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: David Howe who wrote (14775)	9/6/2006 1:34:54 AM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

A court case would be tricky. What we have here is some very heady evidence. We have three buildings falling in a single day at free fall speed. That's a concept that many here in this discussion are having a hard time with. Even though the actual speed and time of the collapses is well documented there is disagreement on these simple facts and how to interpret them. As bongnsnort would say...they all went to public schools! There's the eyewitness statements of multiple explosions. There's the immense amount of concrete dust which would take more energy then was available as potential energy in the standing buildings. There's lots of evidence of strange goings on. But there is very little evidence tying anyone directly to these actions. When you couple the fact that very few Americans are educated enough to understand the physics with the fact that you don't have a suspect...you really don't have a case. Not one that you could win with today's jury selection process. Not one that you could put the finger on someone with. All there is is circumstantial evidence. Strange coincidences. It's like OJ trial. Who doubted that he killed Nicole? Or like the Kennedy Assassination? Who believes the Warren report? No sir, in our state of justice, conspirators can easily slip past getting caught quite easily, especially when they control the evidence. Let me ask you this. If the government's case is a slam dunk on OBL, then why hasn't he been indicted for these crimes?

To: David Howe who wrote (14775)	9/6/2006 8:05:41 AM
From: Doug R	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20039

There are ongoing civil suits...quite a few. As for a criminal case... There are literally hundreds of pieces of circumstantial evidence pointing to the bush/cheney crime syndicate (bccs). If there's even 2 pieces pointing to obl I'd be surprised. The so-called "confession tape" is excruciatingly phony...as well as being more circumstantial evidence against the bccs. There is obviously planted evidence pointing to the alleged hijackers themselves...except for the ones who later turned up alive. The planted evidence is, in itself, more evidence against the bccs. That list of hijackers certainly was a shoddy piece of work. The miracle passport. Atta's will...which came from his luggage...which conveeeeniently got put on the "wrong" plane...that's a real laugher. He brought his passport with him on a mission to fly into the WTC in a fiery crash...uh, sure...very believable. Supposed cellphone calls describing Arab hijackers that were impossible to make...what dimwit thought that would fly? There's enough undeniable evidence that proves the "official" fable is completely false. The only thing with any truth in the entire fable is that planes flew into the towers. I'd say there was enough of a case against bccs to bring to court. Since the incident is a crime, it would take a law enforcement agency to bring charges. It's definitely within the FBI's jurisdiction. But...oops...the FBI is under the thumb of the bccs. And even the FBI says they don't have a case against obl. Between ALL the evidence there are only two choices of who's prosecutable. obl or bccs. The FBI says it's not obl. What they're saying in a discreet way is...it's bccs but we've got this big ugly thumb sitting on us.