imi Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 The Truth behind the Third Tower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bignum Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Just watched that, never realized the 7th tower went down and so smoothly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverSoop Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Hmm, I watched this a while back now... So what do we think then about tower 7, controlled demolition or subject to the terrorist's doing's?? Tower 7 belonged to the US government, CIA I believe (not sure though) That programme even suggests that one of the two towers was subject to a controlled demolition also... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted October 26, 2008 Author Share Posted October 26, 2008 One of the comments from the owner of the building was extremely clear, he gave the go ahead to pull them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverSoop Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 One of the comments from the owner of the building was extremely clear, he gave the go ahead to pull them. Do you mean tower 7 or one of the two towers?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted October 27, 2008 Author Share Posted October 27, 2008 Do you mean tower 7 or one of the two towers?? its not about me, what did HE mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian R Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 These theories really annoy me fact is that it was Arab scum that was responsible end of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted October 27, 2008 Author Share Posted October 27, 2008 These theories really annoy me fact is that it was Arab scum that was responsible end of. I had an upset stomach today, I blame the arabs for that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lbm Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Watching this now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverSoop Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 its not about me, what did HE mean? Hmm, we still don't know after all this time... It begs the question, even though that building (tower 7) was CIA, what was SO important, that they had to demolish it?? And I really hope for the poor lost people in the twin tower's that it collapsed by itself, not demolished killing thousands... These theories really annoy me fact is that it was Arab scum that was responsible end of. Yeh I agree...but it did look like one of the buildings was demolished...why?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian R Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 I had an upset stomach today, I blame the arabs for that too. Hang on have I mis understood you are you saying that they are not. Try watching the film that quite clearly gives reasons that quash the pie in the sky rubbish. Its properganda and those that make should rubbish should be tried for treason. What next the London bombings were done by MI5?? Complete tosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverSoop Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Hang on have I mis understood you are you saying that they are not. Try watching the film that quite clearly gives reasons that quash the pie in the sky rubbish. Its properganda and those that make should rubbish should be tried for treason. What next the London bombings were done by MI5?? Complete tosh I completely agree with what you are saying BUT do you think that that 'tower 7' just collapsed by itself or was subject to a controlled demolition?? If it was a controlled demolition, then why?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian R Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Tower Seven had an unusual design, built over an electricity substation and a subway; there were many fires that burnt for hours; and crucially, fire fighters could not fight the fires in Tower 7, because they didn't have enough water and focused on saving lives. Investigators have focused on the east side where the long floor spans were under most stress. They think fires burnt long enough to weaken and break many of the connections that held the steel structure together. Most susceptible were the thinner floor beams which required less fireproofing, and the connections between the beams and the columns. As they heated up the connections failed and the beams sagged and failed, investigators say. The collapse of the first of the Twin Towers does not seem to have caused any serious damage to Tower Seven, but the second collapse of the 1,368ft (417m) North Tower threw debris at Tower Seven, just 350ft (106m) away. Tower Seven came down at 5.21pm. Until now most of the photographs have been of the three sides of the building that did not show much obvious physical damage. Now new photos of the south side of the building, which crucially faced the North Tower, show that whole side damaged and engulfed in smoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverSoop Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Tower Seven had an unusual design, built over an electricity substation and a subway; there were many fires that burnt for hours; and crucially, fire fighters could not fight the fires in Tower 7, because they didn't have enough water and focused on saving lives. Investigators have focused on the east side where the long floor spans were under most stress. They think fires burnt long enough to weaken and break many of the connections that held the steel structure together. Most susceptible were the thinner floor beams which required less fireproofing, and the connections between the beams and the columns. As they heated up the connections failed and the beams sagged and failed, investigators say. The collapse of the first of the Twin Towers does not seem to have caused any serious damage to Tower Seven, but the second collapse of the 1,368ft (417m) North Tower threw debris at Tower Seven, just 350ft (106m) away. Tower Seven came down at 5.21pm. Until now most of the photographs have been of the three sides of the building that did not show much obvious physical damage. Now new photos of the south side of the building, which crucially faced the North Tower, show that whole side damaged and engulfed in smoke. Yeh I watched the programme too and this does seem to make sense but don't you think that tower 7 collapsed very quickly?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian R Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Yep it did collapse quickly but compared to what ? When has this happened before ?? We have nothing to compare it to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverSoop Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Yep it did collapse quickly but compared to what ? When has this happened before ?? We have nothing to compare it to. Well if you look at the way the twin towers collapsed, they collapsed naturally through fire and stress but tower 7 seemed remarkably like a controlled demolition... They even showed the similarities on the programme of a controlled demolition... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lbm Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Yeh I watched the programme too and this does seem to make sense but don't you think that tower 7 collapsed very quickly?? 40% longer to collapse than a *free falling* demolition job though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian R Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 It is easy to compare something to another connected or not and show similarities. A lot harder to disprove. Just look at the UFO hoakes that have been in the past in the end they get disproven just like the tower 7 theory will be in the end concrete evidence once the investigation is completed will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverSoop Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 40% longer to collapse than a *free falling* demolition job. It is easy to compare something to another connected or not and show similarities. A lot harder to disprove. Just look at the UFO hoakes that have been in the past in the end they get disproven just like the tower 7 theory will be in the end concrete evidence once the investigation is completed will be. Yeh, maybe I am on to nothing but it's just the way it collapsed, it just seemed very similar to a Controlled Demolition that's all... Tower 7 had the same sort of stress/fire damage and didn't collapse like the twin towers did... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted October 27, 2008 Author Share Posted October 27, 2008 Tower Seven had an unusual design, built over an electricity substation and a subway; there were many fires that burnt for hours; and crucially, fire fighters could not fight the fires in Tower 7, because they didn't have enough water and focused on saving lives. Investigators have focused on the east side where the long floor spans were under most stress. They think fires burnt long enough to weaken and break many of the connections that held the steel structure together. Most susceptible were the thinner floor beams which required less fireproofing, and the connections between the beams and the columns. As they heated up the connections failed and the beams sagged and failed, investigators say. The collapse of the first of the Twin Towers does not seem to have caused any serious damage to Tower Seven, but the second collapse of the 1,368ft (417m) North Tower threw debris at Tower Seven, just 350ft (106m) away. Tower Seven came down at 5.21pm. Until now most of the photographs have been of the three sides of the building that did not show much obvious physical damage. Now new photos of the south side of the building, which crucially faced the North Tower, show that whole side damaged and engulfed in smoke. For the original article to where this was copied and pasted from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7485331.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaymdee Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 As with all these things, conspiracy theories are great fun, but at the end of the day is there any real evidence to suggest that the Moon Landing or JFK were elaborate conspiracies and cover ups, or simply what we are told is true? Lets face it - how many people would need to be involved in a conspiracy of this magnitude? It is inevitable that there would be a leak - try keeping a surprise family birthday party a secret Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now