Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

The Third Tower [BBC - The Conspiracy Files(part6)

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
6,509
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Sep 28, 2009

The BBC Conspiracy Files programme on the third tower was shown on the 6th July. On the surface it seemed to be a pretty fair, balanced programme but all the alternative stuff appeared at the beginning and most people would have forgotten about it by the end of the programme. The 'swiss cheese' comments about the holes in the steel was shown at the beginning to demonstrate something dodgy only to be dismissed at the end as nothing important.

Steven Jones's work wasn't given enough time and they showed a brief clip of his lecture in Boston). The positive thing about this is that the BBC have done us a huge favour by finally admitting there was a third building collapse.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 4 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Top Comments

  • The nanothermite was not explained. It was said that he claimed to find it from "one sample" while actually there has been 5 samples, one of which was excluded because the collector would not agree to publish his name. Nothing was presented that would dispute the fact that steel skyscrapers dont collapse due to fire, except that "9/11 was special". It was not shown how a controlled demolition-like collapse could have resulted from one side of the WTC7 being damaged.

  • so the story is that there is a possibility that fire can melt all the beams simultaneously and make it seem that 7 went down like a demolition, ok it's not likely but possible like winning the lotto BUT

    now you look at the fact that no steal building has collapsed like that from fire EVER

    and then it happens to 3 almost fairly new highly sophisticated buildings built to withstand this exact conditions

    and all 3 buildings fall in a row the same way in one day... now we are pushing it

see all

All Comments (33)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • It wasn't a controlled demolition. controlled demolitions explode at the bottom of buildings. The fire officers were all content that the building was going to collapse and were not surprised that it did.

  • listening to conspiracy theorists is like listening to bible bashers, they only listen to what suits their idealistic fundemental beliefs.

  • @enniopat If you watch all of the parts to this program you will see that one of the other buildings falls into Building 7. That would cause fire.

    Why were the other buildings not on fire? They were on fire around the area where the planes hit and the area above.

  • @enniopat Why don't you watch the other parts, it explained extensively why...did you just hop around and not watch from the first part?

  • why did the third tower catch fire? is that reasonable? How close was it? What about the other buildings...why did they not also catch fire?

    If the object of the terrorist was also to kill a maximum number of Americans...why did the planes hit so early?

    I have to applaud those who want clear answers and it's good to see so many young people seeking truth, I feel America belongs to them and their spirit...organise before it may become too late!

  • Pieces like this are perplexing. They have failed by leaving out key information that needs to be said like actual nanothermite in possession, etc. Its like they want to steer towards being unbiased but in the process are incomplete in their coverage. If you want to be unbiased, I suggest you conduct an 'investigation' into the events and if you are unconvinced after, then write your piece covering both sides. All they have done is glance the evidence and further make truthers sound crazy.

  • Pieces like this are perplexing. They have failed to leave out key information that needs to be said like actual nanothermite in possession, etc. Its like they want to steer towards being unbiased but in the process are incomplete in their coverage. If you want to be unbiased, I suggest you conduct an 'investigation' into the events and if you are unconvinced after, then write your piece covering both sides. All they have done is glance the evidence and further make truthers sound crazy.

  • FUCK Richard Clarke

  • Dr. Steve Pzienick

  • Richard Clark looks like he has some sort of drug in his veins .. just look at those eyes. they are devoid of something and he looks very  much like hes on something

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more