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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (93039)	11/12/2001 3:08:13 PM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

KT, Officials keep saying that so far there is no sign of unusual communications from the plane before the crash. They are using that fact as an indication that it is less likely that this was a terrorist attack. I see it the other way around. Sure, it may mean that no terrorists were on board taking control of the plane, but it means that the event was so catastrophic and quick that no one had time to communicate a problem - namely an immense explosion. I've heard several eyewitness accounts on the radio etc... From the witness's voice and description there is zero question in my mind that there was a huge explosion in the air prior to the crash. Some parts of the plane are located far away from the main section - even more of an indication that it was either a huge explosion or a kind of structural failure that noone has ever seen before. I am certain that I recall reading about explosive devices that can be triggered by atmospheric pressure changes etc.. That's exactly what would exist on a flight just after taking off and reaching a certain altitude. Obviously, I am speculating a lot here. But my guess is that there is an economic and political agenda here to keep panic low. I am not 100% certain that even if this is a terrorist bomb etc... that we will be told the truth.