Associate
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 273
Conspiracy Files: The Third Tower
- Thread starter mark66
- Start date
So the plane that was considered in the design of the towers had a kinetic energy of 763MJ on impact, the actual planes had a KE of about 6718MJ, so considering impact force alone the planes hit the tower with about 9x the force that it was designed to withstand! I always thought it was amazing that the towers didn't fall straight away after being hit but when you actually look at the figures you really see how lucky it was that they stood for so long.(from AcidHell2's figures)
Last edited:
pretty much
(from AcidHell2's figures)
Page 8 has some nice diagrams.
http://www.graingerchallenge.org/na...838af385256f2a004578e3/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf
You know, conspiracy theorists come across as twisted and sadistic little freaks to me sometimes. Especially when it comes to their "theories" about how the twin towers came down. It's almost like they're wishing for the worst, sitting there and tossing off with glee every time there's a new "fact" to pick apart.
The guy at the end of that BBC documentary said it best; It's an interesting work of fiction, but you need to remember where the line between truth and fiction is before you go accusing somebody of butchering 3,000 people. I was especially shocked at the part that said the people in the emergency services, many of whom died, were supposedly "in on it". Way to **** on the grave of a hero.
The guy at the end of that BBC documentary said it best; It's an interesting work of fiction, but you need to remember where the line between truth and fiction is before you go accusing somebody of butchering 3,000 people. I was especially shocked at the part that said the people in the emergency services, many of whom died, were supposedly "in on it". Way to **** on the grave of a hero.
Last edited:
hehe not quite you have to remember the twin towers weren't built on solid foundations either. You have 20 floors of building falling a few steel rivets aren't going to stop them. Not to mention the lift shafts adding oxygen. You then had jet fuel falling through at least 5-6 floors inside the building weakening the structure.
The main thing is with the theories is they get way too far fetched. If the US government / CIA / whoever decided to orchestrate something like this as an oppurtunity to wage war with the Middle East then they could've done it on a much simpler scale. For example just planting and detonating a bomb in NYC and blaming it on terrorists would be sufficient to drum up public support for a retaliation.
I've read around and some theories even suggest the planes were diverted (the passengers and crew taken away and killed) while the military used airliners painted in the same livery laden with explosives to crash into the twin towers via remote control - then using thermite/explosives to bring the towers down.
It's just too much. In a scenario like that if it were true the logistics of pulling it off would've been astronomical and I'd guarantee you that someone, somewhere involved in it would've stepped forward.
I've read around and some theories even suggest the planes were diverted (the passengers and crew taken away and killed) while the military used airliners painted in the same livery laden with explosives to crash into the twin towers via remote control - then using thermite/explosives to bring the towers down.
It's just too much. In a scenario like that if it were true the logistics of pulling it off would've been astronomical and I'd guarantee you that someone, somewhere involved in it would've stepped forward.
Last edited:
Well done, you've killed a strawman! Good for you!
But I'll answer your question anyway. Firstly, I think governments are generally not competent enough to plan and successfully carry out such a complex conspiracy. Not in the USA, anyway. Secondly, the alleged conspiracy isn't actually possible unless they used alien technology. Thirdly, despite my generally low opinion of them, I think they wouldn't stoop as low as a major attack on civilian targets in their own country. Fourthly, I think they wouldn't dare risk it even if they wanted to, for fear of being found out.
So I think the conspiracy idea is a complete blivet (to work around the censorship of naughty bad words on these forums).
One of the main reasons behind the demolition of Building 7 is that apparently the demolition control centre for the twin towers was in fact in side that building and for them to remove all the evidence without making people suspicious was to blow the building up and the fact that there was billions of dollars worth of gold under it.
Don't get them started, please god don't.
First of Pop Mech has already been debunked by 100s of websites and educated types.
Second of all you cant use main stream media as a source for debunking, since 70% of the news networks in America are run by the same people. In America you are told what they want you to know.
Last edited:
Its actually widely known that the fire fighters said that they reached the floors just below where the plane had hit and most of the fires where out.
Maybe people already believing this tripe might see this as a reason. To me that's no more than an outlandish, unsubstantiated theory. Guess work basically. Putting forward a situation that is theoretically possible is only the first step, and miles from the truth at that stage. Why people believe these ideas almost at inception I just don't know.
For retaliation yes, invasion of 2 countries no. You need something massive to scare the people into accepting the laws and rights that has been passed since.
Example, you don't see Spain invading (think it was Saudi Arabia) because of the bomb on there trains.
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan has always been about resource control. People seem to forget that GWB is nothing more then a neo-con controlled by the corporate elite.
The part about the missing gold is true. Quite a lot of coverage you can find with google.
*sigh* watch this, then once you've watched it, watch it again also do you have any credible sources of what your implying?
People don't forget it, because it's not factualy accurate in the first place. Is it impossible? No. Is it certain enough for it to be considered fact? Nowhere near.