lostexpectation
New Member
same reason as the other buildings, it ws good program, but didn't really do enough about how the actually buildings fell.
The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower (BBC2 Sun 6/7).
- Thread starter danny la rouge
- Start date
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
Oh, its something that they always seem to bang on about, I've never had the energy to examine the information closely.
We certainly don't need conspiracy theory to damn the current world order, it does a fine job of that on its own.
editor
hiraethified
That'll be because they're still investigating it and not all things have quick and easy-to-digest explanations. The program certainly offered some scientific insights into possible causes of the collapse.
One thing is for sure, and that is that the bonkers conspiracy theories surrounding its collapse come straight from the Great Book Of Intense Stupidity And Gullibility (moron's edition), authored by the Gang o'Thickoes.
No group got treated worse than the first responders. If you watch 'the elephant in the room' you'll find they are extremely sceptical about the motives about the USG. They know the whole thing stinks.
on the collapse of WTC7
Which means it had to be pre-planned. The purpose of that question is to eliminate the possibility that the USG could have blown it up honestly, as it were.
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
What is a first responder?
editor
hiraethified
Give it up Jazzz.
You've had years to cut'n'paste up every crackpot theory you can find from DVD-shifting Internet nutters and shunting up a link to another dodgy YouTube video edited by thoroughly discredited fuck-knows-who Troofers isn't going to help you claw back any credibility.
bristol_citizen
Well-Known Member
Seemed very knowledgeable on the qualities of "superthermite" to me. This is the substance that the US government's got that does exactly what conspiracy theorists want it to. Clever eh?
editor
hiraethified
Best of all, they've kept it under their hats for seven years despite its near magical powers and awesome power. Not a single leak or a peep from a whistleblower anywhere - and it's never been seen in use since.
Brilliant!
I remember when it was called Red Mercury...
The emergency services that were called in the immediate aftermath of the event and the cleanup, in particular the fire crews. Many of the guys that did the cleaning up are now dying after being told the air was safe
ed, I really can't give a shit what you think any more about 9/11, why don't you go post on the wanking threads if you aren't interested here? thanks!
editor
hiraethified
Aw...
Attachments
They've been good programmes these - last weeks one was enjoyable, too.
Decent reporting, and just enough rope for the 9/11 'Truth' lot to hang themselves.
That bloke that made 'Loose Change' gets riled up easily,doesn't he?
I saw the first one it was very good. There are actually things that happened on the day that were a bit odd, the lack of Air Force interception, but it was clearly explained in a lot of detail that made absolute sense. yeah they got things wrong, but look at what happened, something the likes of which had never happened outside of Sci Fi programs, and you can see exactly how they got it wrong and you could see exactly why they got it wrong on the day.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
Bound to be: there's a huge conspiracy of firefighters, builders, maintenance workers and the BBC.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
It is probably best to assume that all buildings have explosives built into them. Just in case.
editor
hiraethified
Apart from the Houses of Parliament of course, because silly Guy Fawkes forgot to buy the special invisible explosives.
Oh come on. They tried to pretend that the scenario couldn't have been foreseen but it was an absolute lie: the possibility of hijacked jets being used as missiles was well known. And a trillion dollar defence system failed not once but four times, apparently! Now that is unbelievable, and if there are explanations, why have all these questions put by the families of the bereaved not been answered?
editor
hiraethified
Which 'family member' asked this question please? They seem to have forgotten to include a name.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
First proposed by Tom Clancey in the mid-90s (a Japanese student flies a 747 into the Empire State building), it was first considered a possible method of attack by teh USG and factored into planning sessions, wargames etc at the end of the Clinton administration.
1. NORAD didnt cost $1trn
2. As was discovered by the original commission, the Airforce and NORAD both covered up the fact that the US's internal air defence system was only turned on 1 week in 3 because of budget cuts. So it didn't fail, it was never turned on.
These are old, old points you've been taken down on before Jazz, don't make yourself look a tit again.
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
I think it is unfair to label everybody who questions anything about 9/11 a conspiraloon.
I am genuinely intersetd in how WTC7 fell as if a controlled explosion.
I understand that the stell may well have been weakened by fire, I understand that this would cause the building to fall. What I find hard to understand is how the collapse was so even when the ehat would not have been even across the building, especially when in the programme last night they showed that one side of the building was supported on huge beams over the subway. As a layman I owuld have expected the forces here to be far higher than the rest of the building and would have expected these beams to fail first, that wasn't explined at all last night.
Like I said I'm not a conspiraloon, but would like to know why the building collapsed in the way it did.
I am genuinely intersetd in how WTC7 fell as if a controlled explosion.
I understand that the stell may well have been weakened by fire, I understand that this would cause the building to fall. What I find hard to understand is how the collapse was so even when the ehat would not have been even across the building, especially when in the programme last night they showed that one side of the building was supported on huge beams over the subway. As a layman I owuld have expected the forces here to be far higher than the rest of the building and would have expected these beams to fail first, that wasn't explined at all last night.
Like I said I'm not a conspiraloon, but would like to know why the building collapsed in the way it did.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Did you watch the show? There was some pretty sound speculation about how loss of load bearing capacity would cause this.
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
I'm in this camp too - to be honest!
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
It didn't explain why it collapsed so absolutely perfectly tho.
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
When I say this I feel like someone denying they are a feminist (I mean heaven forbid), but protesting for the rights of women nonetheless.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
The chances are nothing ever will 'explain' it in that kind of way. The investigation will throw up more or less likely possibilities.
More to the point, why do you say 'collapse perfectly'?
More to the point, why do you say 'collapse perfectly'?
Similar threads
