|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 02/28/2006 : 20:29:19 [Permalink]
|
Rumpl said:
quote:
So, to you people here who apparently fully believe the government's official story about 9/11, the link to the 9/11 Commission Report is anecdotal?????
I believe I haven't just joined a new board, I've entered an alternate universe.
Yeah, you do live in an alternate universe is you consider non-expert, un-sourced, un-referenced testimony from a bereaved widow concerning "put trading" to be anything other than anecdotal.
Lets see something in the 9/11 comission report conclusions that bears up this claim, then you will be on slightly more solid ground.
quote:
Okay. So, with all the attempts the Bush admin has been making to portray Bin Laden as the evil mastermind of all dark forces in the world, what makes you think that Congressional forces would sit tight and moot about it if they had the slightest sliver of evidence that one of the family was the mystery Put Option purchaser?
I'll ask you again, where is your evidence that these names have not been released to the FBI/CIA?
Why do you think you should be privelaged to potentially critical information in what is obviously an ongoing criminal investigation?
Give me a plausible reason why these names, if they even exist (you have yet to demonstrate that this "put option" trading even occured), should be publicly released by the SEC.
Seriously, there are only a couple of people on this forum who like G.W. Bush or his administration.
Credible evidence to support your assertions could win this audience over in a heartbeat. You make the claims, now put some real evidence on the table.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 20:29:59 [Permalink]
|
Never mind, my mind is seeing things in posts that are not there.
Back to basic reading for me..... |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
| Edited by - Paulos23 on 02/28/2006 20:34:35 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 21:38:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rumpl4skn
Okay, so we have 2 different takes on what I posted.
The first was essentially - okay, so somebody knew about 9/11 and made some money, so what?
...
You're either being cruelly sarcastic, or you're deranged. If you're saying it doesn;t matter that someone in the U.S. trading on our stock market had prior knowledge of the attacks, I guess I can offcially ignore the rest of your posts.
...
The second claim was that it was "innocent" because only an idiot wouldn't know the SEC would investigate.
You're actually wrong on both counts.
Well, I won't speak for pleco (but I suspect I'm right in thinking he was making the same point I was), but my response wasn't claiming that anything was "innocent" (you're very quick to jump to conclusions), it was only a remark about how monumentally stupid it would be for anyone with foreknowledge about the attacks to do something like that. I'd only be shocked to find out that whoever did it - if it was, indeed, based upon foreknowledge of the attacks - wasn't summarily executed by whoever orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.quote:
...So, even though I was earlier chastised for posting links...
Actually, you were chastized for posting just links as your argument, instead of posting an actual argument.quote:
...I will post links.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/10_09_01_krongard.html
Now, in the event that link is greeted here with the label of "unconvincing" type, I also provide the government link:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing1/witness_kleinberg.htm
Btw, the issue is still unresolved, as of this date: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/2/62018.shtml
As of June, 2002. Is that the latest on this issue that you've come up with? Nobody has paid it any more mind since then?
Why is it that the numbers in all three links are different? Can nobody get the story straight? Why is it that you seem to want us to ignore the possibility, raised in the last article, that it really was all "business as usual" since American and United stocks had been slowly tanking all summer long?quote:
Sadly, the SEC did NOT do the investigation, they are REFUSING to do the investigation...
If the last article is correct, perhaps it's because there was nothing suspicious.quote:
...as well as not release information on the culprits, whom they certainly have to know the identity of. (Note - they are not saying "we don't know who", they are refusing to divulge.)
If nothing illegal happened, then what right do you or anyone else have to know the identity of the investor(s)?quote:
This is deliberate miscarriage of justice, I don't care how you look at it.
No, apparently you really don't care. This is, however, a skeptical site, and we do question everything, especially when it appears to be held so dogmatically.quote:
And it requires a certain amount of complicity amongst the highest levels of government for this to have just ground to an unresolved halt.
Remember - the more rich and/or powerful the suspect, the more money and power that's required to get anyone to notice the crime.
The average amount of money traded in Google stock per day over the last three months is something like $60 million. Per day. Just one stock. No matter whether the result of the put options was $25 or $2.5 million, it's a drop in the bucket compared to all of the airline stock trading that was done in the week prior to 9/11. Someone actually has to own the stock already to place a put option on it, so they most likely owned many more millions in stock (for a well-rounded portfolio), and the options themselves netted perhaps an extra 5% of their total net worth (more would have been even more monumentally stupid).
So, with what I've learned in the last 45 minutes or so, I'll put forward a hypothesis which (seems to me) has just as much evidence going for it, and explains all the facts at hand (as I'm aware of them).
