If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact

Would a government allow a terrorist attack to happen?

  • 01-03-2023 8:59pm
    Registered Users Posts: 119 ✭✭

    I've watched a few conspiracy videos. I'm not really a believer though I find them interesting. What I do definitely believe is that governments are made of people that can be corrupt and psychopathic. It's not a stretch to think that they'd want to profit from a terrorist attack.

    In the conspiracy world, there's a LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) and MIHOP (make it happen on purpose). I believe 9/11 could very well be the former. Even if the U.S government wanted an attack to justify a military invasion, it would be too risky to be directly involved.

    Official reports say that the Bush administration was warned that Al-Qaeda was planning to strike the U.S. FBI agents were also prevented from investigating Muhammad Atta and his cell.

    Some would chuck this up to incompetence but others say it might have been intentional.

    Post edited by Hannibal_Smith on



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    People in modern democratic governments aren't really a "hivemind". There are opposition parties, dissenting internal voices, critics, independents, maverick party members - just look at all the leaks that take place at every level of pretty much every democratic government in power.

    As for preventing terrorist attacks, that's pretty much all on the intelligence and security services. Somehow I don't think the president picks up the phone to them, says he heard about something big and that they are to "ignore" it. Certainly not with a ship that leaky. Also, don't put down to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph

    The powers that be would let certain things happen in order to be able to continue their investigation into some higher level baddies, or such as with the bombing of Coventry in WWII so that the enemy didn't know that you had certain information on what they were up to.

    Letting something happen to enable success in a war is not the same as letting 9/11 happen to make profit though.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    In the US government, many people were unaware of the UFO encounters that US fighter pilots had for decades. It was necessary to go through a briefing process to view the intelligence. You don't always have access to everything that happens just because you hold power. In reality, 9/11's perpetrators do not need to be elected, they only need an interest in manipulating events for their own benefit. Their crazy thinking led them to believe 9/11 was a good thing.

    Many published documents reveal that the CIA knew about 9/11 hijackers' movements inside the United States years before they took any planes. The western world's governments and media failed to investigate the CIA's actions here. By tracking the terrorists who did 9/11 and collecting intelligence on their movements and meeting people, you can get a clear picture of what they were planning!!

    Some people in the CIA wanted these guys to crash into New York City buildings on 9/11. To investigate the stonewalling and lying, you can take a look at this,Defense%20Intelligence%20Agency%20(DIA).

    Some people simply won't let the truth out. Despite 9/11 being a long time ago, now same stonewalling and lying about Russian gas pipeline explosions. Seymour Hersh tracked down the Florida group who did it and how they prepared for it over the course of a year., Media won't touch it since they are shills for the official narrative.

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    Your belief is that the people behind 9/11 planted secret, high tech silent explosives in all of the buildings. So it's very odd for you to pretend that they just let the terrorists fly the planes into the buildings.

    It's also odd considering that are various points you were suggesting that at least one of the planes didn't actually crash into it's target. Also part of your arguments have relied on the notion that the terrorists couldn't have been flying the planes.

    How come your latest beloved expert doesn't agree with your unique interpretation of 9/11?

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    Interestingly, the man who paid for half of 9/11's operation was in Washington DC the day before the attack and met with neoconservatives. Isn't it amazing that the head of Pakistan's ISI knew Mohammed Atta and that was barely mentioned? It's amazing Bin Laden wasn't found in a cave in a remote part of Afghanistan but in a compound one mile away from Pakistan's ISI west point. All this things are not part of 9/11 narrative. Clearly Saudi/ Pakistani intelligence had some backing for these guys. Why would allies of the United States in middle east send men to America to hijack planes ( have thought about it!!

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 571 ✭✭✭orourkeda1

    Yes. They absolutely would.

  • Registered Users Posts: 18,101 ✭✭✭✭RobbingBandit

    Whatever is best for business they will do people are a dime a dozen in the minds of politicians and military men. Look at the Reagan Iran-Contra situation.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    The US government is a complex network of individuals and groups, all of whom have different goals and objectives. This makes it difficult to predict the outcome of any given policy or action. There is a very real possibility that factions decided before 9/11 to take advantage of the attack and exploit it for their own objectives, without disclosing why they did so.

