Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Is the nose cone of a plane the only piece of the plane? Are people suggesting that the plane's nose hit the wall and crumpled, and the rest of the plane vanished, leaving nothing else that could punch a hole? If it was a missile, where is the missile debris? Even some debris from a missile would be present after such a strike. If it is alleged that the CIA knew nothing of the attacks, I think they would be interested to find such debris, and where it came from. Not necessarily not all missiles leave debris. There are some compound missiles which completely burn up. What's a compound missile? A missile made not of metal but a carbon compound. Laser guided can enter throu a window or ventilation shaft. Can carry a lot of explosive. Or a thermite charge. What is it propelled by? Rocket motors have large metal parts. Cruise missiles have turbine blades. Laser guidance implies non carbon elements that would survive a crash. Why would it need a thermite charge? A large amount of explosive leaves a chemical trace, and a fireball different to the one seen on the video stills in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 If it was a missile, how do you explain the blast? It looks distinctly like a jet fuel explosion. Missiles are either equipped with an inncedary warhead or a penetrative warhead. Some do both, however, in that case the explsosion would have to come from deep inside the building. Secondly, single point incendary explosions do not look like the explosion seen on that camera. You're right it does look like a jet fuel explosion.. Doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Just to clarify everything so far by the way, to make sure that I'm keeping up with the conspiracy theorists: - They flew two planes into two buildings that they'd already wired with explosives and it was the explosives that brought the buildings down, not the planes which were merely a decoy. - They fired a missile (possibly from a helicopter) at a third building and then claimed that an aeroplane had flown into it. - They then made the people that would have been on this imaginary flight disappear. Is this about right? Also, when I say "they" are we talking about the US government? Who's the 'they'? Why would they planes be 'decoys' after all there is plenty of evidence they hit they buildings? You are making a silly linear argument out of the planes and the explosives....Why couldn't these two events be unconnected?If the building were weakened and a danger to those around...Why couldn't the charges been added to the basement later..I mean they could have been in place all along...You can't refute this as there is no evidence either way is there> Apart from the fact they CONVENIENTLY FELL IN THEIR OWN FOOTPRINTS. What a coincidence. Parky, I don't know who "they" are. I thought you did though? I have NO idea who THEY are. Otherwise I would have said. In saying that I'm sure Bush himself only had the vaguest of warnings as well. Do you accept that most of your theories invlove the complicity of hundreds of people? Rigging of explosives, confiscation of cameras, simulation of planes/passengers, grand larsony, etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Is this still going on? Nice work Renton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 2 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 They're doing David Kelly next week. The Beeb are spoiling for a fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Kelly was DEFINITELY murdered, i dont care what any of you say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 4086 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Can I just confirm that I personally don't believe that the world trade centres were rigged. I do think there is something dodgy about the attack on the pentagon building due to the lack of large pieces of large plane lying around. Also (I may be wrong here) it is the only flight they have not released the black box recording on. I do think that the govt new an attack was iminent but perhaps didnt realise the targets would be so populous. I think they may have thought they were just going to blow up the planes. For this look at the lockerbie bombing where they used an attack on a plane as an excuse to bomb someone else. I don't think they organised the whole thing but feel they may have done more to stop it. Are you saying that Lockerbie wasn't instigated by Gaddafi? No where did I say that can you raise it in bold or point it out in a different colour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 4086 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Is the nose cone of a plane the only piece of the plane? Are people suggesting that the plane's nose hit the wall and crumpled, and the rest of the plane vanished, leaving nothing else that could punch a hole? If it was a missile, where is the missile debris? Even some debris from a missile would be present after such a strike. If it is alleged that the CIA knew nothing of the attacks, I think they would be interested to find such debris, and where it came from. Not necessarily not all missiles leave debris. There are some compound missiles which completely burn up. What's a compound missile? A missile made not of metal but a carbon compound. Laser guided can enter throu a window or ventilation shaft. Can carry a lot of explosive. Or a thermite charge. What is it propelled by? Rocket motors have large metal parts. Cruise missiles have turbine blades. Laser guidance implies non carbon elements that would survive a crash. Why would it need a thermite charge? A large amount of explosive leaves a chemical trace, and a fireball different to the one seen on the video stills in this thread. Not all missiles ar propelled by rockets. Laser guided doesnt always mean an on board laser. And can you give proof to the different effect to the one seen on the video? