Did a Bomb Take Down Flight 587?

A Different Drummer/Middle American News ^ | February, 2002 | Nicholas Stix

[The Raven]

Next you'll tell me Ron Brown had a bullet hole.

[MarkWar]

>You know, at the rate the sheeple are buying these "no show, just move along" stories, the gubmint could start disappearing people, and their family members wouldn't raise a stink.

I certainly see your point. But we have to remember that we have NO REAL EVIDENCE that people ARE buying these idiotic stories.

I mean, the media never SHOWS people questioning the news, but we recognize that media "reality" is a created thing.

Most everybody I know simply assumes there's a heck of a lot more going on than meets the eyes. Most everybody I know doesn't believe much of ANYTHING from the mainstream "news."

We can't judge Americans by what we see in the media.

Mark W.

[mrustow]

fyi

[The Duke]

But don't you know...there's no such thing as "conspiracy"? If you believe in conspiracy that makes you a "kook"!

Next thing you know you'll be telling me that politicians are awarding construction contracts to their financial contributors!

[mrustow]

Point taken.

[mrustow]

I love Big Brother.

[eno_]

Excellent point. FR is the media now. We take what they spew and refine it down to the unspun facts. Sometimes you even get really good original sources and original research here.

[John H K]

I bet they didn't check the passengers' shoes before they boarded so a bomb is quite possible.

There was no evidence of bomb damage on the aircraft, hence, there was no bomb.

Care to explain how the vertical stabilizer is the FIRST thing to come off and it shears off cleanly, caused by a bomb in the passenger compartment? Or are we only allowed to pose hard questions about the government explanation, not the people who question the government investigation?

[mrustow]

I don't know if a bomb directly caused the vertical stabilizer to rip off, or if the bomb caused a condition that led to the stabilizer coming off. I just know that any explanation that requires the extraordinary -- conditions or results that have never before happened, and for which no supporting evidence is available -- is on the same order as the claim that a miracle occurred.

And how do you know, that there was no evidence of bomb damage? The feds IMMEDIATELY precluded terrorism as an explanation, not after a thorough examination of the wreckage. I can understand your exasperation with anti-government conspiracy-mongers (Flight 800 and all that), but this case is not the same. For instance, why did the feds ignore the eyewitnesses for two months, and only now acknowledge them, after they started getting some media coverage?

[mrustow]

fyi

[mrustow]

fyi

[mrustow]

fyi

[mrustow]

fyi

[mrustow]

fyi

[mrustow]

fyi

[mrustow]

fyi

[MissAmericanPie]

Yeah, dang these eye witness's and their lying eyes, who you gonna believe? Your dear old Uncle Sham of course.

[Blade]

There's no way of know for sure.

The Federal jack-boots control access to the physical evidence, and they have an army of shills and apologists ready to lie and muddy the waters and shout down anyone who publically scrutinizes the government's account.

[mrustow]

fyi

[mrustow]

fyi