9/11 - The Truth Behind The Third Tower

youwanttoshagme

Closed Account
Video of the upcoming BBC show - US see if you can watch it on iPlayer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7675884.stm


The Conspiracy Files returns with a new programme about the final mystery of 9/11: a third tower at the World Trade Centre, which along with the Twin Towers, also collapsed that day.

The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Truth Behind The Third Tower will be broadcast on Sunday, 26 October, 2008 at 2100GMT on BBC Two.

Looks interesting. I'm not big on the whole conspiracy thing, but looks good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AFA

Facetious

Moderated
I have always heard that there was a huge cache of gold in the basement and "THEY" didn't want anybody attempting to access it during all of the confusion so it was blown down to cover the loot. :dunno:
 

Will E Worm

Conspiracy...
The Conspiracy Files returns with a new programme about the final mystery of 9/11: a third tower at the World Trade Centre, which along with the Twin Towers, also collapsed that day.

The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Truth Behind The Third Tower will be broadcast on Sunday, 26 October, 2008 at 2100GMT on BBC Two.

You won't be hearing the truth on any mainstream television or radio station.
 
On September 11, 2001 the crew and passengers of flight *** all suffered a mass hallucination that resulted in them flying off course and colliding with the World Trade Center in New York City. Oddly enough, this same thing happened simultaneously with another plane ending up with the same results.

Even weirder is that this had virtually no effect on the buildings collapse. The building spontaneously destructed for no apparent and seemingly random reason.

Since this event seriously called into question the nature of reality, not to mention the ability of the government to effectively deal with it, it was covered up. they concocted the scenario that it was a terrorist attack.

After a little while they realized that this scenario would not hold up to scrutiny, so they put out a second scenario that states that the government itself destroyed the building. They knew that either of these two cover ups would suffice to sway the general population away from the truth.
 
No offense but I won't even bother to look at these "conspiracy " theories.It's just not possible to have had a conspiracy that would have involved humans ( who never can keep secrets) without their having been a whole bunch of books written by some involved (cashing in,1st book gets the most lol) that presented indisputable eveidence of the conspiracy.If you are willing to believe that stuff I got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale lol.Was it all exploited by Bush and friends for sure,but them (actually anybody) but them especially that was able to keep it all secret for years is just beyond credibiltity IMO.
 
No offense but I won't even bother to look at these "conspiracy " theories.It's just not possible to have had a conspiracy that would have involved humans ( who never can keep secrets) without their having been a whole bunch of books written by some involved (cashing in,1st book gets the most lol) that presented indisputable eveidence of the conspiracy.If you are willing to believe that stuff I got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale lol.Was it all exploited by Bush and friends for sure,but them (actually anybody) but them especially that was able to keep it all secret for years is just beyond credibiltity IMO.

My feelings are pretty close to this, I must say, however I would ask you Friday if you feel that large-event conspiracies are, in general, "just not possible"? Or are you speaking only of the 9/11 conspiracies?

I think conspiracies are possible, even if exceedingly difficult to pull off successfully....
 
My feelings are pretty close to this, I must say, however I would ask you Friday if you feel that large-event conspiracies are, in general, "just not possible"? Or are you speaking only of the 9/11 conspiracies?

I think conspiracies are possible, even if exceedingly difficult to pull off successfully....

Not so much the size of the event but the number of people involved make it just about impossible IMO.Get lets say more than one person involved lol and count on someone spilling it IMO.And its harder than ever these days to keep anything secret,used to be we only learned the real dirt on administrations after they were out of power,not anymore now we got books out earlier and earlier from insiders.The temptations to talk (for the money some might say) are just to great.
 
Not so much the size of the event but the number of people involved make it just about impossible IMO.Get lets say more than one person involved lol and count on someone spilling it IMO.And its harder than ever these days to keep anything secret,used to be we only learned the real dirt on administrations after they were out of power,not anymore now we got books out earlier and earlier from insiders.The temptations to talk (for the money some might say) are just to great.