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Is the nose cone of a plane the only piece of the plane? Are people suggesting that the plane's nose hit the wall and crumpled, and the rest of the plane vanished, leaving nothing else that could punch a hole? If it was a missile, where is the missile debris? Even some debris from a missile would be present after such a strike. If it is alleged that the CIA knew nothing of the attacks, I think they would be interested to find such debris, and where it came from. Not necessarily not all missiles leave debris. There are some compound missiles which completely burn up. What's a compound missile? A missile made not of metal but a carbon compound. Laser guided can enter throu a window or ventilation shaft. Can carry a lot of explosive. Or a thermite charge. What is it propelled by? Rocket motors have large metal parts. Cruise missiles have turbine blades. Laser guidance implies non carbon elements that would survive a crash. Why would it need a thermite charge? A large amount of explosive leaves a chemical trace, and a fireball different to the one seen on the video stills in this thread. Not all missiles ar propelled by rockets. Laser guided doesnt always mean an on board laser. And can you give proof to the different effect to the one seen on the video? As with Parky earlier, I think the onus is on you to provide the proof for the crackpot theories here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 4086 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Is the nose cone of a plane the only piece of the plane? Are people suggesting that the plane's nose hit the wall and crumpled, and the rest of the plane vanished, leaving nothing else that could punch a hole? If it was a missile, where is the missile debris? Even some debris from a missile would be present after such a strike. If it is alleged that the CIA knew nothing of the attacks, I think they would be interested to find such debris, and where it came from. Not necessarily not all missiles leave debris. There are some compound missiles which completely burn up. What's a compound missile? A missile made not of metal but a carbon compound. Laser guided can enter throu a window or ventilation shaft. Can carry a lot of explosive. Or a thermite charge. What is it propelled by? Rocket motors have large metal parts. Cruise missiles have turbine blades. Laser guidance implies non carbon elements that would survive a crash. Why would it need a thermite charge? A large amount of explosive leaves a chemical trace, and a fireball different to the one seen on the video stills in this thread. Not all missiles ar propelled by rockets. Laser guided doesnt always mean an on board laser. And can you give proof to the different effect to the one seen on the video? As with Parky earlier, I think the onus is on you to provide the proof for the crackpot theories here. What crackpot theories would these be. I have not espoused any. i have just said I don't trust the official version and given reasons why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Is the nose cone of a plane the only piece of the plane? Are people suggesting that the plane's nose hit the wall and crumpled, and the rest of the plane vanished, leaving nothing else that could punch a hole? If it was a missile, where is the missile debris? Even some debris from a missile would be present after such a strike. If it is alleged that the CIA knew nothing of the attacks, I think they would be interested to find such debris, and where it came from. Not necessarily not all missiles leave debris. There are some compound missiles which completely burn up. What's a compound missile? A missile made not of metal but a carbon compound. Laser guided can enter throu a window or ventilation shaft. Can carry a lot of explosive. Or a thermite charge. What is it propelled by? Rocket motors have large metal parts. Cruise missiles have turbine blades. Laser guidance implies non carbon elements that would survive a crash. Why would it need a thermite charge? A large amount of explosive leaves a chemical trace, and a fireball different to the one seen on the video stills in this thread. Not all missiles ar propelled by rockets. Laser guided doesnt always mean an on board laser. And can you give proof to the different effect to the one seen on the video? As with Parky earlier, I think the onus is on you to provide the proof for the crackpot theories here. What crackpot theories would these be. I have not espoused any. i have just said I don't trust the official version and given reasons why. Must have misunderstood