Hell, I'm sitting at my keyboard 3,000 miles away looking out the window at a pine tree and I know this was due to terrorist activity. Hey, I don't even know the difference between a 767 and an Airbus and I know that this is suspicious.
Just because he's in New York in contact with the disaster scene and I'm sitting in a cubicle on the other side of the country, doesn't mean I don't know squat.
Follow me here, folks.
This took place in New York. Let me repeat that again, because it's key; New York. Now what significant incident took place in New York recently? That's right, the WTC attack on 9/11. OK folks, now are we getting warm or what? We don't need no politico/journalist expert at the scene, right? We can figure this one ourselves. OK, so where were we? Oh yeah, New York. Do you see the common thread running throught these incidents? It's New York. OK, now there was an explosion on this plane. Do you know what causes explosions? That's right, bombs do.
I rest my case. If that doesn't convince even the most hardened skeptic that skullduggery was involved in this incident, then nothing will.
Just because he's in New York in contact with the disaster scene and I'm sitting in a cubicle on the other side of the country, doesn't mean I don't know squat.
You summed up my sentiments exactly. The Feds and NY officials are worried about the economic damage and the damage to the airline industry. Let's face it folks they are spinning like crazy. The assumption should be that the "mechanical failure" was the result of a deliberate act until proven otherwise.
And another thing. People need to stop focusing on the term mechanical failure because it is obvious that a mechanical failure occurred. If one had NOT occurred the plane would still be in flight or have landed safely by now. The question is whether or not it was a mechanical failure (it was.) The question is whether or not it was a deliberate act.