Lockerbie Conspiracy Theories

[Big Man]

On holiday just now chilaxing in my gairden browsing you tube, and came across that BBC Conspiracy Files documentary – The Lockerbie Bombing. Never seen it before (don't really pay attention to conspiracy theories and i was barely born at the time of the attack), but my father-in-law said it was an interesting watch.

 

 

Anyway, at the end of it i was left with a massive sense of unease, some of the things mentioned (if true) definitely send a chill down my spine.

 

Has anyone else seen this? Or not believe the official account? Or got any thoughts on it, or conspiracy theories in general?

[Ando]

Haven't seen anything about Lockerbie conspiracy theories, but I watched Zeitgeist earlier today. Like a good paranoid conspiracy theory, me :ninja:

 

http://www.watchzeitgeist.com/zeitgeist-the-movie/

[daytripping]

That tower on 9/11 that came down at both sides at the same time even though it didn't get hit is a strange one, think it was tower 6.

 

I can't access you tube at work but it really is strange why it fell down, it didn't look damaged at all.

[Ando]

That tower on 9/11 that came down at both sides at the same time even though it didn't get hit is a strange one, think it was tower 6.

 

I can't access you tube at work but it really is strange why it fell down, it didn't look damaged at all.

 

Building 7. Fell at freefall speed despite not getting hit by a plane. Hmmm...

[barassie_afc]

Pish

[dezzy_dan]

The Obama Deception is a good watch if you like this kind of thing.

[Big Man]

That tower on 9/11 that came down at both sides at the same time even though it didn't get hit is a strange one, think it was tower 6.

 

I can't access you tube at work but it really is strange why it fell down, it didn't look damaged at all.

 

Yeh i do remember that at the time. Larry Silverstein had taken out a multi-billion dollar insurance policy on it just weeks before supposedly:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

 

p.s. I can't get you tube at work either, can you not use a proxy; http://hidemyass.com always works for me.

[Pash]

Don't know much about the Lockerbie Bombing but like Ando I have watched the Zeitgeist films. The WTC section of the film was very interesting. So much evidence provided that goes against what we were told is the truth. For an example, they released photos of the highjackers, but they weren't of the highjackers, they were just photos of random muslim men. One of the guys got in contact (think it was with the news channel) and basically said why the f**k is there a photo of me on the news saying I am a dead terrorist! Also people who actually designed the two buildings not to collapse under an attack, the demolition experts saying it looks like an organised demolition using explosives, and the third WTC building that everyone forgets about that collapsed by itself. So much more things that don't add up.

[Ando]

The Obama Deception is a good watch if you like this kind of thing.

 

Nice one, watching it now. Cheers.

[Tommy]

and the third WTC building that everyone forgets about that collapsed by itself. So much more things that don't add up.

 

 

 

That was David Copperfield that did that one.

[essexdon]

saw a video a while back of the pentagon one, sailing in abot 5 ft off the deck, no way on this planet was it a plane more like a missile

[Pash]

saw a video a while back of the pentagon one, sailing in abot 5 ft off the deck, no way on this planet was it a plane more like a missile

And the 'plane' that crashed into the field but there was no debris at all.

[boboisared]

Fully expecting afew posters to mysteriously stop posting and for Alford amateurs to lose a loyal servant of six years.

[Terrorfex]

saw a video a while back of the pentagon one, sailing in abot 5 ft off the deck, no way on this planet was it a plane more like a missile

 

Any idea of the force generated by an airliner, carrying substantial fuel, travelling at 500+ mph impacting a reinforced concrete structure?

 

Here's a Douglas F-4 Fighter-Bomber doing the same thing in a test to determine the strength of a reactor wall for a nuclear facility:

 

 

Not a lot left, is there?

 

And for anyone with follow-up questions like, "Where's the wings?" I'll point out that whenever you're flying, and the aircraft's spoilers deploy or flaps extend, more often than not you can see daylight straight through the wing structure ... How strong do you think they are in impact events?

[ScottishJohn]

Any idea of the force generated by an airliner, carrying substantial fuel, travelling at 500+ mph impacting a reinforced concrete structure?

 

Here's a Douglas F-4 Fighter-Bomber doing the same thing in a test to determine the strength of a reactor wall for a nuclear facility:

 

 

Not a lot left, is there?

 

And for anyone with follow-up questions like, "Where's the wings?" I'll point out that whenever you're flying, and the aircraft's spoilers deploy or flaps extend, more often than not you can see daylight straight through the wing structure ... How strong do you think they are in impact events?

 

What about Building 7?

[NorthernLights24]

What about Building 7?

 

World Trade Center 7: The Lies Come Crashing Down

[daytripping]

 

That's a STEEL framed building.

[Terrorfex]

What about Building 7?

 

I'm talking aircraft firstly, because that's my field of expertise. I'm not a structural or civil engineer, so I can't do much more than make educated guesses.

 

On your question, building 7 was extremely close to the collapsing towers, wasn't it? I'd expect massive external damage to the building caused by debris and seismic-related force. Talk of the steel frame is a double-edged sword; yes it's strong, but it's also simple physics : any force placed on the exterior of the building (significant force like both towers collapsing) will transfer through to the internal structure.

 

There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but in cases like this, there's science to be considered. You can't "cover up" the mathematical data, and the laws of physics. This website (as its name implies) counters the conspiracy theories;

 

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

 

Examine it, and tell me where the "lies" are in the analysis of the situation.

 

As for someone mentioning there being "No wreckage" at the Pennsylvania Crash site of the fourth plane, I'll say again - How much material do you think survives an aircraft accelerating beyond its design limits in a nose-down attitude directly into the ground?

