I am grateful to you for providing us with not only an agreed definition of reasonable suspicion, but also probable cause. If I can show you probable cause for a search warrant with regard to the take offs and landings from Offutt on the night of 9/10 - 9/11 2001. Will you add your voice to the clamour for a proper investigation of 9/11.
No, because of the overwhelming evidence that show that 175 hit the WTC. Your would have to prove that not only was that plane in the sky (I hope you would provide as much evidence for that as you are asking us for to prove that 175 had taken off), but that it was in the area. Futhermore, you would have to prove that it was painted to look like a UA plane, since that is the plane in the photos and identified by eyewitnesses. Remember that evidence is required to prove probable cause, so far you've produced none.
Here's an analogy for you.
Three guys are standing in the middle of a basketball court, during halftime to an NBA game. They are part of the cleaning crew and are just dry mopping the court. One is wearing a hat with the team logo on it, one is wearing a bandana, and the third is wearing a hat with the local baseball teams logo on it. Suddenly, the guy with the baseball hat shoots the other guy with the hat in the head, using a 9mm hidden in his coveralls. Not all the spectators were paying attention, but some saw the first shot. Since it was halftime the feed from the cameras were not live and the cameras were not pointed at the location of the killing. Everyone is now watching the middle of the court, and the Technical Director of the game instructs his camera crew to get a shot of the action for the news division of the network. Before security has time to react, the gunman then shoots the guy with the bandana, in the chest. Almost all the spectators, numbering in the thousands, saw this. The shooter then turns the gun on himself, placing the gun in his mouth and pulls the trigger. The back of his head explodes in a shower of blood and brains.
In David Simon's book Homicide: a Year on the Killing Streets this would be regarded as a "dunker" (short for "slam dunk case"), an obvious suspect and plenty of witnesses. However, Will Peterson and his crew (CSI, for those who are unfamiliar with American TV) arrive, and still have to map out what happened at the scene and collect forensic evidence. The coroner does an autopsy, to determine cause of death. Detectives look into the backgrounds of the victims and shooter, to find a possible motive. Bullets are found in the two victims, along the track of the wounds. Unfortunately, the bullet that killed the shooter can't be found. It traveled (according to witnesses and video playback) at an upward angle, most likely going into the rafters of the building, and may have struck one of the steel supports above it been spent and fell to the ground. Thus probably lost in the crowd as it left the building. According to the coroner, all three died of gunshot wounds. According to the forensics team, the guy in the baseball hat was the shooter. According to the detectives, there was bad blood between the shooter and the victims. Apparently, the guy in the basketball hat was sleeping with the baseball hat wearer's wife, and the guy in the bandana knew this was going on for sometime and didn't tell baseball hat. Two days before there had been an altercation between the men in the locker room. The case is closed.
However, soon after all the findings are published in the newspaper, a dentist finds some unanswered questions. Why did the bullet go through the shooter's head and not the first victim's head? Why was the fact that the second victim had a pacemaker never made public? Why was the third bullet never found? The explanation to him and others he enlists is obvious. A vast conspiracy on the part of professional sports to raise ticket prices.
The dentist, refered to as a "Doctor" by his supporters, explains that only explosives placed within the logo of the hat of the first victim can explain the wound not being a through-and-through. He finds an explosive expert who tells him the "yeah an explosive could cause a wound like that..." Leaving out the rest of the statement, "but to propel the bullet into the skull would require an explosive package size that would be noticeable to the victim and the people around him." He also shows that an explosive could be placed in the pacemaker of the second victim, without doing research into when the victim's last operation was. "Isn't it obvious that the absense of the third bullet is proof that an explosive charge was placed in the man's head." Also, some of the eyewitnesses (including off-duty cops, and soldiers on leave) described some of the "gunshots" as "sounding like small explosions." There is no other possible explanation.
Further, who benefitted? Since the event all major league sports have raised their ticket prices, to pay for extra security.
Why hasn't the investigation been reopened? The sport teams have the city and state officials in their pocket.
Finally, isn't it suspicious that the suspect was identified so quickly? Obviously a patsy.
Or would you prefer a future Noam Chomsky to point out the Bush, Cheney, Buffet connection. All of which has reported in the MSM. All except the bit about Buffet dropping a couple of billion in insurance payouts due to 9/11.
Buffet waw a patsy.
It would have to be a future Noam Chomsky, since the current one doesn't associate with any members of the "Truth" Movement.
