A good analysis of critique of the NYT article.
To: acehai; eno_; Alamo-Girl
Anyone have any guesses as to how long it will be before Asmodeus shows up on this thread???
To: *TWA800_list; *AA Flight 587
.
To: Swordmaker
rebuttle = rebuttal...
sheesh. Too early in the AM or too late in the PM!
To: Swordmaker
Are there any names of passengers sitting in that part of the plane (behind the left wing)?
To: All
Flight 587 = Shoe bomber #1. The powers that be do not want the American people to realize how much control they DON'T have over passengers on planes so they think they are safe and will still fly. I was listening to Neal Boortz yesterday and he brought up a story about a Post office investigator had carried a gun on to a plane (Something that HE CAN DO BY LAW.)and the plane was diverted to Detroit, this brought up the question of how many gov't officials CAN legally carry a gun on a plane. I wish I a had a link to the list but don't. But there were I'd say about 15 or so agencies that can carry on a plane. Why is it that PILOTS can't carry? Oh yea I forgot they are PRIVATE citizens and we can't have that now can we?
6 posted on
06/26/2002 2:29:49 AM PDT by
OXENinFLA
To: Swordmaker
Thanks for posting this article. I can't wait for the rebuttal of the rebuttal.
9 posted on
06/26/2002 10:05:10 AM PDT by
Tymesup
To: Swordmaker
Bump.
To: Swordmaker
This was at a time of high terror alerts, with an important meeting at the UN taking place as the plane took off.
Flying to the Dominican Republic, there were ostensibly no islamists on board, but with the recent revelations about Padilla and latino converions to islam, makes one think hard about this one.
Never heard anyone take credit for this, though. You would've thought a media outlet would have recvd some notification, in order to keep the level of terror at a high pitch.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson