According to Mikhail Pagsoyn. Su-34 is Missile Proof. and can destroy incoming missiles (which can have any meaning like destroying the electronics)
So u cant destroy it with missile.

This theory has one hole in it. If that was the case and the building collapsed in a kind of domino effect, then it would either 1.take much more time for EVERY SINGLE floor to collapse (we are speaking about minutes in agony, not 13 seconds) or 2. bank to side since it is absolutely out of question that on each floor all supports on all sides collapsed at one stroke, thus elimination the torsional moment.

I don’t see why either of those options have to be the case. If a floor collapses, and drops several feet, picking up momentum as it does so, and impacts the floor below it, why do you think it’s impossible that the floor below cannot give way immediately, particularly if it’s already been weakened by heat? Explosives are not necessary to explain the phenomenon of rapid collapse; simple gravity, momentum and heat is enough.

You tell that Rosyth shipyard who are actually going to assemble the CVFs! 😀 Anyhow I think in the hypothetical scenario of Scotland being independent the UK government would active some English or Northern Irish dock. Apart from that Scotland would also loose some hull manufacture.

Why not allow Scotland to become independant, all except for Rosyth and Govan? :diablo:

Let’s be honest, what are the Scots really going to do about it? Blockade the coastline, we’ll soon come crawling back! 😉 :dev2:

What a whole load of cr*p that is… Try economic sanctions that the west have so eagerly applied to muslim states.
The fact of the matters is the west feel more confortable turning a blind eye when Isreal has nukes. Why do the chest thumping when you can have the Isreali do it for you?

And how successful has sanctions been in persuading countries to give up their nuclear programs? Do you really think that Israel would willingly give up their nukes considering the advantage having them gives? Israel is not the sort of country to give up anything under duress … in ’73 it threatened to actually use its nukes if Nixon refused to send military aid. I believe it would resort to using them before it ever gave them up. Of course the West is more comfortable turning a blind eye.

They could not be more different. Hitler had a reasonable chance to win the war, at least in his mind. But what chances would have had Osama to defeat the US? Tearing down two buildings is light years away from a victory. If Osama was so damn intelligent to trick out all those three-letter organizations and successfully design and execute his master plan, then he surely was intelligent enough to know that this would achieve nothing on long term, only make the US release their dogs.

But 9/11 WAS a victory for Bin-laden. Of course he could not believe it would destroy the US … do you really think that was his aim? His aim was to attack the US, and to show that Americans were not invulnerable, even on their own soil. It was also significant that he chose a symbol of capitalism. In all these aims he was successful. I don’t think someone like him would let the prospect of living in damp caves dissuade him.

I would love you to explain instead, how can a 1,368 ft building accidentally collapse to its very grounds in something over 13 seconds. A friend of mine involved in construction business confirmed me that such time figure is damn hard to achieve even with well-planned controlled explosions. An accidental collapse like this was absolutely out of question, he implied, not speaking about this happening twice in a row. And I believe him.

OK, so your “friend in construction” (who may or may not know anything about the construction of the WTC towers) said it was unlikely a 1,368 ft building can accidentally collapse in 13 seconds. How then did those who planned it achieve this effect?

A wise man says, if you want to come at the very roots of something, always search for the people who have made the thickest winnings out of that.. Now a simple question, who actually gained most of the WTC attack? Was it Osama bin Laden? Exactly what kind of winning did he gain? Becoming the most hunted man on the planet, sick and lonesome in some cold cave in a deserted land, unable to trust anybody due to high rewards written on his head? Thank you very much!

By this reasoning Hitler must not have invaded Poland, because WWII did not profit him.

I have a very healthy distrust of government, but when conspiracy theorists try to explain their disjointed thought processes it simply demonstrates how disconnected they are from reality. Next you’ll be telling us that man never walked on the moon and that stealth technology comes from aliens.

????
They were.. Don’t you remember the last attack in Spain and the mess in official reports?

What are you talking about? The last bomb was pinned on ETA the very same day it went off.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6219019.stm

I am dead sure that if I took some friends and attacked US embassy in Slovakia with a car bomb just for fun, you would be reading headlines in the newspaper like THE MEMBERS OF LOCAL AL-QAEDA CELL KILLED IN A SUICIDE-ATTACK ON US EMBASSY IN SLOVAKIA… even if I never seen, met or spoke to any Al-Qaeda member or contact in my life.

What about the recent ETA bombings? Why weren’t they misattributed to Al-Qaeda?