Conspiracy Files: The Third Tower

UnusualSuspect said:
. But hey, I'm quitting this thread now as its basically turned into two sides bashing against each other. One side believes everything they're told, the other likes to question.
Click to expand...

Good, because you need to go away and find out the facts, hard research done by credible people not the conspiracy ramblings you have clearly been reading.

As someone who believes a real cover up took place and a full and open investigation is still required you and those like you do nothing but prevent this from happening by burring the credible information under you bull **** nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
AcidHell2, the 'Dolph' of 9/11.
Click to expand...

LOL!

I haven't trawled through the pages and pages here but I watched the program and at first thought the architect who was trying to find "the truth" was a credible, intelligent contributor but the more he spoke the more he discredited himself. As has been mentioned above the idea that explosives where in place at the time of construction is ludicrous but what he said before that was erroneous.

I can't speak from the point of view of the US fire regs but in the UK the laws on fire protection, evacuation and access for fire fighting place ABSOLUTELY NO REQUIREMENT that the building survive any fire. The only consideration is that of human life. The architect on the program suggested that if tower 7 collapsed from fire alone then this changes everything in the fire regulations. I'd strongly argue that it doesn't. The building stood for 7hrs after the initial attack (please correct me if i'm wrong) yet the regulations (according to him) required 2-3hr fire protection. How can this make the regs obsolete? IMO he's abusing his professional position and (deliberately?) mis-representing the facts to convince the layman that his opinion is sound.

The program backed up his comment about this being the only skyscrapper to ever fall from fire with a series of examples from around the world and a number of tests carried out in a hanger. What do all these examples lack which was unique about the WTC? None of these examples have two 110 storey buildings collapse within 300ft.
 
badbob said:
If you do a job that's on national security grounds or sign a non disclosure document you wouldn't.
Click to expand...

course you would...they would be using ordinary construction workers during a rennovation..and certainly during its original build....when it was built nobody knew who was taking the office space

you simply wouldnt be able to keep it quiet
 
It strikes me that people are gratuitously being rude and insulting and that neither party has the one and only true version of events. One can research many of the so called facts or versions thereof and come up with conflicting points of view from seemingly perfectly respectable/reliable sources so why all the aggression?

Where to gather info from and how to check its authenticity are just a couple of things that both parties should look at but we all want 'facts' that back up our arguments eh? To check the accuracy of 'facts, measurements, statements, expert analysis etc etc' would take far too long, so we tend to believe things when it suits us and our arguments.

We will never know if the planes took off from the conveyor belt to attack the WTC or if the nice Nigerian man was telling the truth when he said we could have some of his gold beneath the other building but we should be able to debate them with a little more decorum.

Peace Brothers!
 
UnusualSuspect said:
I'm quitting this thread now as its basically turned into two sides bashing against each other. One side believes everything they're told, the other likes to question.
Click to expand...

:) You do realise that you're part of the group who would come under 'believing everything you're told' don't you? Just another mindless drone unable to think for yourself and just believing everything you see on youtube!

The majority here are not just quoting news stories that say 9/11 was purely the work of terrorists etc, they're thinking for themselves and basing what they say on established scientific principles and using logical thought.
 
AcidHell2 said:
Give us evidence, you can't as you don't have any and still sprout rubbish when we provide evidence. Like why the towers would fall in the way they did...

You really are a closed minded sheep.... Does it make you feel good hitting on the powers?
Click to expand...
Jeez, you're dumb. If there was evidence then 'the powers that be' would be sitting in jail now. All you can look at is what happened in and around the event and make your own decisions, based on what professionals and people involved at the time have published.

All the evidence comes from official sources, which 'if' they did have anything to do with it, would obviously be doctored. Official sources such as FEMA, whose Director at the time was Joe Allbaugh, who worked for George W. Bush during his 2000 presidential election campaign. Who then became a member of Bush's cabinet as Director of FEMA beginning in February 2001.

I mean, just look around a bit, open your eyes, its all out there to be found. When enough things point in the same direction its really hard not to start looking that way.

Ahahahah you actually said the "no debris at the pentagon" thing? There was an abosolutely huge amount of debris found at the pentagon!
Click to expand...
Really? Where?

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/index.html

Because I'm just not seeing it.
 
Just wondering how many of you guys have watched Zeitgeist, for example, to get a view of both sides of the argument. The whole thing does seem a bit fishy if you ask me. But then again, who's "facts" and "evidence" can you trust?
 
Blanket said:
Just wondering how many of you guys have watched Zeitgeist, for example, to get a view of both sides of the argument. The whole thing does seem a bit fishy if you ask me. But then again, who's "facts" and "evidence" can you trust?
Click to expand...

Yep it's packed full of mistruths...

"9/11 Press for Truth" is about the only film worth watching because it doesn't give any time to conspiracy theories like controlled Demolition etc. It deals only with the Commission cover up.
 
UnusualSuspect said:
Jeez, you're dumb. If there was evidence then 'the powers that be' would be sitting in jail now. All you can look at is what happened in and around the event and make your own decisions, based on what professionals and people involved at the time have published.
Click to expand...
Dumb, I'm not the one ignore physics and actual real evidence.

What rubbish, we are looking at EVIDENCE, on how the buildings fell, how it was 100% a plane that hit the pentagon. The evidence is there. I've posted it numerous times in this thread. No we don't know everything. But we do know a lot and we can discredit missile attacks on the pentagon. We can also show how the towers fell and why..

This is evidence open your eyes and use some logic.
 
Blanket said:
Just wondering how many of you guys have watched Zeitgeist, for example, to get a view of both sides of the argument. The whole thing does seem a bit fishy if you ask me. But then again, who's "facts" and "evidence" can you trust?
Click to expand...

load of rubbish.

Evidence like photos, showing lamp posts cut down in the correct patter for a plane hitting the pentagon, photos of a huge generator being clipped and pushed back by a plane. It simply is not possible for this to occur with a missile. Let alone the debris from the plane.


Pictures of wtc7 having huge structural damage to it's corner as well as videos of huge amounts of smoke being forced out the windows showing high temperatures..

Then we have the Twin towers, that the top actually started falling off. was someone sitting with a button watching for the top bit to collapse naturally, before detonating explosives? What a load of rubbish.
 
you have to believe the people on the ground..like the firefighters or the fire chief...

but then they all become part of the conspiracy as people dont want to believe them as it contradicts their own views..even though they were not there and the firemen were.

does anybody really believe that the NY fire dept would send 300 of their own men to their deaths as part of a conspiracy?!?! and nobody would say anything about that??!

the same would also apply to the NYPD...you wouldnt be able to cover up something like that
 
I think its fair to say that theres a mountain of evidence to prove how and why the twin towers fell, how wtc 7 fell and how the pentagon was hit by a plane, theres also people who argue that flight flight 93 was not a plane etc but theres stuff to disprove that as well. I think common sense should play a major part in deciding in this conspiracy, which i guess some people dont have and always look for things that are not there.

In what mookjong was saying about a cover up over the goverments failings, yeah i agree they probably did a shed load of shredding of documents that day to cover their asses and yeah probably people in the government should have faced trial for messing up in a big way. Bush for one just sat in a classroom after the first plane hit, in shellshock mode.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom