[Dirk McQuickly]

The rules are simple:

1) If it looks and smells like terrorism, it probably is.
2) If it takes the FBI half an hour to conclude, "this is not terrorist-related", it probably is.
3) If Prime Minister Chretien gets trotted out to make a senile remark about lightning on a clear day, it's almost definitely terrorism.
4) If the energy dept. doesn't know why it happened...
5) If an obscure power station in Ohio has to take the blame...

There is a theory that simple, instinctive reasoning is correct in a vast majority of instances. I think it applies here. You don't have to be some tinfoil poster child to figure this one out.

[jacquej]

For WIW, I remain unconvinced. I think terrorism is a distinct possibility. I also doubt that it would be admitted for to do so would start serious panic.

I also tend to believe that Flight 800 was taken down by terrorism. It doesn't take a "Coast to Coast" mentality to reach this opinion. Just years of experience in watching how government puts out "comforting" info to prevent not only panic among the populace, but market melt-downs, etc...

There is a lot at stake here, and the government has to put forth an explanation that makes this power failure a "freak" event, not likely to be repeated, even though they are frantic behind the scenes.

So, those of us who are "wise", just accept the nature of things, and go about our lives, preparing for such emergencies, and we don't expect our government to be "honest" with us about the nature of such events.

How could they be?

[rageaholic]

Yeah but since when are terrorists into "inconvenience" ?