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 (10233)	3/6/2005 10:02:12 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Re: But, with respect, if you have an open mind, There is an important distinction to be made between open-mindedness and having your brains spilling on the floor.

To: sea_urchin who wrote (10233)	3/7/2005 1:17:52 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

Just because a person has an open mind doesn't mean they are prepared to believe the moon is made out of green cheese. The arguments for missing planes are hardly new, and do not get any less silly with age. There were a huge number of cameras which captured the second plane strike, not to mention 10s of thousands of eyewitnesses. Superimposing the planes, from every angle, on every professional and amateur clip, would be flat out impossible, especially considering most of this footage was broadcast virtually in real time. That the walls of the structure were penetrated at three points; two for the engines, and once for the body of the plane, does not strike me as unusual. Those would be the points of the highest kinetic energy. While there is evidence which may suggest those points were softened up with explosives just prior to impact, the damage appears to be consistent with a plane going splat against the side of a steel frame building. A reasonably clever person can make a convincing argument for virtually anything, simply by ignoring any evidence which refutes their basic premise. That's the objection of every single 9/11 researcher in regard to the official story. I don't think there's anything wrong with exploring alternate possibilities, or in asking the question, "Could it have happened this way or that?". Never the less, somewhere along the line the theory has to make as least a little bit of sense and be consistent with all of the evidence, not just the parts that fit the argument. Let's start from the top. For the sake of argument, let's say it's possible to alter dozens of films, from dozens of sources, release them in real time and quiet any dissenting eyewitness reports, and that it's also possible to create special effects to simulate a plane crashing into a building with whatever. If you had control of 4 jumbo jets, what possible advantage would there be in exercising the above fancy footwork when all you need to do to create a plane crash is to crash the plane?