9/11 Third Tower Mystery 'Solved'

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

A New York Times/CBS News poll in 2006 found that 53% of those questioned thought the Bush administration was hiding something. Another US poll found a third of those questioned thought government officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or allowed them to happen.

That's a lot of crazy people!

So to recap, sky scrapers can withstand hurricanes and earthquakes, but not a fire so small no one really even noticed it.

God bless America.

You know, the only thing I regret about this thread is not posting "Countdown to Hothotheat" post =-o.

I mean, as far as conspiracy nuts go, I like you but you're nothing if not predictable.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Not according to the BBC article. I heard the other two towers were hit by a plane or something, shearing columns, followed by an explosion, followed by a fire. This tower collapsed almost solely by fire, at least that's what we're being fed. I don't see it and I've built a few of these towers but I guess anythings possible.

I think the big issue with tower 7 is that most photography of the building does not show the extent of the damage prior to collapse. Although the building remained largely intact one side experienced heavy damage. Because that side faced towards the smoke and debris from the larger towers, you could not see the damage.

It wasn't easy to take pictures through the smoke and you couldnt get in between the debris and tower 7. Apparently from the few images they have the entire side of tower 7 experienced large structural damage.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Not according to the BBC article. I heard the other two towers were hit by a plane or something, shearing columns, followed by an explosion, followed by a fire. This tower collapsed almost solely by fire, at least that's what we're being fed. I don't see it and I've built a few of these towers but I guess anythings possible.

and tower 7 was hit my tons of falling debris from the other 2 towers. The article even says there are new pictures that show significant damage to the building on the one side. With the fires without the impact its unlikely any of the buildings collapse, with the impacts without the fires it's unlikely any of the buildings would have collapsed. A combination of both factors though brought all 3 buildings down.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Morozee

The one thing to this day that I really really can't wrap my head around about 9/11 is the phantom airplane that supposedly hit the Pentagon. WTF is up with that? Sorry to go a little off the topic of the thread, but it's related...

I think that there was a plane SUPPOSED to hit the Pentagon but that was the one on which the passangers fought back and somehow managed for it to crash somewhere else. I could be wrong but I think that was how it went.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I think that there was a plane SUPPOSED to hit the Pentagon but that was the one on which the passangers fought back and somehow managed for it to crash somewhere else. I could be wrong but I think that was how it went.

What? There was a plane that hit the pentagon, however there was an additional plane where the passengers fought back and it crashed into a field. That plane was supposedly also en route to the Washington area. I don't think they ever figured out what that one was targeted at.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I think that there was a plane SUPPOSED to hit the Pentagon but that was the one on which the passangers fought back and somehow managed for it to crash somewhere else. I could be wrong but I think that was how it went.

No. A plane did hit the Pentagon. The one that went down was a fourth plane (United flight 93), thought to have been aimed at the White House, though there's no way of being certain. That's the one where the passengers fought back and re-took the plane, but weren't able to stop it from crashing.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

What? There was a plane that hit the pentagon, however there was an additional plane where the passengers fought back and it crashed into a field. That plane was supposedly also en route to the Washington area. I don't think they ever figured out what that one was targeted at.

Sorry--you're faster than me, apparently! What Cap said.

[Azure]

Heh.

How could anyone forget what happened that day?

[Traditional_Ale]

The 9-11 attacks were the first in a series of events designed and executed by the Bush Administration for the specific purpose of conditioning (brainwashing) the American public for the eventual (and illegal) invasion of Iran. For Oil.

[Ozy_Flame]

I will take the side of the debate that offers the best reasoning for why things happened, so I'll have to wait until the official report is released to the public. I'm not a fan of the US government coming up with the official story, but it's the closest thing we're going to get to it anytime soon.

However, I would just like to point out that the U.S. government has been guilty of 'false flag' operations in the past, such as Operation Ajax, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the 1967 attack on the USS Liberty, and to a lesser extent Operation Northwoods regarding Cuba. These, among others, lead me to question the legitimacy of government explanations.

[Azure]

I wasn't aware that the government was explaining anything here. Outside of the obvious. Al Queda hi-jacked 4 airplanes, and flew 2 into the WTCs, one into the Pentagon, and one crashed in Pennsylvania.

The people who investigated why the towers fell were structural engineers at many universities across the US. It wasn't some 'government' report.

[worth]

Controlled demolition.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

The 9-11 attacks were the first in a series of events designed and executed by the Bush Administration for the specific purpose of conditioning (brainwashing) the American public for the eventual (and illegal) invasion of Iran. For Oil.

Then they better get a move on...he's got what...100 days to invade Iran?

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

The 9-11 attacks were the first in a series of events designed and executed by the Bush Administration for the specific purpose of conditioning (brainwashing) the American public for the eventual (and illegal) invasion of Iran. For Oil.

and dont forget Brett Hulls no goal foot in the crease Stanley Cup winner.

right?

[Blaster86]

Well I suppose it was only a matter of time before we got here.

-_-

[Muta]

But if the government had an INKLING of supposed attacks to happen on a massive the summer before 9/11, and didn't really do much in the way in terms of investigations and assigning full resources to prevent it, aren't they at atleast partial fault? Various stories in the media suggest that there was pre-knowledge of some such attack on SOME level.

[chris lindberg]

I thought the plane that crashed into the field was headed for the White House.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by chris lindberg

I thought the plane that crashed into the field was headed for the White House.

That's speculation.

We'll never know it's true destination because, thankfully, it never got there.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Then they better get a move on...he's got what...100 days to invade Iran?

Oh come on, this has been going on since the original Gulf War, but now with the internet and access to real media it is much harder. So they upped the ante and manifested 9-11.

What better way to follow the satanic Bush administration than with some nice patriotic history about a black man verses a woman for the presidency. Doesn't mean they aren't puppets and won't continue to hold course.

Ever notice how right after 9-11, Bush was very careful to mention both 9-11 and Iraq in the same speeches even though they were unrelated? Eventually, 50% of Americans believed that Iraq was responsible for 9-11!!! And now with the news agencies running less than two minutes of coverage per week, they're free to do whatever they want.

Sorry, I'm not really a conspiracy type of guy. But this is so obvious and in our faces I can't really call it a conspiracy. More like a catastrophe.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Muta

But if the government had an INKLING of supposed attacks to happen on a massive the summer before 9/11, and didn't really do much in the way in terms of investigations and assigning full resources to prevent it, aren't they at atleast partial fault? Various stories in the media suggest that there was pre-knowledge of some such attack on SOME level.

There was a definite inkling of a future attack.....but it was ignored, all the way back to the Clinton administration.

Heck, go back even further...after the USSR left Afghanistan, the US just turned a blind eye to the rise of Islamic terrorism in Afghanistan. And at that time, they had already won the hearts and minds of the people there by helping them beat the Soviets.

But that still doesn't say that Bush orchestrated the attacks himself....and it CERTAINLY doesn't say that it was a controlled demolition.

People who take that stance only do so because they're too dumb to understand the science and engineering behind the WTC, nor do they even WANT to understand it.

Because, it is of course much more fun to just blame Bush. Or the US government in general.