A wealthy businessman somewhere in the US sees what other stock experts see with sinking airline share prices: an opportunity to make a few quick bucks. He buys put options on a handful of airlines stocks, safe in the knowledge their prices are going to drop further as they have been all summer long. 9/11 happens, and lots of stocks plummet, putting our hypothetical businessman under quite a bit of stress as he plans damage control on his portfolio. He gets a call on the morning of 9/12, from a family friend who tells him that one of his old school chums hasn't been heard from since going to the WTC for a meeting the day before. He gets another call that night informing him that his cherished niece also has probably died.
Our businessman's heart, clogged up by a soft life with lots of cigars and alcohol, just can't take all the abuse, and he's dead by morning. His previous-week's stock dealings go unnoticed by the family as they bury the old man the next weekend and drool over his will, which - to everyone's shock - gave a major chunk of his quarter-billion-dollar estate to the now-dead niece. By the time the guy's trader gets in touch with the executor, the whole thing is tied up in probate court, as his family members chew each other up over the riches. The judge refuses to allow anyone to claim the put-option money until he figures out to whom it should go, but with suits and counter-suits between the greedy pirhanas, the judge has little choice but to sit on the money for years.
The SEC, of course, doesn't see anything illegal, and has no obligation to release anyone's name. Congress, of course, has had much bigger fish to fry since then. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 00:14:45 [Permalink]
|
There is nothing mysterious about the building falling straight down. That is the direction of of gravity on the planet that I live on. A tree falls over because it has a much higher ratio of bending strength to weight than does a building and a complex series of cuts are made to make sure the the tree doesn't drop straight down onto the faller first. When building collapse during an earthquake most of the building falls down into the basement.
As for no explanation of the collapse, a day or two after 9/11 I heard an interview with the structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC. He explained exactly what happened.
The insulation on the beams is meant to protect them from the heat generated by a normal fire (paper, furniture etc - there isn't a lot of fuel in an office building) for a reaonable period of time. The temperature generated by burning kerosene is much greater than this. The steel structure collapsed and the entire weight of the building above that floor fell on the floor below. This impact caused the floor below to collapse and so on and so on.
I am not a structural engineer, but I do have a BSc in Mechanical Engineering.
I have also taken some very basic Firefighter training as a member of our village "first
response" team (neither equiped nor qualified to enter a burning building).
At the worst, the Bush administration was willfully blind to the evidence that something of this nature was going to happen.
In response to any claims that the planes were empty and flown by remote control, the brother of a woman who worked in accounting at my then employer was on one of the planes. He was "Ace" Bailey, a scout for the LA Kings. |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 00:34:15 [Permalink]
|
Rumpl4skn wrote: quote:
Okay, so we have 2 different takes on what I posted.
The first was essentially - okay, so somebody knew about 9/11 and made some money, so what? … You're either being cruelly sarcastic, or you're deranged. If you're saying it doesn;t matter that someone in the U.S. trading on our stock market had prior knowledge of the attacks, I guess I can offcially ignore the rest of your posts.
Huh? Who had that “take”?
The only other suggested interpretation was Dave W. asking quote:
How is it that we know that the unreleased names aren't simply idiotic terrorists who are currently under investigation?
And Dave wasn't saying that was his interpretation, he's basically another person asking you for more evidence to back up your interpretation.
quote:
The second take regarded eveidence.
Which you have yet to provide. The three links you posted as containing “evidence” didn't have any and didn't answer any of the specific questions people here asked.
To quote from the newsmax article you posted: quote:
Those in the industry are speculating themselves – and the best bet so far is that the official silence by the investigating agencies is owing to a lack of much to report.
As FBI Director Robert Mueller has conceded, precious little -- if any -- paper trail concerning the hijackers themselves has been detected after eight months of investigation. It would be surprising, therefore, that an alternate paper trail of illicit profits in the market would be any less elusive.
It is a bad habit of conspiracy theorists to count lack of evidence as evidence. But if we are to base our conclusions on logic, lack of evidence is just that – lack of evidence.
The other bad habit of conspiracy theorists to read any connections as incriminating, even when there is no reason to consider them so. In the Ruppert article we see plenty of that. Everyone from Merryll Lynch to a whole big slew of people in the CIA are named as being connected in this way and that. And are any of those connections worth one tiny little shred of evidence that any of these were people benefiting from the put options? Nope.
And what of those put options? None of these links you posted answers pleco's question, or my three questions, which is why Dude again asked for evidence. The only thing that even addressed any of these questions of evidence was this: I asked 2.)What is the context/details of "unbelievably high". What I mean is, what are the specific amounts and what sort of amounts are normal, so we can rule out coincidence.
