative in nature. Please use the original for live links. My comment would be that this nation lacks the will to seek the truth about the takeover of the U.S. government by a rogue element of determined right wing imperialists with strong ties to the Likud Party.] Monday, February 28, 2005 Sibel's Way Here's an interesting thought, from Michael A Hoffman II in Secret Societies and Psychological warfare, on what he calls the "revelation of method" by the "cryptocracy": This is what simplistic researchers miss: the function of macabre arrogance thumbing its nose at us while we do nothing except spread the tale of their immunity and invincibility further. That is the game plan operant here. To the belief system of the modern man it sounds too crazy. Why would the perpetrators want their secrets revealed after the fact? ... This question can only be definitely answered if one has an understanding of the zeitgeist which overseers in the cryptocracy have partly manufactured and partly tailored their own operations to coincide with. As I've pointed out, secrets like this were rarely revealed in the past because traditional people had not yet completed the alchemical processing (of mind control). To make such perverse, modern revelations to an unprocessed, healthy and vigorous population possessed of will, memory adherence to their deepest inner intuition and intense interest in their salvation, would not have been a good thing for the cryptocracy. It would have proven fatal to them. But to reveal these after-the-fact secrets in our modern time, to a people who have no memory, no willpower and no interest in their own fate except in so far as it may serve as momentary titillation and entertainment actually strengthens the enslavement of such a people. See what Hoffman is saying here? The Power Control Group (Richard E Sprague's evocative term from The Taking of America, 1-2-3) occasionally chooses to tip its hand to us as a mechanism of control. In nature it would be a threat display, except the threat implied here is the confirmation that things are really as bad as we think, and we can't do a damn thing about it. I'm thinking, for instance, of the casual bombshell that dropped a year after 9/11, that on the morning of the attacks the National Reconnaissance Office was running a simulation of a plane crashing into a government building. A "bizarre coincidence," it was called. Though I believe the "simulation" likely a cover story, it's not exactly a limited hang out, since they hung it out there all by themselves in an announcement for a Homeland Security conference. ("On the morning of September 11th 2001, [the CIA's John] Fulton and his team ... were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day.") Until then, no one was pressing the 9/11 wargames angle. Since, Mike Ruppert and others have discovered about a half-dozen more, suspiciously and opportunely timed to the attacks. Letting slip the "simulation" story is a bit like Jack the Ripper writing Scotland Yard and enclosing a portion of his victim's liver. Catch me if you can! I'm thinking of the FBI promoting agents who deliberately inhibited pre-911 investigations, and its punishing those who saw it coming and tried to stop it. What message did this send, and could it be anything but the one intended? I'm thinking of Michael Chertoff's appointment to Homeland Security, though he was accused of sabotaging the Department's "Greenquest" investigations into terror financing. I'm thinking of the appointment of Porter Goss to CIA directorship, though we know he'd met with 9/11 financier ISI Chief Mahmood Ahmed the morning of Sept 11, and his congressional seat encompassed the hijackers' Florida flight schools. No administration has thumbed its nose more often, nor with as much feeling in our general direction, as this one. Its macabre arrogance contributes to a legend of invulnerability. That the White House can not only get away with it, but appear to revel in it, makes them seem untouchable. And yet, they aren't. And one of the reasons I believe this is Sibel Edmonds. She can hurt them, and they know it. And they don't want you to know it. From Saturday's New York Times: The government has told a federal appeals court that a suit by an F.B.I. translator who was fired after accusing the bureau of ineptitude should not be allowed to proceed because it would cause "significant damage to the national security and foreign policy of the United States." Given what we already know Edmonds' knows, this is tantamount to an admission of guilt. As much as they might like to gloat in their High Mischief, it would seem some truths are too terrible to be aired just yet. All this has reminded me of the film Cutter's Way. It's been a while, but here's the gist: an emotionally crippled double amputee - a Vietnam vet - becomes obsessed with the thought that a local elite has murdered a young girl and dumped her body in the trash. He sets on a quixotic crusade to bring him to justice, dragging along his reluctant friend who'd rather not get involved. The two crash a society party and confront their suspect. In the context of his privileged world they appear crazy, even to themselves, and are treated as objects of pity. But once the powerful figure is left alone in his study with the two eccentrics, his tone changes: "And what if I did?" He shouldn't have asked. And Sibel Edmonds may yet cause Dick Cheney to harbour some regrets.