It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


9/11 third tower mystery 'solved'

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 08:41 PM

9/11 third tower mystery 'solved'

The final mystery of 9/11 will soon be solved, according to US experts investigating the collapse of the third tower at the World Trade Center.

The 47-storey third tower, known as Tower Seven, collapsed seven hours after the twin towers.

Investigators are expected to say ordinary fires on several different floors caused the collapse.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:

posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 08:41 PM
So is anyone looking forward to reading the full report? I know I will be, but I'd just like to point out that the "Conspiracy Files" series is complete bull since they clearly follow the party line.

Does anyone believe that Building 7 fell because of fire that spread everywhere? Give me your thoughts.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 08:47 PM
Ah, at last I can sleep easy. What seems strange is thats it has taken the most technologically advanced country on Earth 8 years to find out how one building fell down.

edit to say I watched both towers fall that day and knew they were controlled demolitions the instant they fell. Physics, especially gravity, just doesn't work like that no matter now much General Mechanics says it does.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by surmic]

posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 08:54 PM
reply to post by MacDonagh

You must be mistaken my friend.

I think the report is on this Steel building .

Oh, my bad , this one didn't collapse from FIRES

posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 09:06 PM
reply to post by Sean48


How very amusing. If the fires were that intense and it still didn't collapse, then N.I.S.T have a bit of a problem then eh? How can building 7 crumble so quickly without intense heat? This is what Dr Shyam Sunder said on the Conspiracy Files:

"Our working hypothesis now actually suggests that it was normal building fires that were growing and spreading throughout the multiple floors that may have caused the ultimate collapse of the buildings."

I look forward to his findings...

posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 09:28 PM
As a civil engineer I have enough training in physics and structures to know that those buildings could never collapse into their own footprints naturally. The fire explanation is complete nonsense and the "Pancake Compression" explanation is based upon Warner Brothers cartoon physics. I remember watching the towers fall on t.v. that day and thinking to myself; "How the hell did the terrorists manage to rig those buildings with enough demo charges to pull those massive structures?" When the official explanation was finally released I was completely dumbfounded. Burning jet fuel was supposedly able to systematically compromise all of the supporting structures in perfect simultaneous order all the way to the ground?? I confess that when I first saw that now famous photo of the fire fighter standing in front of a steel pillar with the unmistakeable angled slash cut thru it, I knew the horrifying truth. We were being deceived. As the years went by and we witnessed the Patriot Act pass with only a handful of Congressional personalities actually reading the thing and the invasion of first Afghanistan and then Iraq, I began to understand at least some of the motivations behind the lies. I suspect that there are many more egregious compromises of my liberties and my wallet that are in the wings just waiting to be justified by their bogus terrorist attack.

When I finally confirmed in my mind that the descriptions of the World Trade disasters were fraudulant then I began taking a closer look at the Pentagon attack. Gee whiz! It was bogus too! Who would have guessed? I suspect that one of the purposes for the Washington attack was to get the troops on board for the corporate militarism that was to follow.

posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 09:49 PM
This is a BS report.

Who wrote it and who are their "friends"?

posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 09:50 PM
1. It fell out of sympathy
2. Swamp gas
3. It thought no one was looking
4. Because 666 minus 7 is....
5. It heard the BBC saying it fell 25 minutes earlier and didn't want to make them a fool.
6. It wanted to throw it all away and audition for Americans Idle

Sorry, I have to take my medicine now.

posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 09:53 PM
reply to post by MacDonagh

Wasn't this report on the collapse of Tower 7 written BEFORE the collapse -- just as the BBC first report on the collapse of Tower 7?

posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 10:02 PM

Originally posted by godless

Idk if destruction is your field per say but what are the odds of not one but three buildings at the same place at the same frame of time, all falling into their own foot prints? and on top of that the damage type was different for each building?

I can understand the pancake affect, on a normal building but just looking at the design of those towers It just doesn't seem like they would just fall that way without some help..

Also are buildings of that size who with that amount of damage capable of just that top half keeling over and doing a little damage to the standing structure but the building for the most part will stay up? (that may not have made sense let me know) Or will that amount of weight pull that building down regardless, just not the way it did?

posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 10:04 PM
BBC can not be trusted, dont worry its just there own propaganda since they are noticing people not believing the official 9/11 version anymore.

So they fired up this article to gathered more supporters.

PS: OP poster you do notice the article is from 2008 right?

[edit on 14-2-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]

posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 10:04 PM
reply to post by drew hempel

I think this report is the definitive report. NIST have taken two and a half years to come up with it, so it should be an interesting read.

Whether or not it can prove building 7 fell because of fires remains to be seen.

posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 10:05 PM
Actually building Seven housed the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Wall Street which the Securities and Exchange Commission oversees is after all a house of cards.

It’s perfectly natural for it to have fallen like one then!

They publish these ridiculous stories in fact to keep us talking about 9-11 and all the discrepancies between what really happened, and what the Government and corporate media claims happened.

They know that the minute people stop talking about it, and stop arguing about it that some heads are going to roll.

They will be feeding us these nonsensical reports and findings until the day the last of the conspirators goes to their natural grave.

The more they can keep people talking, speculating and debating about it, the less likely it becomes that any group or the public will mount a serious results oriented challenge to the official story.

posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 10:16 PM
I cant believe what I am hearing from you guys.

Really, you honestly think the government would lie about this?

After Iraq, Afghanistan, The Plame affair, Private Lynch, Nigerian Yellowcake, Bush election, missing emails, sacking of the attorneys... some of you actually have the gall to doubt what the Bush administration says? they've been nothing but honest, and I see no reason what so ever to believe they're lying to us.

for shame, and you call yourself an AMERICAN!

posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 10:54 PM
reply to post by Agit8dChop

I'm Scottish...

Besides, only a pinko commie witch would believe that some cabal was behind 9/11.

posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 10:01 AM
So am I the only one looking forward to this?

Surely I'm not the only one?

Or am I?

top topics


log in