you then, I thought you were suggesting missiles may have been fired at the Pentagon. Glad you aren't tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Does no one think that with the US itching to increase its strategic presence in middle east, to bolster its import heavy economy (via domestic product) and to finish the job started but not finished in Iraq, 9/11 was the most convenient thing that ever happened to neo-con foreign policy? Maybe i was too sc Not one single suspicion that certain 'things' might have been allowed to happen? Everything is as the official version of events? Not a hint of doubt anywhere across this 'water-tight' story? Unbelievable tbh, i can see why anyone would be scathing of all the nonsense that is spoken about helicopter launched drones into the side of the 'Penthouse' © Renton, disappearing flights etc, but for the life of me i cant understand why the official story is defended so vigorously. Is this what they mean by 'plausible deniability' that old WShitehouse chestnut? I'm not defending the official story vigourously, I'm merely providing answers to the apparent questions you have about the story, and posing reasonable questions about the events you allude happened instead, in the absence of any positive evidence for it. This is what any rational person does when confronted with questions about their rational beliefs. I for don't believe the story because the White House told me, I believe it because it makes sense in the absence of any credible alternatives, and fits with my normal understaing of physics, logic, reason and humanity. The questions I have about your alternative versions of events are just as valid as yours about the official story, but for some reason you imply one set of questions carries more weight because they go against the 'official story' You propose events as having but one obvious cause, continually using the absence of something as proof, without any direct evidence. The CIA didn't stop the terrorists so they must have known about them, rather than they just didn't know about them. The US attacked Iraq after the Al-Qaeda attacks so they must have been complicit in the attacks, rather than Bush seeing an fortuitous opportunity for some unfinished business. There is no evidence of a plane (which there is) so there must not have been a plane. Doubt is not proof. Ok one last time. 1 You have failed to pick up on whether i agree with the facts surrounding the main events. 2, Questioning whether these buildings were rigged in case of an attack and finding it a plausible possibility has nothing to do with the attacks, others may try to link it, I havent. WT7 remains a mystery though. 3, The position i have taken is that there is one crucial debate; did the US know an attack of some sorts was imminent and was there a failure of intelligence or was it allowed to happen? There is no proof that either is the case. You, in the absence of any other evidence want to believe the US. I just find the whole thing too much of a coincidence and have learned in the last 3-4 years that the people responsible for US foreign policy are deceitful, murderous cunts, whose religious views put them in the 'clinically insane' bracket. Forgive me my cynicism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Is the nose cone of a plane the only piece of the plane? Are people suggesting that the plane's nose hit the wall and crumpled, and the rest of the plane vanished, leaving nothing else that could punch a hole? If it was a missile, where is the missile debris? Even some debris from a missile would be present after such a strike. If it is alleged that the CIA knew nothing of the attacks, I think they would be interested to find such debris, and where it came from. Not necessarily not all missiles leave debris. There are some compound missiles which completely burn up. What's a compound missile? A missile made not of metal but a carbon compound. Laser guided can enter throu a window or ventilation shaft. Can carry a lot of explosive. Or a thermite charge. What is it propelled by? Rocket motors have large metal parts. Cruise missiles have turbine blades. Laser guidance implies non carbon elements that would survive a crash. Why would it need a thermite charge? A large amount of explosive leaves a chemical trace, and a fireball different to the one seen on the video stills in this thread. Not all missiles ar propelled by rockets. Laser guided doesnt always mean an on board laser. And can you give proof to the different effect to the one seen on the video? As with Parky earlier, I think the onus is on you to provide the proof for the crackpot theories here. What crackpot theories would these be. I have not espoused any. i have just said I don't trust the official version and given reasons why. They don't want to hear that....They just like saying.."Crackpot" and "looney"...Apart from SSH who has made some methodical arguments which are well put together...The rest in this thread have no understanding of the events, that is clear. Atta was at a strip club the night before drinking cocktails even though he had to fly through 2 airports to pick up his plane and as is shown on the airports on CCTV was so late he paid cash.....These are the muppets who co-ordinated