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 (65079)	6/16/2005 1:01:25 AM
From: Snowshoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

>>I don't think the U.S. military wanted to be caught taking such a risk with duplicity.<< Why would the U.S. government risk being caught while taking down the WTC in New York City? Why go to all the extra effort to wire the buildings for demolition and blow them up? The planes crashing into the buildings would have been a powerful provocation, regardless of whether the buildings fell!

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (65079)	6/16/2005 7:00:08 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 74559

<After all, the U.S. military has such a stellar record of telling us the truth, eh? Pat Tillman's fratricide, the heroics of Jessica Lynch, the claim that the U.S. would spend no more than $1.7 Billion to rebuild Iraq. You've got to hand it to the U.S. military, it is one of the most disreputable, dishonest and deceitful institutions on the planet today. > Oh Ray, come on. The USA military doesn't win that easily. It might not even be among the most disreputable, dishonest and deceitful institutions. Yes, they aren't fully scientific in their pursuit of truth, but they are in good company. The disestablished Office of Disinformation can't be included as part of the US military because there isn't such an office now [according to the Office of Disinformation]. If they were still in business, which we can surely trust them that they aren't, then perhaps you would have a case. Mqurice