Ruppert cites a string of facts about trading from right before 9-11 from a story by the Israeli Herzliyya International Policy Institute, but it doesn't given a broader context. The closest it comes is when Ruppert includes in parantheses: quote:
[The levels of put options purchased above were more than six times higher than normal.]
Think about that for 3 seconds - what does it actually mean? What the heck is the context for al |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/01/2006 00:35:50 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 00:58:54 [Permalink]
|
Calling a conspiracy delusion a "theory" doesn't make it scientific.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 02:17:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rumpl4skn
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
WHy don't you start with your single best piece of evidence that the 9/11 events were something other than a terrorist attack.
Okay. But only if I get a better rebuff than "you're a paranoid lunatic" or "that's a pile of crazy horseshit."
Let's start with some non-physical evidence. The unbelievably high level of Put Options purchased on United Airlines and American Airlines 6 days before 9/11.
Someone or someones cleared roughly $25 million on those bets that the stocks would drop, and not only did they never claim their profits, the SEC has refused to release the names of those investors.
And those are just the largest group of seemingly frantic investors who places unusually high volumes on stocks that it would be obvious would drop if there was an attack exactly as we did suffer on Sept. 11th, not the only ones.
Someone in the investment world knew what was about to happen, and had the balls to try to make money from it.
Welcome again, glad you didn't really go. If the stock market stuff really occurred, one might remember the people who did know about it, namely Bin Laden, has millions and friends and relatives with millions. There were all those Saudi terrorists on the planes. They could have tipped off relatives. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 02:19:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Rumpl4skn
Btw, 2 technical questions for you regulars: how do you edit a post, like in typo correction,
There should be an edit button on all your posts. Looks like a pencil erasure pointed at white page with a check mark on it. You have to be logged in for this button to appear.
...
Is that what that is!  |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/01/2006 02:20:46 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 03:10:23 [Permalink]
|
The DVD program I saw had a few points the conspiracy buffs like to point to and say that's the proof. The size of the hole in the Pentagon, the way the towers imploded all the way to the ground, the fact Bush wanted an excuse to invade Iraq (documented in Richard Clark's book, Against All Enemies), and so on. But they really cannot explain all the things which don't fit the conspiracy hypothesis. There are too many people involved. You could not physically set up implosive devices that fast and that undetectable in the Towers even if there was some drill before the actual event that provided the cover. When actual buildings are imploded for demolition, walls have to be opened to attach the explosives to the structural supports. It's absurd to think a bunch of people went in the towers, opened walls, put in explosives and plastered them back or put pictures over the holes, whatever, cleaned up all the dust, and so on, then, not a single one of those people objected to killing 3,000 people because the President told them to do it? And the passengers on 4 planes what? Didn't really exist? Were killed elsewhere? The relatives are just actors? The news media seeking out the airports the planes departed from didn't trigger any questions from the ticket counter? People load those passengers, they remember that the cute little kid they helped board is now dead. They wouldn't sit around thinking gee, Sally did you load that flight? I don't remember doing it.
So, you'd have to have a whole bunch of people at the airport, the passengers, their families, the news media that flock to film the grieving families, the huge team to rig the implosion explosives, all the people in the government in on it and on and on. That is just too many people to keep quiet. Hell, Bush and Cheney haven't been able to keep wiretaps or the outing of Valerie Plame secret. How could they possibly pull something like 9/11 off?
And I haven't even gotten to the incompetent President part yet. Did you see Bush's face in that classroom when they told him what happened? That was the look of sheer terror of an incompetent President who up until that moment thought all he had to do was get elected and go on vacation letting everyone else do the job. This whole group is not the picture of competence even if you take Bush out of the loop. These are the same idiots who ran Nixon's administration. Look how successful that was. These guys thought if they took out Saddam everything would be peachy. They're idiots.
I have no doubt there are many a sneaky political dirty tricks that occur all the time and some approach the level of 'conspiracy'. Nixon and Kissinger negotiated with the South Vietnamese government not to sign a treaty with N Vietnam to give Nixon an advantage over McGovern in the 1972 elections. War is good for incumbents, that's something the old Nixon boys remembered in 2004 as well. Reagan's team had contact with the Iranians, (the October Surprise), delaying the hostage release until the election when Reagan ran against Carter. What a scumbag keeping those people imprisoned longer just for his personal political gain. These are documented events yet the public ignores them and remembers Reagan as supposedly a great President. But I digress.