the attack apparently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 What happened then Parky? Given you have such an understanding of the events that is beyond the rest of us? Bet you can't tell us though eh? Or you could, but then you'd have to shoot us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Is the nose cone of a plane the only piece of the plane? Are people suggesting that the plane's nose hit the wall and crumpled, and the rest of the plane vanished, leaving nothing else that could punch a hole? If it was a missile, where is the missile debris? Even some debris from a missile would be present after such a strike. If it is alleged that the CIA knew nothing of the attacks, I think they would be interested to find such debris, and where it came from. Not necessarily not all missiles leave debris. There are some compound missiles which completely burn up. What's a compound missile? A missile made not of metal but a carbon compound. Laser guided can enter throu a window or ventilation shaft. Can carry a lot of explosive. Or a thermite charge. What is it propelled by? Rocket motors have large metal parts. Cruise missiles have turbine blades. Laser guidance implies non carbon elements that would survive a crash. Why would it need a thermite charge? A large amount of explosive leaves a chemical trace, and a fireball different to the one seen on the video stills in this thread. Not all missiles ar propelled by rockets. Laser guided doesnt always mean an on board laser. And can you give proof to the different effect to the one seen on the video? As with Parky earlier, I think the onus is on you to provide the proof for the crackpot theories here. Given the fact that they lied about WMD and used the event as a pre-text for the 'War on Terror' and denouncing the 'axis of evil' i would contest its up to the US government to open all of its files in this case and make all relevant information public, rather than saying that anyone with a very justifiable reason to be cynical or suspicious of them should prove why. Completely the other way round - i would go further, its our duty to keep asking the questions and theirs to keep providing the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Is the nose cone of a plane the only piece of the plane? Are people suggesting that the plane's nose hit the wall and crumpled, and the rest of the plane vanished, leaving nothing else that could punch a hole? If it was a missile, where is the missile debris? Even some debris from a missile would be present after such a strike. If it is alleged that the CIA knew nothing of the attacks, I think they would be interested to find such debris, and where it came from. Not necessarily not all missiles leave debris. There are some compound missiles which completely burn up. What's a compound missile? A missile made not of metal but a carbon compound. Laser guided can enter throu a window or ventilation shaft. Can carry a lot of explosive. Or a thermite charge. What is it propelled by? Rocket motors have large metal parts. Cruise missiles have turbine blades. Laser guidance implies non carbon elements that would survive a crash. Why would it need a thermite charge? A large amount of explosive leaves a chemical trace, and a fireball different to the one seen on the video stills in this thread. Not all missiles ar propelled by rockets. Laser guided doesnt always mean an on board laser. And can you give proof to the different effect to the one seen on the video? As with Parky earlier, I think the onus is on you to provide the proof for the crackpot theories here. Given the fact that they lied about WMD and used the event as a pre-text for the 'War on Terror' and denouncing the 'axis of evil' i would contest its up to the US government to open all of its files in this case and make all relevant information public, rather than saying that anyone with a very justifiable reason to be cynical or suspicious of them should prove why. Completely the other way round - i would go further, its our duty to keep asking the questions and theirs to keep providing the evidence. I'd partly agree with that but like I said earlier I'm as sceptical about some of the claims as to what really happened as I am about some of the shite our governments feed us. You yourself earlier said you thought Al Quaeda carried out these attackes. I think 9/11 happened pretty much as it was supposed to have happened. I'm worried about how much they knew beforehand (the intelligence services etc. that is). However, I can well believe it was just a case of incompetance/an inability to suss what was happening against a backdrop of huge amounts of data. The Bush administration then siezed an opportunity to get stuck into the Middle East, grab a load of oil and allow American companies to make fortunes out of rebuilding Iraq (or that was the plan at least). Talking about missiles being fired at the Pentagon is not only bollocks imo but it also deflects attention away from the activities of the US Governement that people should really be worried about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 What happened then Parky? Given you have such an understanding of the events that is beyond the rest of us? Bet you can't tell us though eh? Or you