conspiracy files tower 7 Watch

DeSiFiEd
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#61
Report 10 years ago
#61
(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?
Or it shows how unwilling to analyse and research the supposed beliefs and "truths" you've acquired from the Govt. News.

Surely us "conspiracists" CARING about such conspiracies shows a pro-West ideal? We are after all looking for truth, and the end of manipulation of Western Govt, leading to a more harmonised "West". A flawed argument.

Many in History have got away with it, and of course Govt's don't hide things do they:rolleyes:
0
reply
DeSiFiEd
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#62
Report 10 years ago
#62
(Original post by ArchedEdge)
If you watched the program, you'd realise that the fires in tower 7 were even more extreme than the other fires, because firefighters didn't have enough water to spray and use.

So instead of concentrating on fighting the fire, they focussed on saving lives.

Which meant the fires went out of control, combined with the winds on the day which just kept feeding them oxygen and making it even worse, creating an inferno.

And planes can easily bring down a tower providing that when it collides, it takes out a lot of the structural support, which is what happened. If you cut down a tree you start at one end and move through to the middle, you don't need to cut through the whole thing.
Would you kindly look at the structure maps of WTC, and the idea/reasons for the way it was constructed. Alongside that, look around Youtube for some Physics-Qualified people to again prove that the idea of the collapsed support of a building be a true theory, but would not be applicable in the structure of WTC which was created to withstand such an attack when conceived.

Look at the melting points of the metals used, against what was recorded.

Then think of the untouched Passports they found. :eek:
0
reply
shyopstv
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#63
Report 10 years ago
#63
(Original post by Laursy)
why did they say that the building had collapsed when it was clear that it was still there, but the news readers were standing in front of it so you couldn't see it,
Because she made a mistake. She didn't know which tower tower 7 was and thought it was the one that had already gone down. Really, what other explanantion could there be? If she was in on the conspiracy theory, she would have realised that tower 7 was still standing and would not have said that it has collapsed.
0
reply
shyopstv
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#64
Report 10 years ago
#64
(Original post by DeSiFiEd)
You do realise the BBC is Government run, and obviously would always tell you the truth...just so you support the supposed war on "Terror" (end of sarcasm).
LOL so every single person who works for the BBC is a zombie who will do exactly what the government would tell them to do? And the UK and US governments personally know all 28,500 people who work there well enough to know that it is safe to let the BBC in on such a big conspiracy.


Also "resistant to aerial attack" does not necessarily mean "capable of withstanding a 180,000kg Boeing 747 full of fuel flying into it at 500mph". Also, please do not bring up the melting point of steel as that point is already answered in this thread.
0
reply
DeSiFiEd
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#65
Report 10 years ago
#65
(Original post by shyopstv)
LOL so every single person who works for the BBC is a zombie who will do exactly what the government would tell them to do? And the UK and US governments personally know all 28,500 people who work there well enough to know that it is safe to let the BBC in on such a big conspiracy.
I don't think you exactly get the idea, obviously at the end of the day, they're going to make conspiracy theorists seem nutcases, and not say anything mildly negative against the Govt's biggest bumchums, the US..meaning its biased, and it was clear from the way they addressed the issues in the show.

WTC7 was barely, if ever talked about on Sept 11 and following, I haven't met many people that actually knew more than 2 toweres collapsed :rolleyes:
0
reply
DeSiFiEd
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#66
Report 10 years ago
#66
(Original post by shyopstv)
Also "resistant to aerial attack" does not necessarily mean "capable of withstanding a 180,000kg Boeing 747 full of fuel flying into it at 500mph"
Again, the actual specifications give a more clear-er picture of what it should and shouldn't withstand. Balanced with the actual structure and creation of the structure, and the method of the collapse.
0
reply
ConservativeNucleophile
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#67
Report 10 years ago
#67
(Original post by caw123)
Yes.

B-25 (not b-52) which hit the Empire State - weighed 10 tons, carried about 500 gallons of fuel, at approx 200mph

Boeing 767 that hit the WTC - weighed 130 tons, carried 10,000 gallons of fuel, at between 450mph and 590mph

The kinetic energy is about 90 times greater in the WTC case.
Thanks for working it out for me! I think the last sentence proves the point quite nicely.

(Original post by DeSiFiEd)
I don't think you exactly get the idea, obviously at the end of the day, they're going to make conspiracy theorists seem nutcases
You're doing a bloody good job of that yourself. The BBC doesn't need to try. :rolleyes:
0
reply
shyopstv
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#68
Report 10 years ago
#68
Reasons for the media not talking about WTC7: WTC7 was nowhere near as iconic as WTC 1, 2 or the Pentagon, it was not destroyed in such a spectacular manner (plane hitting it) and it had already been evacuated so nobody died inside. It doesn't make as exciting a news story as the other building that were hit so it doesn't get reported. A sad reflection on the media perhaps but that's the way it is.

WTC 1 & 2 were built to withstand a 707 crashing into it, not a 767 which is 20% heavier. Plus, these buldings were designed and constructed in the 60s when the analysis tools were not as sophisticated or as reliable as today so we cannot be certain that it would have even been able to withstand a 707.
0
reply
Tipitman
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#69
Report 10 years ago
#69
(Original post by imtired)
I was going to post this, have you seen the titanic parody, i think that explains it just as well lol
Yeh tis very funny lol, I want to get his book at some point lol.
0
reply
_Hayko
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#70
Report 10 years ago
#70
(Original post by 2026)
Fool!
What's that, we live in ladi-dah land where the Americans went to Iraq with flowers for bullets in their guns and made Baghdad into an oasis? Or was it that killing tens of thousands of foreign citizens is not the same as a killing a few thousand of your own?
0
reply
DeSiFiEd
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#71
Report 10 years ago
#71
Whoever negative repped me with "Were you dropped on your head as a child?"

I call you out, for some real schooling on the truth, your a prime example of a sheep.
0
reply
DeSiFiEd
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#72
Report 10 years ago
#72
(Original post by ConservativeNucleophile)
Thanks for working it out for me! I think the last sentence proves the point quite nicely.



You're doing a bloody good job of that yourself. The BBC doesn't need to try. :rolleyes:
haah go read up on the CFR, on their very own website...read up on the WITNESS of 7/7 (I forget his name, he was a coloured male)..those are the closest things to easy research that you'll be able to fathom.

Your basing your understanding on everything your fed from the media, and your lack of being able to challenge correctly, with actual facts is pretty dire.

Sheep.
0
reply
Invocation
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#73
Report 10 years ago
#73
(Original post by DeSiFiEd)
haah go read up on the CFR, on their very own website...read up on the WITNESS of 7/7 (I forget his name, he was a coloured male)..those are the closest things to easy research that you'll be able to fathom.
Daniel Obachike was his name.

And if anyone want to read up on the CFR an their British counterpart, the RIIA, you can start here.

The BBC have contacted a load of 7/7 sites for a Conspiracy Files episode but they all refused to take part (the main one being the July 7th Truth Campaign) fearing the same shoddy work on the subject that was executed on their main 9/11 program.
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! (61)
37.2%
No - but I will (6)
3.66%
No - I don't want to (10)
6.1%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (87)
53.05%

Watched Threads

View All