[Coopy100]

It were a Judaic Bolshevic Zionist conspiracy to get da US of A to invade da middle east and help out isreal. Everyone knows that.

[boboisared]

I'm talking aircraft firstly, because that's my field of expertise. I'm not a structural or civil engineer, so I can't do much more than make educated guesses.

 

On your question, building 7 was extremely close to the collapsing towers, wasn't it? I'd expect massive external damage to the building caused by debris and seismic-related force. Talk of the steel frame is a double-edged sword; yes it's strong, but it's also simple physics : any force placed on the exterior of the building (significant force like both towers collapsing) will transfer through to the internal structure.

 

There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but in cases like this, there's science to be considered. You can't "cover up" the mathematical data, and the laws of physics. This website (as its name implies) counters the conspiracy theories;

 

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

 

Examine it, and tell me where the "lies" are in the analysis of the situation.

 

As for someone mentioning there being "No wreckage" at the Pennsylvania Crash site of the fourth plane, I'll say again - How much material do you think survives an aircraft accelerating beyond its design limits in a nose-down attitude directly into the ground?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEVOUinXpfs&feature=related

 

Case closed.

[RUL]

So what were the lockerbie conspiracy theories?

[zappadons]

Terrorfex your expertise is wanking over anything American. Especially there corrupt and criminal government. So your argument on any such subject is particularly weak.

[daytripping]

I'm talking aircraft firstly, because that's my field of expertise. I'm not a structural or civil engineer, so I can't do much more than make educated guesses.

 

On your question, building 7 was extremely close to the collapsing towers, wasn't it? I'd expect massive external damage to the building caused by debris and seismic-related force. Talk of the steel frame is a double-edged sword; yes it's strong, but it's also simple physics : any force placed on the exterior of the building (significant force like both towers collapsing) will transfer through to the internal structure.

 

There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but in cases like this, there's science to be considered. You can't "cover up" the mathematical data, and the laws of physics. This website (as its name implies) counters the conspiracy theories;

 

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

 

Examine it, and tell me where the "lies" are in the analysis of the situation.

 

As for someone mentioning there being "No wreckage" at the Pennsylvania Crash site of the fourth plane, I'll say again - How much material do you think survives an aircraft accelerating beyond its design limits in a nose-down attitude directly into the ground?

 

I don't buy the theory that everything would vaporise, what about the likes of Lockerbie, that came from far higher in the sky than the Pennsylvania Crash and loads of bits survived the impact.

[BrianFaePerth]

If they were smart they would start making things out of the same material that terrorist's passports are made of. They always survive building collapses, plane crashes etc

[Terrorfex]

I don't buy the theory that everything would vaporise, what about the likes of Lockerbie, that came from far higher in the sky than the Pennsylvania Crash and loads of bits survived the impact.

 

Lockerbie was a high-altitude mid-flight break-up; the aircraft's remains came back down to earth at differing velocities. The aircraft's fuel reserved didn't detonate on-board, and the bomb's explosive power was only sufficient to "burst" the fuselage structure, not destroy the entire aircraft.

 

It's a far different kettle of fish than exploding an aircraft - and its fuel - against a concrete wall at 500+ mph.

[The Boofon]

Lockerbie was a high-altitude mid-flight break-up; the aircraft's remains came back down to earth at differing velocities. The aircraft's fuel reserved didn't detonate on-board, and the bomb's explosive power was only sufficient to "burst" the fuselage structure, not destroy the entire aircraft.

 

It's a far different kettle of fish than exploding an aircraft - and its fuel - against a concrete wall at 500+ mph.

 

 

Yes it is however no one exploded an aircraft and it's fuel against a concrete wall.

 

A plane nose dived into the ground on it's own (piloted) accord. No explosives were used.

 

However I have re read your post and I think you might mean that the aircraft explodes naturally when it impacts a concrete wall or in this case the ground.

 

If so you need to be clear for discussion purposes.

 

For the record I don't believe there was a conspiracy and most of the wreckage may well have vapourised but it is a little fishy as there normally is at least some surviving material.

[Pash]

And the cctv from the petrol station across the road from the Pentagon was removed by the Government straight away and no one has ever seen it. Well not the public anyhow.

[Terrorfex]

Yes it is however no one exploded an aircraft and it's fuel against a concrete wall.

 

A plane nose dived into the ground on it's own (piloted) accord. No explosives were used.

 

However I have re read your post and I think you might mean that the aircraft explodes naturally when it impacts a concrete wall or in this case the ground.

 

If so you need to be clear for discussion purposes.

 

For the record I don't believe there was a conspiracy and most of the wreckage may well have vapourised but it is a little fishy as there normally is at least some surviving material.

 

If you want to argue over semantics, be my guest - but there's nothing natural about an aircraft "exploding", or otherwise being all-but vaporised. On the subject of being clear, what do you base your statement on, regarding "Normally at least some surviving material?"

 

If you can name another incident with an impact debris circumstance (namely detonation of fuel as well as CFIT) that's markedly different, I'd be interested. There's of course been many high-energy kinetic strikes; Swissair 111, Egyptair 990 spring to mind, but nothing that includes the enormous energy of burning fuel.

 

Also the aircraft did anything but nose-dive. It struck the Pentagon level with the first floor. It did not hit the ground first.

[360]

I reckon the moon landings were fake

[Terrorfex]

And the cctv from the petrol station across the road from the Pentagon was removed by the Government straight away and no one has ever seen it. Well not the public anyhow.

 

 

 

This? Alas, after all the conspiracy theories about what this would (or wouldn't show) a FOI request finally brought it into the cold light of day to reveal ... The cameras weren't even trained in a way to see anything.