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: Bearcatbob who wrote (17713)	9/2/2007 11:48:08 AM
From: The Street	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

Both parties are controlled by the same masters - military/industrial complex and banking families. Look up "dialectic" to understand and open your eyes. Please....

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (17713)	9/2/2007 11:14:23 PM
From: el_gaviero	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

The biggest problem we have is the inability to have legitimate debate over issues. I agree with this comment except for a detail --- the word “legitimate.” The whole argument about the events of 9/11 is an argument precisely about what is legitimate and what is not. My personal opinion is that any debate that stays on topic, that deals with the issues, and that takes place among people who want to know the truth, is legitimate. As for what happened on 9/11 --- I think this matter is a question of immense consequence. As far as I can see, the evidence that the events of 9/11 were some kind of inside job is overwhelming. It was either LIHOP or MIHOP– that is, “let it happen on purpose” or “make it happen of purpose.” Against thousands of details pointing to LIHOP or MIHOP, only one general argument supports the government’s conspiracy theory. That one argument is the one you put your finger upon: a lot of people had to be in the know. How come nobody is talking? The general argument about nobody talking is definitely, in my opinion, legitimate. It was an argument that was strong enough to stop me for a long time from thinking that 9/11 had an inside angle. But details over the years have since worn me down. Take one detail --- the collapse of WTC-7. You simply cannot explain how this building fell to the ground in nine seconds without resorting to the idea of internal demolition as cause. That WTC-7 fell is a fact. That it fell in nine seconds is a fact. That fires in the building were small and separated, not to mention, many floors below the top of the building, is a fact. That the middle of the building crimped just a bit, followed by the collapse of the entire structure FROM THE TOP, is a fact. No hypothesis -- except internal demolition --- explains these facts. I would say that the refusal to accept that WTC-7 fell because of internal demolition is not legitimate. It is a refusal to accept visual testimony, available on video for all to see. It is a refusal to credit a fact as a fact because the fact forces one to draw conclusions that one does not want to draw. Now, yes, for sure, I do not know how it was done, and I do not know who did it, and I do not know what happened to Barbara Olsen. But I do know this: WTC-7 was demolished as a result of internal explosive charges. Once you accept this as fact, as a legitimate fact, you are in a world of inside operations, of MIHOP but more likely of LIHOP.