    There has been a lot of strange stuff going on around the attack within America, including the CIA withholding details about 9/11 terrorists. This has led to numerous conspiracies surrounding the attack. Furthermore, the lack of transparency has made it even harder to come to a conclusive determination of what really happened. This is why the events of 9/11 continue to be a source of debate and controversy.

    It should be fully transparent what relationship the CIA had with the hijackers decades after the events but it is only mentioned in news articles. Think about the fact that the CIA got away with that in a democracy.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    Ah your 9/11 conspiracies. First it was Larry Silverstein. Then it was the Saudi's. Then it was secret Nazi's. Then it was a mixture of Jews (Mossad), Americans (CIA), secret Nazis (Germans) and Arabs (Saudis), plus George Bush and various assorted politicians all working together.

    I'm genuinely waiting for aliens..

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    But don't forget it was only a small Cadre of people, who also had to be the ones to rig up the buildings with experimental silent explosives. And then also infiltrate the NIST and major architectural organisations.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,798 ✭✭✭Musicrules

    The full truth will probably never come out but the Omagh bomb was allowed to happen despite British intelligence knowing about it. How high up did the instruction to let it happen come from?

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

     Their model indicates that the collapse was not a freefall event and was instead a buckling event can see at the bottom of their model. As i have repeatedly pointed out that if they admit a freefall collapse then the building collapsing must come through its own structure with zero resistance at the bottom end.

    Clearly there was plenty of resistance when collapse began as evidenced by their own modelling in blue. It is not for debunkers or skeptics to interpret this, its a fact.

    The NIST tried to hide the anomaly by claiming there was a stage of freefall later, which is absurd since the building was already falling.

    They have yet to explain why the building would suddenly accelerate its descent at the point of collapse, or why it would not slow down as it fell.

    Shaded area in blue represents the floor system with all girders and steel framing, so must collapse on either side at the same time for freefall to happen.

    How can part of the same building stay standing on the west side while the east side was completely destroyed. That blue shaded area shows the resilience of the floor system to the collapse. The NIST modelling shows no freefall at all. Do not claim otherwise

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    Same misunderstanding and misrepresentation you keep falling back to.

    No one is being convinced by this line of argument and you've shown yourself completely unable to actually articulate the point you're trying to make with it. You've demonstrated that you don't actually know what freefall is.

    You really need to find a different tact beyond copy pasting the same pictures and the same technobabble laden rant.

  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph

    It may have been posted somewhere in the mists of time, but what is the speed of a building falling down meant to prove?

    Is this to do with the secret nano explosives planted by the CIA/ Mossad/ Nazi aliens? Seems kind of irrelevant to be trying to fight over the speed of a building falling down unless there is actually a provable point at the end of that argument.

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    Cheerful never actually made that clear. He's just repeating a buzzword that was fed to him by the cranks and grifters at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. They also don't really make it clear.

    The original claims was that building 7 fell at free fall speed, as in it collapsed in the same time it would take for a ball dropped from the roof of the building to hit the ground. This was claimed to be proof that the building was demolished because there was no resistance.

    However, this ran into problems when it was pointed out that the building takes longer than 7 seconds to collapse.

    The NIST made comments to this effect pointing out that the building didn't fall at free fall speed.

    The goalposts shifted when conspiracy theorists found a comment from a report that also used the term "free fall" and misrepresent this to mean that the NIST was caught out in a lie.

    All attempts to explain this to folks like cheerful were ignored and they ignored any attempts to clarify or detail what they argument actually was.

    It was just "free fall, free fall, free fall therefore conspiracy."

    It also became apparent during this that conspiracy theorists here, Cheerful especially didn't actually know what free fall was.

    And this was all besides the myriad of points that conspiracy theorists completely dodged and ran away from. Like for instance how free fall is not a feature of controlled demolition at all. Or that if the building was demolished as Cheerful argued by special nanothermite, then free fall is not possible.

    Or that if the building was to fall as Cheerful describes, with no resistance at all, then it would require demolition charges on every single support on every single floor and for all of them to go off at once.

    This issue has never been addressed.

  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph

    So essentially, reports into what happened change over time as investigations progress... Therefore conspiracy, but no idea what, why, who or how.