could, but then you'd have to shoot us I can safely rule out Bush and his cohorts..They simply aren't mad enough or cynical enough (yes I know). Having read up on the two guys from Hamburg I think one of them was definately involved and the other one who has had 2 trials now for conspiracy to cause terrorism I personally think he was involved as well, but difficult to prove to what capacity as the Judges are having here... Out of the other hijackers originally implicated by the FBI - four are alive and well and living in different countries and iirc one is a pilot (and still is) for Quatar airways.. The picture is very mixed regarding the hijackers (for good reason) I'm still not sure the full passanger lists have not been released into the public domain, I could be wrong. It is fair to say the FBI probably out of panic released any old list of 'the usual suspects' to begin with and then refined it as they went, this caused a lot of confusion and indeed fuelled a lot of the left field conspiracy talk. Bottom line there were hijackers on 'real planes' (not lookalike airforce planes packed with fuel and special explosive as some say). The hijackers on real planes flew into the towers I have no problem with this. But I contend that they had 'help' form within the U.S. state apparatus (elements of NSA and old CIA), the kind of shady 'off budget' groups used in Central America and indeed 'Bay of Pigs'. These are often recruited ex-special ops guys recruited to 'manage' operaitions or lend logistical support...In essence Bush and Co were and still are 'at war' with elements within his own regime. Elements who want a very gung ho foreign policy and who also wanted to show Bush and the elements of the moderates their power. You see this kind of small cabal that aren't actually part of any official secret services limits the 'need to know' (so no need for the silence of dozens of people as some contend in threads such as these). The bits that are real: The planes that hit the towers. With hijackers on board. The bits I have doubts about: That both buildings and WT7 collapsed in the manner they did. I'm erring on.. The Pentagon strike and whether it was a plane or a missile. Till more footage is released (they have it) no-one can be certain). Flight 93 I used to think it was shot down...But am admittedly not sure now after my latest dabblings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 What happened then Parky? Given you have such an understanding of the events that is beyond the rest of us? Bet you can't tell us though eh? Or you could, but then you'd have to shoot us I can safely rule out Bush and his cohorts..They simply aren't mad enough or cynical enough (yes I know). Having read up on the two guys from Hamburg I think one of them was definately involved and the other one who has had 2 trials now for conspiracy to cause terrorism I personally think he was involved as well, but difficult to prove to what capacity as the Judges are having here... Out of the other hijackers originally implicated by the FBI - four are alive and well and living in different countries and iirc one is a pilot (and still is) for Quatar airways.. The picture is very mixed regarding the hijackers (for good reason) I'm still not sure the full passanger lists have not been released into the public domain, I could be wrong. It is fair to say the FBI probably out of panic released any old list of 'the usual suspects' to begin with and then refined it as they went, this caused a lot of confusion and indeed fuelled a lot of the left field conspiracy talk. Bottom line there were hijackers on 'real planes' (not lookalike airforce planes packed with fuel and special explosive as some say). The hijackers on real planes flew into the towers I have no problem with this. But I contend that they had 'help' form within the U.S. state apparatus (elements of NSA and old CIA), the kind of shady 'off budget' groups used in Central America and indeed 'Bay of Pigs'. These are often recruited ex-special ops guys recruited to 'manage' operaitions or lend logistical support...In essence Bush and Co were and still are 'at war' with elements within his own regime. Elements who want a very gung ho foreign policy and who also wanted to show Bush and the elements of the moderates their power. You see this kind of small cabal that aren't actually part of any official secret services limits the 'need to know' (so no need for the silence of dozens of people as some contend in threads such as these). The bits that are real: The planes that hit the towers. With hijackers on board. The bits I have doubts about: That both buildings and WT7 collapsed in the manner they did. I'm erring on.. The Pentagon strike and whether it was a plane or a missile. Till more footage is released (they have it) no-one can be certain). Flight 93 I used to think it was shot down...But am admittedly not sure now after my latest dabblings. Could you explain the bit in bold a bit further? