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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : The Microcap Kitchen: Stocks 5¢ to $5 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Dorsey who wrote (44168)	12/6/2005 8:32:51 AM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 120411

Great post Tom - don't forget PHPG re protection against surface to air missle attacks on our commercial airliners.

To: Tom Dorsey who wrote (44168)	12/6/2005 11:53:25 AM
From: the navigator	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 120411

Finally, I am stunned that the possible surface to air missile shot at LAX did not get more play. And the response it was a flare or possible "bottle rocket" is incredulous. Tom, the only explanation I've come up with, assuming that the pilot is credible, is that this was a failed "practice shot," that the government is aware of the attempt, that they do not want the public to know about the threat (imagine the impact on air travel), and that the homeland security forces are hoping to stop the attacks on the ground rather than provide the security to the plane. Or maybe they are hoping to stop the attacks on the ground until they can provide the security to the plane. This begs another question, why is our media so accepting of the FBI's incredulous explanation? Seems like someone would be asking the hard questions.... LJ