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    Wasn't even a change. They said the word "freefall" in a different context in a later report.

    Conspiracy theorists cling to this as proof of lies and refuse to discuss it any further.

    Just keep repeating "free fall" over and over without ever even knowing what it is.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    "I can't believe something, therefore conspiracy I can't detail"

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    Dr. Sunder was asked to explain why the draft paper didn't mention freefall, which is a measurable phenomenon using physics techniques. He argued that freefall in the building collapse didn't make sense because it would be inconsistent with the characteristics of the building itself and with the laws of physics.

    The following is a portion of Shyam Sunder's freefall speech from August 2008

    “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.... What the analysis that same time it took for the structural model to come down ( first 18 stories can see on 5.4 seconds. It’s about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.”

    Natural collapses involve the transfer of energy between different parts of the structure. This means that even if one part of the building begins to collapse, the energy from that collapse can cause other parts of the building to become weak and eventually collapse, creating a domino effect.

    There's nothing wrong with that

    The evidence suggests that the collapse of WTC7 was not the result of natural forces, such as fire, but instead that the building was destroyed by an explosive event. This is evidenced by the fact that the building went from complete support to freefall in just a fraction of a second, which would be impossible in a natural collapse. NIST even ruled out freefall because its own model predicted it would take more time to fall 18 stories.

    The truth is that the fall of the 18 stories is actually closer to 4 seconds, not 5.4. This suggests that the underlying reason for the discrepancy is the fact that the NIST's model neglected to factor in the demolition of the building's steel columns.

    The NIST models do not account for the rapid, simultaneous destruction of eight floors at the bottom end of the building in a fraction of second. Believe the nonsense put out by NIST then the top half of the building would still be interacting with the buckling part of the building and yet how that is consistent with freefall?

    NIST models are not consistent with the evidence presented. Thus, it is clear that there must have been an alternative force that caused the destruction of the eight floors in such a short amount of time.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    As further proof, observe the second building on top of the roofline. It sits on top of core columns. When the building fell, the freefall began.

    In the NIST model, you will see columns still buckling at the bottom of the building, which is incompatible with a building falling through its own structure at this time.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    Again complete waffle.

    And the simltanous destruction of 8 floors requires explosives on every single support on each of those floors.

    We do no hear any evidence of any of these hundreds of explosions. So we know that your explanation is false.

    We also know that this contradicts your previous claimed belief as thermite would not allow for a simultaneous destruction of anything as it isn't an explosives and acts much slower. Especially given your previous claims that the thermite was left in cardboard boxes near the supports haphazardly.

    This has been explained to you over and over. Though you pretend not to shee it others do and your complete failure to address these issues. It's why you've failed to convince a single person.

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    And as always you continue to chop up facts and cover stuff up you don't like.

    That gif doesn't show the start of the collapse.

    It doesn't show the penthouse falling into the building which shows your claims of simultaneous collapse to be false.

    You edited it out so you can keep presenting dishonest claims. Again.

    Afair, your hand waving for this was to claim that the penthouse just collapsed a few floors for no reason completely unrelated to the collapse.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    Astonishingly, not only did the military operation successfully remove all evidence, but NIST could not even find any recognizable steel pieces from Building 7

    Remember this is an unprecedented event in history since it was the first tall building with steel framing to collapse solely due to fire. The magnitude of this feat is even more impressive when one considers the sheer size of the building - the equivalent of a large football field - and the fact that every single piece of steel had vanished.

    In the engineering world, this event will go down in history, but few will doubt the official explanation,.

    The NIST report was based on a computer model, not on actual evidence from the scene. This means that their conclusions were not supported by the physical evidence and could have been skewed to fit their desired outcome. Furthermore, their model did not account for all of the elements present in the building at the time, which means that their conclusions were unreliable.

    NIST analysis of the progressive collapse of Building Seven is even more perplexing. Experts have argued that the failure of the girder at column 79, which was assumed to have initiated the collapse, doesn't explain the entire sequence of events that led to the building's collapse. The omissions, and errors in the original analysis have yet to be corrected.

    The fact that the model is not showing the same level of destruction on the west side of the building as it does on the east side proves that the collapse could not have been caused naturally. The model indicates that the columns on the west side should have been destroyed in the same way as the columns on the east side, but that is not what happened. This implies that some other force was at play in the collapse.