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 What happened then Parky? Given you have such an understanding of the events that is beyond the rest of us? Bet you can't tell us though eh? Or you could, but then you'd have to shoot us I can safely rule out Bush and his cohorts..They simply aren't mad enough or cynical enough (yes I know). Having read up on the two guys from Hamburg I think one of them was definately involved and the other one who has had 2 trials now for conspiracy to cause terrorism I personally think he was involved as well, but difficult to prove to what capacity as the Judges are having here... Out of the other hijackers originally implicated by the FBI - four are alive and well and living in different countries and iirc one is a pilot (and still is) for Quatar airways.. The picture is very mixed regarding the hijackers (for good reason) I'm still not sure the full passanger lists have not been released into the public domain, I could be wrong. It is fair to say the FBI probably out of panic released any old list of 'the usual suspects' to begin with and then refined it as they went, this caused a lot of confusion and indeed fuelled a lot of the left field conspiracy talk. Bottom line there were hijackers on 'real planes' (not lookalike airforce planes packed with fuel and special explosive as some say). The hijackers on real planes flew into the towers I have no problem with this. But I contend that they had 'help' form within the U.S. state apparatus (elements of NSA and old CIA), the kind of shady 'off budget' groups used in Central America and indeed 'Bay of Pigs'. These are often recruited ex-special ops guys recruited to 'manage' operaitions or lend logistical support...In essence Bush and Co were and still are 'at war' with elements within his own regime. Elements who want a very gung ho foreign policy and who also wanted to show Bush and the elements of the moderates their power. You see this kind of small cabal that aren't actually part of any official secret services limits the 'need to know' (so no need for the silence of dozens of people as some contend in threads such as these). The bits that are real: The planes that hit the towers. With hijackers on board. The bits I have doubts about: That both buildings and WT7 collapsed in the manner they did. I'm erring on.. The Pentagon strike and whether it was a plane or a missile. Till more footage is released (they have it) no-one can be certain). Flight 93 I used to think it was shot down...But am admittedly not sure now after my latest dabblings. Could you explain the bit in bold a bit further? The original list was wrong and wasn't intended to be de facto...FBI released it out of panic to show they were 'on the case'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 What does that prove then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 (edited) What does that prove then? Mainly that the security services had no real clue what was going on that day. Or so they maintain. .....Ok that was a bit naughty. I think the FBI certainly are on record to having bought to the attention of the CIA and NSA that there was something afoot months before the strike as they actually had a couple of the hijackers under surveillance...There certainly was a breakdown in the information chain here. Yet at the time the CIA was told 'from higher up' to take the heat of particularly sensitive Saudi nationals. I think it was a confused picture.........And certainly believe there was some failure to analyse information. Edited February 22, 2007 by Parky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 What does that prove then? Mainly that the security services had no real clue what was going on that day. Or so they maintain. What do you think it suggests then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 What does that prove then? Mainly that the security services had no real clue what was going on that day. Or so they maintain. What do you think it suggests then? Edited above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Can I just confirm that I personally don't believe that the world trade centres were rigged. I do think there is something dodgy about the attack on the pentagon building due to the lack of large pieces of large plane lying around. Also (I may be wrong here) it is the only flight they have not released the black box recording on. I do think that the govt new an attack was iminent but perhaps didnt realise the targets would be so populous. I think they may have thought they were just going to blow up the planes. For this look at the lockerbie bombing where they used an attack on a plane as an excuse to bomb someone else. I don't think they organised the whole thing but feel they may have done more to stop it. Are you saying that Lockerbie wasn't instigated by Gaddafi? No where did I say that can you raise it in bold or point it out in a different colour? My mistake, on second reading it would appear you are implying that the US government (a completely different administration to the one now) knew of the Lockerbie plan but ignored it so they could use it as an excuse to bomb Libya? Is this correct. If not, I can see no reason why Lockerbie is used here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 What does that prove then? Mainly that the security services had no real clue what was going on that day. Or so they maintain. What do you think it suggests then? Edited above. What's that got to do with getting the passenger list wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now