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 : Zeev's Turnips - No Politics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epsteinbd who wrote (91275)	7/4/2002 5:01:28 PM
From: epsteinbd	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 99280

More on why its not the Cessna is not a terror attack : 1/ No fire 2/ Plane at right angle to the shore. Parallel would have killed many more. 3/ Apparently two people on board. 4/ Arab terrorists are not (yet?) twin engine guys.

To: epsteinbd who wrote (91275)	7/4/2002 7:20:04 PM
From: Math Junkie	Respond to of 99280

*Re: "Most probably lost an engine after takeoff, before building sufficient airspeed for crash avoidance.* "** The runways at that airport seem like they ought to be long enough to allow the airplane to get above the best single-engine climb speed before liftoff. The lack of fire, however, suggests the possibility of running out of fuel. msnbc.com Another reason for thinking it was probably an accident is that airplane accidents happen every day, and there's no reason why today should be any different.