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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (65044)	6/15/2005 3:09:56 PM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

(WTC related ) controlled demolition Ok lets move onto another related subject and see where it leads us. The demolition of large industrial chimney stacks in the UK. A great engineer, steeplejack, and demolition expert (had a huge UK media presence) was Fred Dibnah. manchesteronline.co.uk The demolition of old chimneys in the UK changed fashion to people who used explosives for a while. A couple of mistakes where the chimneys fell at about 90 degrees to where they should of (causing immense damage) brought Fred back into the fore. I watched the TV program where Fred put sections of telegraph poles into spaces where the bricks had been removed and gradually removed half of the chimney base. The fire was lit and the chimney effect sure got that fire into a blaze, and within a few minutes it keeled over and landed where it should of to within a degree or two. What a guy. news.bbc.co.uk So we both agree that the WTC's were strongly built. Were just explosives used to bring it down or were the structures weakened first? In the first case we would have seen some mighty explosions indeed (and we didn't except the initial aircraft impacts), and in the second case there would be all sorts of rumours and internet conspiracy sites about the guys (secret A team types) seen taking out structural steel members of the WTC's for months beforehand. As I said, I was most impressed how Leslie Robertson (structural engineer of WTC) reacted within days of the WTC collapse. A true well trained engineer with utmost integrity imho. I put up some posts on SI about him, can't find them as yet. Still looking. Anyway, I don't see the false flag operation yet. I believe I am looking at the evidence objectively.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (65044)	6/15/2005 3:55:39 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

<It is understandably a leap of faith to disbelieve the U.S. government, the Kean-Zelikow report and the entire U.S. corporate media. However, with enough study, I've come to realize the real horror of 9/11. It was unquestionably a false flag operation, with all that that implies.> Ray, the USA government and the entire USA corporate media have had zero credibility for me for a few decades. One should assume they are being at best confused, but more likely dishonest when they write or show anything. Check out Colin Powell showing vials of evil-doer anthrax at the UN and photos of bio-terror production facilities and weather balloon inflation devices or something. My favourite media malfeasance these days is the captions under photographs purporting to show something. The caption is often obviously not describing what is going on in the photo. The words they write are "interviewing the keyboard" so can be treated with much more doubt as they don't even have to match their words to an image. These days of course, even the images can be [and are] digitally doctored, "purely to improve the presentation" of course, not to deceive. Even some of that might be done with good intentions. There are great examples. My favourite still is the big Time magazine cover story expose on male child prostitution in ex-USSR in the early 1990s. They had photos and lots of story, all of which was obviously false. They thought it was true. It was a hoax. An obvious hoax. A few months later, they admitted that they had been had. I'm not suggesting that murdering thousands and destroying a lot of buildings, and the aircraft too, would be beyond the malevolence of the fanatical who seek megalomaniac power because they will do literally anything their minds can conceive and their abilities enable if it furthers their ambitions and satisfies their lusts. But that isn't to say they did it, or that those currently in power are of that mind. They have different megalomanias. King George II for example, I believe started the war against Saddam in revenge for an imagined or real attack on his father, wife and co. Sure, there were other reasons too. Usually we do things for various reasons because things we do have various outcomes. We add up the outcomes to see if we are going to end up closer to our imagined Utopia [or, in King George II's case, the Rapture not to mention a bit of profit and fun on the side while we head for the Rapture]. If our summation is sufficiently on the credit side, with not too much downside risk, then it's "Let's roll!" Apart from what persuaded the hijackers to conduct the attack, [calling it a complete surprise, insane evil-doer attack is not strictly accurate], the basic facts of what happened are pretty clear to me. Hijackers got onto aircraft with hoax or real bombs, box-cutters and some pilot training. They flew the aircraft into buildings which went into various collapse modes. The Twin Towers were quite well designed and built and hung on for nearly an hour of conflagration. Their collapse looked about right to me for the damage which was caused. Why did fighters not scramble quickly? Uselessness. Why did people not run for it straight away from the Twin Towers? Stupidity. Why didn't the pilots resist attack, at least by locking the cockpit door and swinging the cockpit axe? Complacency and training. And so on. It was good material for a Simpsons episode. A bunch of superstitious wacoes attacks the USA, which responds like Chief Clancy Wiggum in the Simpsons. Americans are not very bright. Their average intelligence is only about 100, so one can't expect too much when smart responses to events are needed. We all do as best we can, and often, what we can do based on our limited understanding is ineffectual or even harmful. So, we don't need to, in this case, include a false flag operation. Occam's box-cutter razor is sufficient to explain it all. Mqurice