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 (10242)	3/7/2005 4:24:53 PM
From: sea_urchin	Respond to of 20039

Ray > Sorry, the hologram lunatics and people suggesting smaller planes are pretty much both on the lunatic fringe. Let's try to stick to facts, shall we? Now I'm on the lunatic fringe! Another compliment and it isn't even tomorrow. Two in one day (so far). You can be glad I know you so well otherwise I would tell you to go and do something to yourself.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (10242)	3/7/2005 8:23:53 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

Ray > OK, you may now revert to your "armchair sleuth" mode. But please don't expect cockamamie speculations to go unchallenged in this fora. <smile> Despite your contemptuous attitude, it would appear that the plane which struck WTC2 was, in fact, not a Boeing 767. This set of photos shows clearly that the plane which struck WTC2 was, in fact, a much smaller Boeing 737. rense.com >>.... the WTC picture is crystal clear: No Boeing 767-200 struck the South Tower on 9/11. << For your information, this is the shaft referred to in the text -- CFM56-3 LPT aeromat.fr which matches the shaft of the engine which fell into the street near the WTC rense.com >>The sole powerplant for all 737's after the -200 is the CFM-56<<