 | | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
| (...) That's one of the million dollar questions, and we may have to content ourselves with "the passengers appear to have disrupted the hijackers' plan which then resulted in the crash of the plane." It doesn't seem likely that we'll ever have a (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
| (...) Very True. I do think it was dealt with in the most unfortunate means though (shot down)- of course i have no proof, but lack of evidence rarely stops the big media, so why should i worry? ;-P (...) Good point. I guess the conspiracy stuff can (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
| (...) Was there not a news item reporting that debris from that plane had landed same way before the actual impact site? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
| (...) That honestly doesn't sound suspicious to me, since, had the US Gov't *not* purchased the exclusive rights, then the Taliban could easily have watched US troop movements; there's no reasonable way to conclude (but *speculation* is fair game) (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
| (...) I haven't heard that, actually. Do you know of a web cite? On the other hand, the more recent Airbus crash in Queens did involve several debris sites for the tail rudder, the engines, and the main body. Dave! (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
