conspiracy files tower 7 Watch

Gaylei
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#21
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#21
(Original post by Nath_england)
If you believe these conspiracies it shows how anti-west you really are. Do you really think they would get away with killing thousands of innocent people?
Im not Anti west nor Anti American only really Anti Bush Adminstration

As are many people
0
reply
Tipitman
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#22
Report 10 years ago
#22
(Original post by Gaylei)
yes I said planes don’t bring down buildings because can you give me an example other then WTCs where they did? I didn’t say they CANT I said they don’t as in a generalisation... my mistake I should have said generally don’t. I don’t mind you posting it up but you said well your wrong... why couldn’t you have said I disagree?
no different conditions would not make it fair test and I never said it would. The reason things like this exist is because something so terrible happened, the human mind perhaps cant comprehend it being an accident?

I don’t believe bush blew up the WTC nor Tower 7 but I am not sure that fires brought them down. Id like to hear peoples opinion on what exactly did and including yours. Which I see you believe is fire, which I think is a possibility but my mind still boggles.

Id just like to remind you that there was a terrible loss of life that day and people of many races have since lost their lives due to 9/11
Including soldiers and Iraqis.

Did Bush make a rash decision or are his actions A-ok?
First off, ill go with the Inculding soldiers bit. I am quite acutely aware of the lives lost considering my dad works for the US Army in a base just outside bagdad, and is Foreman on base for all there power and what not and is currently at home on leave back in the UK.

And disagree perhaps I could say that, but it doesn't change anything lol.

Yes it is partly because people would rather belive someone familiar did it than someone with no face metaphoricly. But that doesn't mean it is right and people should try and realise this as bush lost support for this, when it isnt his fault which is not his fault.

Maybe his desisions were rash, but he has his own plan, albeit failing and there is not much choice but to wait it out.
0
reply
Asriel
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#23
Report 10 years ago
#23
(Original post by Gaylei)
yes I said planes don’t bring down buildings because can you give me an example other then WTCs where they did? I didn’t say they CANT I said they don’t as in a generalisation...
Similarly can you give an example of an aeroplane flying into a skyscraper and it not falling down? Its not exactly an everyday occurrence so there isnt really anything to compare it to.

Watching the programme last night I think it was just the ferocity of the fire and damage from parts of WTC 1 and 2 flying into it when they collapsed that brought 7 down.
0
reply
Downesey
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#24
Report 10 years ago
#24
**** me, why cant people just accept that it was a terrorist attack! 2 planes flew into the towers, one tower hit a smaller tower and it too came down. Wtf does a 18 yo conspiracy theorist know about structural integrity? Some people just cant accept the truth so the insist on bein pedantic and trying to find fault in their own government. Then of course are the people who swallow that ******** saying "of course, a plane flying 500mph into a building wouldnt have brought it down, so they mustv strategically placed bombs and killed 6000 of their own innocent citizens"

Let me ask this...youv all seen the video where there seems to be a flash right before the plane hits the building right? Why would there need to be some sort of detonation when the kinetic energy of a JUMBO JET at those speeds would be sufficient to tear a hole in the building? Or how could the government place charges at ever structural support point when they are concialed by walls and concrete etc? People also say there were no bodies at the crash in pennsylvania... did you know jet fuel burns at about 1000 degrees, enough to incinerate steel, its a wonder the area had any vegitation left.

Think about it, there are no grounds for conspiracy atall, it was a hijacked plane hitting a building
0
reply
Gaylei
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#25
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#25
(Original post by Asriel)
Similarly can you give an example of an aeroplane flying into a skyscraper and it not falling down? Its not exactly an everyday occurrence so there isnt really anything to compare it to.
Watching the programme last night I think it was just the ferocity of the fire and damage from parts of WTC 1 and 2 flying into it when they collapsed that brought 7 down.
your right there

I also think that on the film people were saying thr NYFD were there before the planes hit like they were waiting for it to happen... well they were the plane had radioed in that it had been hijacked hadnt it? so I assume the NYFD were there for whatever the out come of the hijacked plane, perhapse brought down by missile or in to the towers or even crash landed.... that part was silly!

:cool:
0
reply
Gaylei
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#26
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#26
(Original post by Downesey)
**** me, why cant people just accept that it was a terrorist attack! 2 planes flew into the towers, one tower hit a smaller tower and it too came down. Wtf does a 18 yo conspiracy theorist know about structural integrity? Some people just cant accept the truth so the insist on bein pedantic and trying to find fault in their own government. Then of course are the people who swallow that ******** saying "of course, a plane flying 500mph into a building wouldnt have brought it down, so they mustv strategically placed bombs and killed 6000 of their own innocent citizens"

Let me ask this...youv all seen the video where there seems to be a flash right before the plane hits the building right? Why would there need to be some sort of detonation when the kinetic energy of a JUMBO JET at those speeds would be sufficient to tear a hole in the building? Or how could the government place charges at ever structural support point when they are concialed by walls and concrete etc? People also say there were no bodies at the crash in pennsylvania... did you know jet fuel burns at about 1000 degrees, enough to incinerate steel, its a wonder the area had any vegitation left.

Think about it, there are no grounds for conspiracy atall, it was a hijacked plane hitting a building

Let me ask this...youv all seen the video where there seems to be a flash right before the plane hits the building right? this could be a sonic boom or something to dothe the speed at which the plan is traveling...?

when the kinetic energy of a JUMBO JET Was it a Jumbo? is a 747 or what ever it was is that a jumbo?

People also say there were no bodies at the crash in pennsylvania... did you know jet fuel burns at about 1000 degrees, enough to incinerate steel, its a wonder the area had any vegitation left.
I agree there!
0
reply
Gaylei
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#27
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#27
this makes a lot of things clear and puts a vote infavour of fire for me!

