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 (10250)	3/7/2005 5:25:25 PM
From: sea_urchin	Respond to of 20039

Ray > Have you had your eyesight tested lately? I haven't read anything quite so preposterous about the WTC 1 tower in ages. Firstly, I'm talking about WTC2. Secondly, I'm referring to this picture. home.debitel.net I can't say what plane is depicted in the silhouette but I still have enough vision left to see that the fuselage and engines do not line up with the holes in the building. I accept that the picture you demonstrated shows the silhouette lining up perfectly questionsquestions.net I'm also referring to this picture which purports to show that the explosions which occurred in response to the plane striking the building were a few floors higher than the point of impact of the plane against the building. home.debitel.net

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (10250)	3/7/2005 11:49:21 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

Unfortunately, Eric Salter is an even worse goof than whoever created the German site. "Incontrovertible" he is not. His only real talent is an ability to cloak poorly reasoned arguments in an onslaught of mindless gibberish. As much as I hate the no plane theories, anyone who claims the first plane was for sure truly a 767, based on the dreadful resolution of the available Naudet footage, is a complete fraud. Personally, I'm satisfied that planes hit the buildings. What kind of planes they were, or how they were equipped, I do not believe may be proven conclusively, one way or the other, from the available evidence. I'd say the evidence surrounding 9/11 basically falls into 3 categories. 1. Evidence which conclusively proves the official story is a bald faced lie. (controlled demolitions, the military stand down, evidence of foreknowledge, derailed investigations, etc.) 2. Anomalous evidence which inconclusively casts doubt on the official story. (pods, flashes, holes in the Pentagon, etc.) 3. Evidence that has been carefully withheld from the public domain, the existence of which is well documented, and that the furtive withholding of such casts serious doubt on the official story. (black boxes, air traffic control recordings, Pentagon videos, etc.) Category 2 and 3 were only important as long as there were a few optimists delusional enough to believe the Kean Commission constituted a real investigation. As I see it, that leaves us with category 1. I don't think that means anyone should pretend the other stuff doesn't exist, or that it's not important to find answers for the missing pieces. What I do think it means is if there is any chance in the world of going forward with any sort of campaign to educate the general public, it will have to be done with the hardest and best supported evidence, rather than the more speculative stuff.