[copycat]

I still haven't seen anybody make a convincing case for the reasoning behind a coverup.

Thousands of layoffs occurred as a result of 9/11 in the airline industry with several carriers going under. Another successful terrorist attack on a US plane would lead to more layoffs and more failures.

The destruction of the airline industry would impact buisness at all levels and thrpw the US economy into a tailspin of its' own.

IF the Fedgov is hiding evidence of a bombing, they are protecting the US economy.

[Yankee]

Thousands of layoffs occurred as a result of 9/11 in the airline industry with several carriers going under. Another successful terrorist attack on a US plane would lead to more layoffs and more failures. He's right, you know.

If everyone thought that a bomb took it out, nobody would want to fly.

But if the public could be tricked into believing that there is a fatal flaw in a fair number of the world's fleet of airplanes, they would get a warm and fuzzy feeling of safety, and run to their travel agents to buy tickets, by the droves.

As Arthur Miller said in "Death of a Salesman", "attention must be paid to this man.".

[KillerWabbit]

IF the Fedgov is hiding evidence of a bombing, they are protecting the US economy.

To say nothing of a ripple effect on fourth quarter sales this year.

Wooeee. This presents a conundrum. Say somebody here has in their possession a videotape of the whole thing, clearly showing a bomb bringing the plane down.

Might it be considered unpatriotic to release such a thing, seeing as how it could devastate the economy, give the terrorists a victory and a huge setback to America in the War on Terrorism? Wouldn't "loose lips sink ships" -- or the country's economy -- apply here?

Or is an honest and open government more important than any of that?

[dead]

I think you missed my point. I'm saying that if they wanted to protect the airline industry, telling everybody that wind blew the tail off is hardly the way to inspire confidence in flying.

[Brian Allen]

..... The destruction of the airline industry would .....

..... be no such thing.

You think like a bureaucrat.

In a FRee-enterprise nation, like the one America -- before several generations of its "males" became emasculated, feminized, drugged-out and Europeanized -- used to be, "the airline industry" comprises whatever companies are successful this week, this month, this quarter and this year.

The idea that "the airline industry" is a zero-sum game, is socialism on a good day and fascism on any other.

The aviation-enthusiast-operated Smith-The-Pilot's Airlines or Captains-Tom-Dick-And-Harry Air or [For Example] South-West Airlines will do the job WAY better, cheaper, safer and more efficiently than the big, clumsy, grossly inefficient and bottom-line-watching-beancounter run jobs do it!

Most of them are walking, breathing living evidence only that the Peter Principle is alive and well and lives in them -- and that we'd all be better off if they were replaced with new ones!

[whenigettime]

"Thousands of layoffs occurred as a result of 9/11 in the airline industry with several carriers going under. Another successful terrorist attack on a US plane would lead to more layoffs and more failures. The destruction of the airline industry would impact buisness at all levels and thrpw the US economy into a tailspin of its' own. IF the Fedgov is hiding evidence of a bombing, they are protecting the US economy"


This is what I've been thinking....