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=4
0
reply
Tipitman
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#28
Report 10 years ago
#28
(Original post by Gaylei)
this makes a lot of things clear and puts a vote infavour of fire for me!

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=4
I only inlcuded that in my first post lol, mind the cartoon on the maddox site before that is good lol.
0
reply
Student2806
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#29
Report 10 years ago
#29
All these conspiracy nuts really peeve me off when they say "fire couldn't have brought down 2 skyscrapers".
You're absolutely right - they couldn't.
But - and I'm no expert - I think a 100+ tonne aircraft laden with jet fuel ploughing into the building at 500mph MIGHT compromise the strutural integrity of the building just a little bit.

If you look hard enough, everything conspiracy theories challenger can be explained scientifically.
Like this : http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=4
0
reply
Lucy :)
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#30
Report 10 years ago
#30
Can't believe people still think it was a conspiracy.

Did anyone see that drama on BBC1 sometime last year about the people who were trapped?
0
reply
*Bleachage*
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#31
Report 10 years ago
#31
Im gunna watch it later and then post, i saw something about it on the conspiracy programme last week, the one on the 2 towers, it showed tower 7 collapse, and gave two sides of the argument.

I love those programmes because they arent biased.
0
reply
minimo156
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#32
Report 10 years ago
#32
I think it was "half a conspiracy" .... the us govt knew "something" was going to happen but didn't do anything about it. It gave them a great excuse to destroy the lives of innocent afgani's as well as "iraqis". :mad:
0
reply
minimo156
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#33
Report 10 years ago
#33
Also there are many co-incidences involving 9/11

Including their emergency number ... 911 :confused:
0
reply
gooniesneversaydie
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#34
Report 10 years ago
#34
I know everyone likes a good conspiracy theory! If you have a spare 2 hours (it is Summer holidays!) then watch this documentary.

Loose Change 9/11 Documentary

I know a lot of the conspiracy theories are crazy and have been debunked but its quite hard to argue with some of the 'facts' that they present in this video. Im not saying it was a conspiracy as I cant see a strong enough motive but this documentary puts across interesting points and arguments.

Watch it all then make up your mind.
0
reply
The Hitchhiker
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#35
Report 10 years ago
#35
(Original post by gooniesneversaydie)
I know everyone likes a good conspiracy theory! If you have a spare 2 hours (it is Summer holidays!) then watch this documentary.

Loose Change 9/11 Documentary

I know a lot of the conspiracy theories are crazy and have been debunked but its quite hard to argue with some of the 'facts' that they present in this video. Im not saying it was a conspiracy as I cant see a strong enough motive but this documentary puts across interesting points and arguments.

Watch it all then make up your mind.
Loose change is pure crap. Total crap.

The 'facts' are nothing more than ill taken guesses and stabs in the dark at things the makers know very little about.
0
reply
Tyrannosaurus Cal
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#36
Report 10 years ago
#36
I don't think it was a conspiracy, but I think the cover-up conspiracy began after the event... there's a lot they haven't told us. (Incompetence/smuggling Bin Laden family members out of the country etc)
0
reply
Freud
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#37
Report 10 years ago
#37
(Original post by Student2806)
All these conspiracy nuts really peeve me off when they say "fire couldn't have brought down 2 skyscrapers".
You're absolutely right - they couldn't.
But - and I'm no expert - I think a 100+ tonne aircraft laden with jet fuel ploughing into the building at 500mph MIGHT compromise the strutural integrity of the building just a little bit.

If you look hard enough, everything conspiracy theories challenger can be explained scientifically.
Like this : http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=4
It was very interesting. The program raised some important questions but I'm afraid I stopped watching when it got a bit convoluted. The program didn't raise issues with the two world trade centre towers falling, because they were hit by planes. What it questioned was tower 7 which was not hit by a plane. It was hit by some debris from the two other towers falling but so were all the other towers surrounding the falling towers, but they didn't fall too.

The program raised questions as to whether fires were a possibility to make the tower fall. The fires, it's pretty much agreed, weren't hot enough to melt steel. But some fragments of steel pulled from tower 7 after its collapse were totally mangled out of shape. Plus there has been tests on steel structures as to whether a fire in several of the floors (as the fires in tower 7 were only in maybe the bottom 20 floors and then a couple more throughout the building) would be enough to bring it down. Supposedly this testing shows that these fires would not be enough to make the building collapse.

This was all very well and interesting but then the program went on to talk about explosives, etc and it got implausible. A demolitions expert said that normal explosives were not a possibility as all the windows in surrounding buildings would have blown. Then some crackpot Physics professor started saying he knew of a substance that could have be a possibility and I stopped watching.
0
reply
gooniesneversaydie
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#38
Report 10 years ago
#38
(Original post by The Hitchhiker)
Loose change is pure crap. Total crap.

The 'facts' are nothing more than ill taken guesses and stabs in the dark at things the makers know very little about.
Haha. I know its a far-fetched but it does put across some good points. I havent seen it in a while but Im going to watch it again now. Have you watched it?
0
reply
The Hitchhiker
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#39
Report 10 years ago
#39
(Original post by gooniesneversaydie)
Haha. I know its a far-fetched but it does put across some good points. I havent seen it in a while but Im going to watch it again now. Have you watched it?
Sadly I have watched it.
0
reply
shyopstv
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#40
Report 10 years ago
#40
I prefer this version:

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (551)
37.82%
No - but I will (114)
7.82%
No - I don't want to (102)
7%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (690)
47.36%

Watched Threads

View All