9/11 Third Tower mystery "solved".
- Thread starter checjb
- Start date
- Status
If it pulled the rest down, some of it would have began to fall first which would have been visible (common sense). Which if you watch the video - it all falls perfectly at the same time... which is quite odd to my eyes.
hahha hows you lot, you can't be seriously asking these questions ?
you have not looked into it one bit have ya
either that, or you having a go, trolling
oh just **** off you little ****.
the WTC is gone, the site has been cleaned and NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR IMMATURE LITTLE FANTASIES ABOUT GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACIES. GROW THE **** UP.
sorry for that outburst mods, 'won't happen again
I hope it's not the latter, this is the most fun I've had in days
I dunno about you but I for one fully believe the structural analysis of a large building collapse carried out with no equipment or models by a man who claims the buildings fell at the speed of mavity.
Sounds 100% credible to me.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
You.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
You need to understand what open-mindedness is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
"An open mind that demands no concrete evidence for something will let in n awful lot of rubbish."
You always plan in some little mishaps to make it seem more realistic.
The logistics of the demolition of the twin towers (not tower 7) are actually a lot easier than some people make out. I won't pretend to be an expert but I used to work (as an assistant) in materials science - theres a lot of stuff thats probably 10 years ahead of public knowledge out there.
This is one of the reasons I'm not dismissing the official report/face value of what happened and jumping on the nearest CT bandwagon - as you say theres much simpler plans that wouldn't take such a sophisticated cover up. I do however find a lot of aspects about that day odd enough to keep an open mind.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 512
- Location
- Bampton
Just out of interest - does anyone know if/where the official full dossiers are online for public viewing?
I think one of the reasons CTs get out of hand is that they receive a lot more media attention (not Youtube but BBC, ABC, etc) than inquiry findings <-- I still haven't seen the originals, just quotes and snippets from people arguing for or against the particular part they are quoting.
I think one of the reasons CTs get out of hand is that they receive a lot more media attention (not Youtube but BBC, ABC, etc) than inquiry findings <-- I still haven't seen the originals, just quotes and snippets from people arguing for or against the particular part they are quoting.
You don't know he hasn't got any models though.
I can quite easily picture him building a model WTC from old lolly sticks then pretending to be "Mr Government Man" and blowing it up with a mentos/coke bomb to see how it falls, then posting the results as hard evidence.
Quite a fun mental image actually
I'm sorry... but I have not at any time completely dismissed the official explanation or said that any particular CT has merit. The only reason you think I'm not being open minded is because I don't absolutely and utterly accept the official version.
YOU are the one being closed minded here. I have debunked MANY of the CT theories over the past few years on these and other forums - the fact I don't necessarily accept the official version entirely doesn't make me a conspiracy theorist.
Last edited:
I accept the official "version" because of the HUGE amount of scientific evidence stacked up in it's favour, not because "they told me to"
Or maybe I'm part of the coverup and have been paid to agree with them?
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 512
- Location
- Bampton
You're being close minded!
No YOU'RE being close minded!
No YOU are!
funny thread. 
No YOU'RE being close minded!
No YOU are!
funny thread. Sorry but all you've posted here for us is "some people said something to me that made certain unspecified events seem out of sync"
Basically you've told us your mate dave down the pub told you it was rigged.
Do you realise just how silly you are now starting to sound? Part of their meticulous planning was to hijack a plane and then get the passengers to force it into the ground in the middle of nowhere. To make it seem "more realistic". To make an unprecidented terrorist attack "more realistic".
Of course, to make something impossible (setting up the largest ever controlled demolition on two buildings that are occupied without anyone knowing) always requires "top secret technology that few know about, apart from someone who used to work as an assistant in materials science". Forgive me if I do not suddenly see the credibility of this argument...
When does "keeping an open mind" start to become "gullible"? When there is absolutely no credible evidence why on earth would you give the CT nuts the benefit of the doubt?
You're being close minded!
No YOU'RE being close minded!
No YOU are!
Don't you start too
Sure if you want to accept the official version fine - just because I don't doesn't mean I'm a conspiracy nut on its own... thats a leap without logical merit.
I never said you were a CT nut
Sometimes I think about the WTC collapses and it doesn't all tie up together. I enjoy hearing both sides of the argument, but have decided to believe that it was terrorism that was the cause, possibly along with some dodgey workmanship in some of the buildings. But most of the time I don't actually care, as I know no-one who was affected by the disaster and it happened however it happened causing a large and unpleasant loss of life. So RIP to those who lost their lives during it. Whether or not it's ever conclusively shown to be or not be a conspiracy it was an horrific attack, but is quite interesting.
- Status