The level it would take for the 9/11 events to have been a scheme of our government, no way! Too big, too many people, no way. There'd be many whistle blowers. Even if they had been loyal, the whistle blowers would be singing now with the Iraq war being such a stupid move.
Watergate, Iran-Contra, outing Plame.. all these small scale jobs couldn't even be kept secret. 9/11, no way. Single pieces of suspicious evidence just cannot overcome the big picture. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 06:24:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rumpl4skn
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
WHy don't you start with your single best piece of evidence that the 9/11 events were something other than a terrorist attack.
Okay. But only if I get a better rebuff than "you're a paranoid lunatic" or "that's a pile of crazy horseshit."
Let's start with some non-physical evidence. The unbelievably high level of Put Options purchased on United Airlines and American Airlines 6 days before 9/11.
Someone or someones cleared roughly $25 million on those bets that the stocks would drop, and not only did they never claim their profits, the SEC has refused to release the names of those investors.
And those are just the largest group of seemingly frantic investors who places unusually high volumes on stocks that it would be obvious would drop if there was an attack exactly as we did suffer on Sept. 11th, not the only ones.
Someone in the investment world knew what was about to happen, and had the balls to try to make money from it.
Or could it be a coincidence that the Department of Brownshirts..... I mean Homeland Security has already investigated?
Airline stock was a risky investment to begin with and it wasn't particularly odd that people would put a sell order when the stock hit a threshhold. Without further evidence of wrongdoing other than the SEC is protecting the privacy of investors as they are required to under the Privacy Act of 1976, you're really going to have to put something more compelling out there. Also, how do you know that they never claimed their profits? Remember, profits are only counted in between the price you PAID for the stock and the amount you SOLD them for. Not the difference between the price of the stock when you sold it and the price of the stock one day after you sold it. That situation is called avoinding a loss, not profits that are eligible to be reported. As you have no clue who these investors are nor what they paid for their stock originally, claiming that people haven't reported profits is not only premature, but also making up facts not in evidence.
And the rebuffs provided here also included links to data and studies from non-governmental sources which explain why the towers and WTC7 fell. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 08:18:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well, I won't speak for pleco (but I suspect I'm right in thinking he was making the same point I was), but my response wasn't claiming that anything was "innocent" (you're very quick to jump to conclusions), it was only a remark about how monumentally stupid it would be for anyone with foreknowledge about the attacks to do something like that.
You suspect correctly, sir. :-) |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 09:26:33 [Permalink]
|
Rumple you directed us to this site to back up your claim that there was 'unusual' trading activity around the 9/11 attacks:
quote:
Btw, the issue is still unresolved, as of this date: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/2/62018.shtml
Did you read the article? It certainly does not help your claim. The article clearly states that analysist said that there was no unusual activity going on with these stocks.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Rumpl4skn
New Member
25 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 09:45:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There are too many people involved.
I disagree. There would not be as many people involved as you may think. For example, a lot of people tell me it would be impossible to have the entire military stand down on 9/11, as it seems they did. But you don't have to have the entire military stand down, if 80% of your resources are being misdirected to other theaters. When you take into account the inconvenient (or convenient, if you're Dick Cheney) war games going on that morning, then we had essentially 12 fighter jets left that were available to defend the entire U.S. With sources depleted like that, and other elements - such as the 2 jets from Andrews being sent East out over the ocean, you now have a situation wherein the op is doable.
quote:
You could not physically set up implosive devices that fast and that undetectable in the Towers even if there was some drill before the actual event that provided the cover. When actual buildings are imploded for demolition, walls have to be opened to attach the explosives to the structural supports. It's absurd to think a bunch of people went in the towers, opened walls, put in explosives and plastered them back or put pictures over the holes, whatever, cleaned up all the dust, and so on, then, not a single one of those people objected to killing 3,000 people because the President told them to do it?
That's your opinion that it can't be done. One man's "absurd" is another man's blueprint. There was a recent postulation, in which an engineer was asked to approximate the job. He claimed 10 people making 4 trips could do it. And as far as the WTC, it conveniently has a central section of elevators and maintenenace shafts that could be used without disturbing a wall. "Too difficult to do" is not an explanation - considering the people I feel are behind this, budget is never an obstacle. Remember, one of Larry SIlverstein's first jobs when he leased the WTC complex, was to replace roughly 75% of his security team. Why?
quote:
And the passengers on 4 planes what? Didn't really exist? Were killed elsewhere? The relatives are just actors? The news media seeking out the airports the planes departed from didn't trigger any questions from the ticket counter? People load those passengers, they remember that the cute little kid they helped board is now dead. They wouldn't sit around thinking gee, Sally did you load that flight? I don't remember doing it.