    The fact that there are different results on the east and west side of the building further suggests that the collapse could not have been caused by natural forces alone. The east side shows a complete collapse of the floors and concrete at the bottom of building seven, while the west side does not show this complete collapse, even though the building lost support of the columns at this point. This suggests that something else must have played a role in the collapse, which is why the NIST model is performing differently on the east and west side

    The lack of an explanation for the freefall of the collapse is further evidence that NIST's evidence does not support its own progressive collapse theory. Furthermore, the fact that there are countless different pieces connecting the steel frame means that there must be some resistance to the collapse, yet NIST does not address this point.

    There is no resistance over 100 feet at the bottom, and people buy that **** as natural.

    The explosives in building seven were used to weaken the steel core of the building and create a controlled collapse.

    From what I've seen on news videos, it appears that steel is melting at the Twin Towers. I not convinced explosives got used here.

    The nano thermite chips were found in the dust from the World Trade Center two, indicating that they may have been used to weaken the steel beams of the building. This kind of heat would have been far greater than the fire from the plane crashed alone, and it would have been enough to weaken the steel and cause the building to collapse. Ingenious way to mask the towers' destruction on 9/11 with a chemically engineered thermite.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    Feel free to explain the conspiracy. Keep in mind your conspiracy has changed every time you've been asked.

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    And ranting and hypocrisy again.

    You are declaring the the official story must be false because there's so many omissions, gaps, errors and failures to explain anything.

    But we can see your own theory has hundreds of examples of these throughout your posting history.

    You've not once responded to any of the omissions you make, like leaving out the start of the collapse in your previous 100th repost of a gif.

    You've not once responded to the many many errors you make stemming for your lack of any scientific knowledge.

    You've not once tried to explain any of the massive plot holes, contradictions or ridiculous leaps in logic that your theory entails.

    You're not even addressing the topic of the thread any more. You're just spamming the same rant you always default to while ignoring every post made to you.

    Again you are jamming up discussion and killing a thread.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    . The East Penthouse is located on the northeast corner of the building, and the maintenance building is located more to southwest corner.

    I think that GIF is extremely important. It actually shows the security maintenance building on top of the roof still has a steel core supporting it.

    It collapses when the bottom eight floors are removed.

    The full collapse was caused by the inability of the lower structure to support the upper floors when the eight floors were removed. Because the lower floors ( removed) were not able to absorb the impact of the falling upper floors, the entire building collapsed with 2.25 to 2.50 seconds of freefall.

    . The NIST model proposes that the upper floors of the building are impacting onto the lower floors and that the lower floors are providing resistance to the upper floors, thus slowing the descent of the upper floors.Since there is no freefall, and you clearly have an education, you ought to know better than to fall back on your biases and beliefs.

    However, the freefall of the building indicates that there is zero resistance, therefore, the whole building is on its way down once the second building is removed from the roof.

    If there was zero resistance, both sides east and west over eight floors would have to fall at the same time. Show me the evidence of that happening in the NIST models. Otherwise, I'm sticking to my point wrong.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    This isn't a detailed conspiracy, it's just more of your incredulity at buildings falling due to fire.

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    But again, you are cutting out the start of the collapse. You are being very dishonest by presenting that GIF as if it's the collapse.

  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph

    So what is the conspiracy then?

    That the penthouse conspired with a steel beam to see what skydiving felt like?

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    The gif shows that the building fell at free fall speed for over 100 feet which is impossible without the aid of explosives. Additionally, the building fell symmetrically, indicating controlled demolition as opposed to a collapse caused by structural failure or fire. Based on NIST's work and comparison with actual collapses, conspiracy has been proven.

    This has been confirmed by NIST's scientific modelling which showed that there was no freefall.

    NIST's models showed that the building's descent was actually slower than the rate of freefal

    Debunkers have a duty to provide evidence to support their claims that contradicts the evidence presented by the other party. In this case, it is up to the debunkers to provide evidence that disproves the claim that the NIST video shows progressive collapse and no freefall. If they cannot, then the claim stands.

    NIST video of building seven progressive collapse here,. Find the freefall? here.