Car On Fire Driven Into Glasgow Airport Terminal

Originally posted by jsobecky
It could have been a belt, a jockstrap, or whatever.

A suicide Jock strap! That's funny.....

Originally posted by Chorlton
Surely, any action taken by someone to instill fear and terror in the populace is called a terrorist attack

So by even the finest margin the Glasgow incident rates as a terrorist attack. The vehicle didnt drive itself into the airport

Unless it was an accident? Or should we call it terrorist accident then? Maybe the guys were on their way to the airport for legimate reasons and were targeted by a car bomb that didn't explode the whole car but set it on fire and crippled the controls? Is that ruled out as a possibility?

They were probably too busy stamping the fire out

Originally posted by Chorlton
Your concern for our cameras and surveillance is noted. It wont bother me one jot.
It makes me feel safer

Of course it does, that's how they want you to feel
they want you to feel surveillance is needed!
Don't forget to sign up for that new visa card with the microchip in it!

The mere fact that you say u feel safer supports a move towards a police govt. theory. There's a video on sky news website with a woman saying there's police everywhere in London but she feels safer that way.

And as far as the dude above sayin I am a foreigner misunderstanding CCTV, fine let me misunderstand it, but just keep those cameras out of Canada, i'm happy like this, they'll never find my igloo.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Unless it was an accident? Or should we call it terrorist accident then? Maybe the guys were on their way to the airport for legimate reasons and were targeted by a car bomb that didn't explode the whole car but set it on fire and crippled the controls? Is that ruled out as a possibility?

Dude, just how many "car bombs" go off in the UK every year? None.

And now we have 2 ccars in London rigged as bombs and now this in Scotland.

trying to tie this to a "mob" attack, like you are, is clutching at straws mate.

Sky sources are now saying that the threat level was NOT raised on specific intelligence.

Sorry but you are stretching reality a little thin there.
I mean, we could say a lot of things, but the asnswer which is usually right is the most obvious one.
Okham's Razor answer?
All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by ChorltonUnless it was an accident? Or should we call it terrorist accident then? Maybe the guys were on their way to the airport for legimate reasons and were targeted by a car bomb that didn't explode the whole car but set it on fire and crippled the controls? Is that ruled out as a possibility?

[edit on 30/6/07 by Chorlton]

If it's the guy photgraphed as shown on the BBC earlier then unless he has explosive shreddies he wasn't wearing anything untoward.

Expect some misinformation and confusion. They've lost a whole car since first reports a few hours ago.

What was that she just said about "liguid gass onboard?" on sky news?

Don't want to sound rude

but can we stick to the subject
not derail it by talking about big brother, etc ?

visit the NWO section for big brother discussions.

Originally posted by timeless test
PsykoOps,

They tried to reverse the Jeep and have a second bash at the doors.
One passenger was seen with a flaming petrol bomb
Flash explosions inside the Jeep could be seen on video
Flame was reported being "vented" from gas canisters and could also be seen on the video.

Whatever this was it was not an accident.

1) I have not seen that statement anywhere yet, what source?
2) Same as above, I heard that poored gasoline but not from any reliable source.
3 & 4) They may have had flamable materials in the car, those aren't illegal as far as I know.

They are calling it a belt, for some reason "Great balls of fire" the song came to mind when jock strap was used.lol

And this is no accident, clearly the car was packed with some sort of explosive material, just shoddily executed, sounds like the burnt guy wanted to be a martar, but backed out at the last minute, or was denied death, well so far, till now.

Liquid gas = butane etc.

Originally posted by infinite
Don't want to sound rude

but can we stick to the subject
not derail it by talking about big brother, etc ?

visit the NWO section for big brother discussions.

Get Charley out! Get Charley out!

Sorry, I had to say it..... The UK people will know what I mean, lol

Originally posted by DeniedOn topic, they are saying a possible explosive vest, was found along with the suspect, at the hospital, but wasn't it shown that he was not wearing a vest?

Yes it was at first, I remember seeing the photos up on BBC news.

But now it seems they are gone, with just a lone long grainy shot of the "burned" victim.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Of course it does, that's how they want you to feel
they want you to feel surveillance is needed!
Don't forget to sign up for that new visa card with the microchip in it!

What, you mean "chip and pin"? Ooooh, so scary.... I have to enter a pin now instead of sign something which can be forged...

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
The mere fact that you say u feel safer supports a move towards a police govt. theory. There's a video on sky news website with a woman saying there's police everywhere in London but she feels safer that way.

You obviously have no understanding of the UK, so why not listen to those of us who live here. No chance of a Police state. We can't even keep an eye on those terrorist suspects who went missing with GPS trackers, for crying out loud!! Let alone the chav problem which is beyond the Police's capabilities.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
And as far as the dude above sayin I am a foreigner misunderstanding CCTV, fine let me misunderstand it, but just keep those cameras out of Canada, i'm happy like this, they'll never find my igloo.

Let me guess, you think the camera's are all owned by the Government? They're the same damn camera's you have in your gas stations and shops. They're not monitored, they're not Government owned or controlled and they cannot track your movements "live", only retroactively within the remit of an investigation, where they are only concerned with the perp of said crime.

Originally posted by timeless test
Liquid gas = butane etc.

I know what it is, but what was she saying about it. I missed it.

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by timeless test
PsykoOps,

They tried to reverse the Jeep and have a second bash at the doors.
One passenger was seen with a flaming petrol bomb
Flash explosions inside the Jeep could be seen on video
Flame was reported being "vented" from gas canisters and could also be seen on the video.

Whatever this was it was not an accident.

1) I have not seen that statement anywhere yet, what source?
2) Same as above, I heard that poored gasoline but not from any reliable source.
3 & 4) They may have had flamable materials in the car, those aren't illegal as far as I know.

ERRRR in the UK they are. I dont know the limit but carrying more than a certain amount of petrol in your vehicle is an offence.

I distinctly remember last year someone being nicked for having 5X5 gallon cans of petrol in the back of a Landrover.

Originally posted by stumason

And now we have 2 ccars in London rigged as bombs and now this in Scotland.

trying to tie this to a "mob" attack, like you are, is clutching at straws mate.

At least I'm open to other possibilities besides the ones that media bombards us with. That was just one other possiblity I put out as an example.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
1) I have not seen that statement anywhere yet, what source?
2) Same as above, I heard that poored gasoline but not from any reliable source.
3 & 4) They may have had flamable materials in the car, those aren't illegal as far as I know.

1 & 2 both reported by more than one witness.
3 & 4 no but trying to drive them into an airport terminal through the front doors is a little unusual and definitely frowned upon.