Not sure what you're postulating here, but there are several theories about the passengers. The one that works best for me is simply an extentsion of the military's Operation Northwoods scam from the 60's - an actual planned op during the JFK administration from Gen. Lemnitzer. He proposed filling a plane with CIA and FBI low level operatives, using psueudonyms of fake college students. The real plane would cross radar paths with a drone plane, and switch identities. The drone would be blown up over Cuba, they'd be blamed, and we'd have pretext for war with Castro's regime. This was an actual, detailed plan Lemnitzer had worked out, luckily Kennedy didn't go for it, and Lemnitzer was forcibly retired.
But to be honest, if they were willing to kill 2800 people in the towers, what's a few hundred more on some planes? I simply think there were no real hijackings that morning, as too much can go wrong with a hijacking, so you maintain as much control as possible.
quote:
So, you'd have to have a whole bunch of people at the airport, the passengers, their families, the news media that flock to film the grieving families, the huge team to rig the implosion explosives, all the people in the government in on it and on and on. That is just too many people to keep quiet. Hell, Bush and Cheney haven't been able to keep wiretaps or the outing of Valerie Plame secret. How could they possibly pull something like 9/11 off?
How is the news media involved in the op? All they have to do is the job they've been doing so well for the past 40 years - put on the blinders and parrot back the government's official story as if it's the only possible explanation.
And if you're defense of these theories is simply "how cold they do it", I don't know what to tell you. If you mean ethically, I can't answer that. A lot of people had not problem with supporting a military that was killing 100,000 Iraqi's over a dishonest agenda. And Geortge W. Bush didn't draw any of this up, so you can forget the "he's too big of an idiot" thing with Bush. He was along for the ride. If you mean, how is it physically possible? Anything that requires compensated manpower is possible when you have enough money and power. To think otherwise is dangerously naive.
quote:
I have no doubt there are many a sneaky political dirty tricks that occur all the time and some approach the level of 'conspiracy'. Nixon and Kissinger negotiated with the South Vietnamese government not to sign a treaty with N Vietnam to give Nixon an advantage over McGovern in the 1972 elections. War is good for incumbents, that's something the old Nixon boys remembered in 2004 as well. Reagan's team had contact with the Iranians, (the October Surprise), delaying the hostage release until the election when Reagan ran against Carter. What a scumbag keeping those people imprisoned longer just for his personal political gain. These are documented events yet the public ignores them and remembers Reagan as supposedly a great President. But I digress.
Absolutely correct, and what you're describing is a lesser-eveil version of ops that are performed by some of the same people, even though the purely political ones are often done within the administration.
quote:
The level it would take for the 9/11 events to have been a scheme of our government, no way! Too big, too many people, no way. There'd be many whistle blowers. Even if they had been loyal, the whistle blowers would be singing now with the Iraq war being such a stupid move.[/quote}
Not too big, considering the payroll available and the spoils of the Iraq War they knew they'd get. What's the projected toll now? $2.5 Trillion? That'll buy a lot of quiet about anything.
There are whistelblowers - are you aware of the Able-Danger investigation? Lt. Anthony Shaffer is attempting to blow the whistely on exavtly this op = he's been character assassinated, had his security removed, etc. Only Rep. Curt Weldon is keeping it alive. How about SIbel Edmonds? Indira Singh and PTech? Have you guys heard of any of these scenarios? These are ALL whistleblowers wh |
Taking other people's signatures and switching a few words around to make it opposite in meaning doesn't make you particularly clever. Although I admit I've done it myself, and it did make me FEEL more clever. : ) |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 09:47:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There was a recent postulation, in which an engineer was asked to approximate the job. He claimed 10 people making 4 trips could do it.
Can you supply a link to this, please? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Rumpl4skn
New Member
25 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 09:48:23 [Permalink]
|
Btw - in regards to the 9/11 Commission Report, I only reference that when it proves the existance of a fact or situation. I don't put a lot of stock in the report's conclusions. I feel it's main purpose was not to investigate anything meaningful on 9/11, it was designed to totally exonerrate the administration, the military and the intel community from any wrongdoing on that day and ever since.
Anyone who thinks that the alignment of the commission was non-partisan towards the possible perps of 9/11 might be interested in some land I have for sale in New Orleans. |
Taking other people's signatures and switching a few words around to make it opposite in meaning doesn't make you particularly clever. Although I admit I've done it myself, and it did make me FEEL more clever. : ) |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
