gatt wrote:
Something suspicious here?
http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/...246621809.html

"The pilot of one of two Russian planes that crashed almost simultaneously
had sent a hijack alert,"...and, in the same story:

"FSB officials had not yet found evidence of a terrorist act or
explosion..."

Do the Russians really believe people are that stupid?


The only thing "suspicious" I see here is someone trying to make more
out of something than is justified.

The facts so far - two planes have crashed in Russia at almost exactly
the same time. That's it.

One of the two planes is _reported_ to have sent a hijack alert.
I don't know if that's been confirmed or not, but even if it has
it's still possible that the signal was sent accidentally.

Would you have been happier if officials had said they had not yet
found _independent_ _physical_ evidence of terrorism or an explosion?
Also, no one has ever said that lack of evidence for a theory is
automatically evidence against that theory.

I agree that the two crashes are very suspicious. However, believing
that they were caused by terrorists - based solely on the timing - is
far from proving that terrorists were the cause.

Rich Lemert