I agree all the way back to Roswell.
 
I agree all the way back to Roswell.

If they ever visit it will be to see how we taste like in that great twilight zone lol.flylicker


Let me add this I am a fan of gangster movies and the stories of real gangsters particulary the depression era ones of the 30s.There was an especially vicious one named Lester (Baby Face) Nelson who said his way of robbing a bank was to walk in shoot(kill) everyone , grab the money and leave.He said it works real well for him and leaves no witnesses.My point is you got a conspiracy you want to keep quiet you better use his method and kill everybody involved afterwards who witnessed or was part of it.:ak47:
 
Sometimes I doubt how hard it could be to assemble 20-30 nutcases who are utterly committed to pulling something sinister off and keeping it completely secret afterwards. It doesn't sound impossible.

I'm highly skeptical of any and all conspiracy theories but it does bother me at times that the people who are the quickest to dismiss them, and with the most vehemence, are the very people who I trust the least, about anything at all...
 
What bothers me is that this is the same "logic" used to defend Creationism and other crackpot garbage. Creationists don't care about the evidence, doesn't it just seem that God created the world? Doesn't it just seem that the towers were demolished?
 
What bothers me is that this is the same "logic" used to defend Creationism and other crackpot garbage. Creationists don't care about the evidence, doesn't it just seem that God created the world? Doesn't it just seem that the towers were demolished?

I don't think the conspiracy theorists are operating on THAT weak of a foundation. Certainly some of their pieces of evidence are much stronger than others, but they do generally seem to acknowledge the importance of empirical evidence, at least those who are more than casual theory-promoters. I don't think they merely rely on faith; most of them want to PROVE what they say, and convince people with evidence. The problem is scraping together enough rock-solid, convincing evidence.

:2 cents:
 

member979979

Closed Account
My feelings are pretty close to this, I must say, however I would ask you Friday if you feel that large-event conspiracies are, in general, "just not possible"? Or are you speaking only of the 9/11 conspiracies?

I think conspiracies are possible, even if exceedingly difficult to pull off successfully....

I'm also in skeptical about the whole situation or maybe I just refuse to believe that my Government would cause such a thing. I agree that President Bush would possible manipulate anything in order to enter war and what better way to encourage retaliation by claiming that foreigners attacked us.

But lets just say for a second that Bush did in fact purposely cause 9/11 in order to profit, doesn't the whole thing seem out of proportion? Causing planes to crash into a building and then having them fall. It just seems like way too much of a hassle in order to manipulate Americans.
 
it reminds me of one the best arguments I've heard about the second amendment: If it get's down to the point where you need guns to defend against your own government, does it really matter much what they have to say about it?

It's like what do you expect to happen? the government is going to be like, gee wiz guys, you did really did some great blogging there and proved that we were responsible for killing thousands of American citizens, so we're going to go ahead and put ourselves on trial and find ourselves guilty, or else just voluntarily disband.

the best possible scenario that you could ever come up with would be to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt and then they'd just say, yeah, all those people that are responsible took it upon themselves to commit this rogue action and we had no idea, and then a couple nobodies would eat some bullets and maybe, maybe a few would go to jail, and then they'd say so it's all nice and wrapped up and the rest of us, the Big Fish, can't be held responsible in any way.
 
it reminds me of one the best arguments I've heard about the second amendment: If it get's down to the point where you need guns to defend against your own government, does it really matter much what they have to say about it?

(That's a good point. I've also thought how silly it is. Assuming that the bad regime at issue still holds the reins of (military) power, the fact that Joe Sixpack, Joe Plumber, or BillyJoe Jim-Bob the Bait-Salesman have relatively big collections of guns and a few hand-grenades won't really amount to much if they're up against F-16s and Daisy-Cutters and such (or worse), am I right?)
:dunno:
ok....back to the 9/11 theorizing...
 
Top