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 : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cactus Jack who wrote (44180)	11/12/2001 5:53:53 PM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

Oh, no, not another surface-to-air missile theory. Did you also read the last sentence, "Or, could have been a stork."? More disconcerting seems to be the clean separation of the vertical stabilizer that fell off into the water 1/4 mile away. The USCG hoisted it out this afternoon and it didn't look ripped; it looked like somebody didn't tighten some bolts. Could it be possible that there were two separate factors, an engine explosion/bird intake AND a loose vertical stabilizer?

To: Cactus Jack who wrote (44180)	11/13/2001 9:34:25 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

Hi jp, I've been known to get high from time to time, so would that qualify me? <gg> FWIW, I'm inclined to think this was an accident. The fact that no terrorist group has made a credible claim of responsibility for the crash speaks volumes to me. Terrorists are in the business of spreading fear, panic & terror. The effect of having it made known from the get go that this was a terrorist act would have had significantly more impact from the fear, panic & terror aspect. Since there has been no legitimate claim of responsibility for downing the plane tells me it is unlikely this was a terrorist act and more likely an unfortunate accident. JMHO