The Third Tower [BBC - The Conspiracy Files(part6)
Top Comments
All Comments (33)
-
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
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.
Burzorg33 1 year ago 8
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
DaveS2913 8 months ago 6