Topic: BBC Conspiracy Files 9 11: The Third Tower (Read 1959 times)

They need a reason to start a war....it would not be the first time that because of that they kill their own people

"might" being the operative word.

It's a weird situation, the amount of circumstantial evidence that establishes several strong motives for the complicity of members of the US authorities is just huge.

But circumstantial evidence is still just that.

These suspects are influential enough that it's not worth pursuing, justice cannot be served for a crime so vast that has been so consummately covered up. It doesn't seem to matter how suspicious all that circumstantial evidence is, most people refuse to believe that a crime like that could be committed at the level of complicity required to have maintained the bogus official story.

"someone honest, somewhere would have said something"

"they did, Bush will not travel to Indonesia or Malaysia as there is a warrant out for his arrest. Several thousand US based structural engineers, that are willing to risk their careers, claim the official story is BS. There have been several governement whistleblowers on specific aspects, all have been subjected to mudslinging, all lost their careers"

"exactly, someone would have said something."


It'll take a long time to untangle this mess, people are unwilling to accept anything but the official story as long as all the current trusted media (including organisations like Wikileaks) continue to prop that story up. It's more likely that they'll become untrusted before they give the story up.

Thinking for yourself is so common as a plot device in mainstream culture, and is regarded as a virtuous trait, yet so few people consider that the narrative for the real world needs to be scrutinised with a bit of critical thought. And these free-thinking hero characters are celebrated. That's what I don't get. I guess people think "but it's only TV"

"Investigate 9/11," he said. "9/11 was perpetrated by our own government."

I think he might be right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac0_8TUJv-c

Moron.

Yeah, you are right. That is why they had to get rid of the crime scene so quickly. 

Sorry Kenshin, but that sort of stuff is getting into ghost story territory. It's a government cover-up, but there's very little solid evidence, especially not for any "operational details". Why? Because of the cover-up. Doh.

2012 (MUST SEE) Military Plane - Undeniable new 9-11 WTC DRONE PLANE PROOF (NOT UA 175)

http://youtu.be/dgM6hjNedE0

Have a look at this one. Laser Targeting UAV, Evidence of Military Technology on 9/11 (original)

http://youtu.be/dr4BJ89Df5Q

Thanks for sharing this scientific fact. 

Theory is useless. Stick to physics. There are mountains of data that conclusively demonstrate the official story is impossible. Theory just distracts from the rock solid evidence in the form of scientific fact and empirical data.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang

One thing that is funny... you read popular science "debunking 9/11" and in it they claim to debunk that the ejections that were seen as the building goes down were "squibs". So they come up with a theory that the building actually compressed down as floors collapsed on top of each other and it so happens that it looked just like squibs.  What is the problem with this though? The problem is that in science to debunk something is to prove it false. Proposing an alternate theory does not somehow invalidate another theory. It is therefore not scientific and to claim that it is... is either a serious blunder or simply propaganda.

There's not much point in going over the theories or the NIST report. The theories could all be wrong (and some definitely are). The NIST report is also definitely wrong.

The part that's got the most clarity is the building 7 collapse. There's just no plausible way that building could collapse due to fire. The owner of the lease for building 7 said that it was demolished in a (pretty controlled) TV interview. The rescue workers were all informed to get back in advance of the collapse. Can a building be demolished that cleanly, with only a few hours preparation? It challenges my credulity to the limits.

So without knowing huge amounts about structural engineering and demolitions, it defies common sense that the building 7 collapse could have been achieved without extra planning. It's just not plausible that a quick demolition job was rigged up while perfect chaos was going on a hundred feet away, that's not an adequate explanation. The NIST explanation for building 7 collapse is also hilariously inadequate (and plainly contradicts the statement of the leaseholder).

Alot of speculation could be avoided by making a statement that building 7 was scheduled for demolition already, that it was already being prepared for it, and that's why that plan was so easily set in motion on September 11th. 12 years on, it's already way too late to start making that claim, though.

The question: Why did the Twin Towers collapse so quickly, within their own footprint, after fires on a few floors that lasted only for an hour or two?

Conspiracy theorists say: The Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions. Theories relate to the rapid collapse (about 10 seconds), the relatively short-lived fires (56 minutes in World Trade Center 2 or 102 minutes in World Trade Center 1), reports of the sounds of explosions shortly before the collapse, and the violent ejections that could be seen at some windows many floors below the collapse.

Official reports say: An extensive inquiry by the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the planes severed and damaged support columns and dislodged fire-proofing. Around 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were spewed over many floors starting widespread fires. Temperatures of up to 1,000C caused the floors to sag and the perimeter columns to bend, causing the sounds of "explosions". The massive weight of the floors dropped, creating a dynamic load far in excess of what the columns were designed for. Debris was forced out of the windows as the floors above collapsed.
Controlled demolition is nearly always carried out from the bottom floors up, yet this collapse started at the top.

Actually, Twins must stay for the whole of a day before burned out, See how it happens: www.youtube.com: Windsor Tower fire and collapse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper_fire

Just try to imagine this CIA agents, who planted a Thermite... Can't you? Read about 22 September of 1999 in Ryazan, Russia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowing_Up_Russia:_Terror_from_Within


22 September 1999 -> 11 September 2001. Russia - is a field of experiments.

Plus it is so beautiful date - 911 (:

I'm actuly don't know what does it mean 22 1999, 922, 22 99, Who know?

That's not a credible cause for how the buildings collapsed. But there's no solid evidence for any other cause either. JFK mystery, that's how it'll end up.

The official story as what's in The 9/11 Commission Report, which I've read, is laughable on several accounts. The collapse was surely a mixture of impact + exploding/burning jet fuel + fires.

Official story states that the fires caused the collapse, not the impacts. So your observations are OK, but the official story is incorrect. Besides, the planes are incredibly light-weight compared to the buildings, dramatic pictures don't make dramatic outcomes magically possible.

Yeah, but those other fire-damaged buildings didn't have planes fly into them or were heavily damaged by falling debris etc. It's a unique situation and just because a building was designed not to do something doesn't mean it can't happen. Humans and buildings aren’t perfect, plus those towers wern't in great condition to start with.

The explanation for the buildings collapsing is up there with the magic bullet, and with the contradiction between "back, and to the left" and "violently forward, and to the right". More serious fires happened in buildings of roughly equivalent design both before and since September 11 2001, and the structure of those buildings remained. The engineering rationale for constructing buildings in that way is based around the structure being overly resistant to collapsing. There must be a very high margin of tolerance designed into the structural integrity of these vast buildings, they're basically multi-thousand ton man-made mountains. Thousands of tons of skyscraper falling down cannot be an acceptable event, so they're over-engineered to prevent it. That's why it's a little more than unlikely that three such buildings all succumbed to such a collapse, all in the same day.

So, "belief" doesn't really come into it. Something other than airplane collisions demolished the World Trade Center, but no-one has proved what that was. Either the official story was put together by incompetents, which is not totally impossible, or some faction of the USG was somehow aware, profited somehow, and sought to cover that up. Possibly both options simultaneously. Anything else just defies common sense. What happened in detail? No-one knows anything, at least not any of the people actively investigating it.