Replies

Let me try this again.

Of course, those of you who believe that the government is covering this up, so that people don't cancel their travel plans and bankrupt the airlines are 100% correct.

If the public thinks that the terrorists struck again, they would stay away from flying in droves.

But.....if they were decieved into thinking that there is a fatal design flaw, or material failure, that remains unresolved, on an entire class of aircraft, that will inspire them all to go flocking to the airports to board these potential deathtraps, to visit Granny, and eat some dried out turkey next week.

Economy saved!

I remain in awe of your powers of reasoning.

But.....if they were decieved into thinking that there is a fatal design flaw, or material failure, that remains unresolved, on an entire class of aircraft, that will inspire them all to go flocking to the airports to board these potential deathtraps, to visit Granny, and eat some dried out turkey next week.

Nah. People would think it was just that one plane, and move on. It would be just a fluke. A bad accident. ( Which it may be, but may be not, via the discussions here)

But.....if they were decieved into thinking that there is a fatal design flaw, or material failure, that remains unresolved, on an entire class of aircraft, that will inspire them all to go flocking to the airports to board these potential deathtraps, to visit Granny, and eat some dried out turkey next week.
Economy saved!

I remain in awe of your powers of reasoning.

Yankee, you're just awesome when it comes to railroads, but you tend not to give other people credit for intelligence when their opinions differ from yours. The line of reasoning you attack is apparently that of many people in the Bush Administration---read Bob Novak's November 13 column. If this crash was due to "mechanical error," it's just one plane, and even if it's a design flaw, the Airbus fleet can be grounded for inspections while the rest of the fleet goes on flying. But a terrorist attack? That means we haven't contained yet a focused, deliberate, systemwide, ongoing threat to our airline industry. And yes, my new-found friend, that IS scarier than "mechanical failure" scenarios.

#128 - you're absolutely right. There is no logic to a "cover up" of either outcome. Scenario one is terrorist: people panic and don't fly as much or as often. Scenario two is mechanical failure: people don't fly American Airlines at all.

The scenario of mechanical failure is (were I a conspiracy theorist) contains much greater motivation for the government to lie to the American people over. If folks thought found out that the airline had flown an ship that was not airworthy and where maintenance/inspection had not been done correctly, it would devastate American Airline. It would also seriously decrease confidence in the mode of travel. Certainly for those who would fly, most would reject any travel agents offer of an airbus flight.

Lastly, one has to ask why a president with much credibility and trust of the people (at least according to the polls) would run the risk of being exposed as a liar over something like not telling people what they already know - that terrorists are still in the country and not all have been found. Bottom line is it would be in the best interest of this administration for this to turn out to be an act of terror. It would certainly be seen by DEMS as an opportunity for a complete takeover of the airline industry by government.

None of these arguments make any sense to me. None of the speculation without the information makes sense to me. And certainly none of the distrust directed at a president who doesn't have a track record of lying to the American people makes sense to me. If it were Al Gore who were president right now I might buy it because he lied to the American people repeatedly and even believed his own stuff. We don't have a headcase in the Whitehouse right now, so I'm having a difficulty thinking of him as the anti-patriot lying scum that many seem to consider him.