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?



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

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

    It also shows that the building didn't fall symmetrically.

    It's also been shown to you that the collapse you are suggesting isn't possible by thermite. You've not shown a jot of evidence that this is possible with thermite.

    Nor can it be explosives, as if you were to watch the full video of the gif you keep spamming, we'd hear no explosions.

    You've been provided with plenty of evidence, you just ignore it and run away.

    When you are asked for evidence for anything, you just ignore it and run away.

  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,087 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph

    Who conspired with who?

    What was their reason for conspiracy?

    If a building fell down in 4 seconds or 5 seconds is not a conspiracy.

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

    Natural collapse

     The process of disjointed collapse is when one side of the structure collapses while the other sides are still in the process of collapsing. This type of collapse occurs when the support beams on one side of the structure are weakened or damaged, causing the structure to become unstable and eventually collapse.

    There is a complete non-disjointed collapse across the entire width of WTC seven on eight floors.

    During a natural collapse, the debris from the lowers floors would have provided some resistance to the falling debris from the upper floors, slowing down the collapse and preventing it from reaching freefall speeds. However, in this case, the lack of resistance can only be explained by the use of explosives, which would have cleared out the lower part of the building and allowed the upper floors to fall freely.

    The NIST model is used because it simulates a natural collapse where the buckling of the lower floors causes upstability in the upper part. That can't happen with freefall since no energy is used to clear the debris.

    Truthers and NIST are focused more on what triggered the final collapse down 18 stories and why there was a long period of freefall at the start of the building collapse.  

     Instead of focusing on the time it took for the floors to collapse, focus on why there was so zero resistance. Think about why the columns didn't hold up and why the building fell so quickly. In NIST's modelling, do you see zero resistance on the west side?

    Gif Comparing real collapse timelines with NIST's collapse model. 

    I'll be going offline so later 

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

    Again, you address zero points.

    Robin isn't talking to you about the collapse, he's asking you to explain the conspiracy.

    Your post also fails to account for the points that have been brought up that shows that your theory that thermite caused freefall is impossible.

    You are just defaulting to ranting without actually engaging. I suspect you are simply copy and pasting crap.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    We're always stuck on the "I can't believe it, therefore conspiracy" tile

    Ironically individuals who can't believe what happened on 9/11, have no issue hinting something much more unbelievable happened.

    The "smarter" ones don't even bother with the conspiracy, they just pour all their effort into denial of the event, because that's the easy part.

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

    Yup. Most don't think about their conspiracy beliefs that deeply to actually see how the various claims might actually fit together.

    A lot of the conspiracy mongers out there only really provide these "questions and doubts" so that their target audience can fill in the blanks with they own worldview.

    Like how there's not a chance in hell that any of the folks at AE9/11 believe in Cheerful's version of events. But they also make sure not to overtly contradict a belief like that so that they can still market their crap to him.

    Any contradictions that do arise, they are secure in the knowledge that they will be ignored even if they are ever noticed.

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

    There is always this question about the conspiracy: why would the twin towers and Building Seven be destroyed?

    While researching this, I came across this news item. It's from May 2001. It was four months before September 11

    It was also expensive to remove the asbestos, so it could be argued that 9/11 was the perfect opportunity to get rid of the Twin Towers without incurring such a large expense. In addition, the towers were outdated and no longer met the safety standards of modern buildings.

    "NEWARK-Asbestos abatement costs are not covered by an all-risks property policy unless an actual asbestos release or an imminent release leaves a property useless or uninhabitable, a federal judge has ruled.

    U.S. District Judge John W. Bissell earlier this month threw out the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey's final claims in a longstanding suit against dozens of insurers over coverage of more than $600 million in asbestos abatement costs at the World Trade Center, New York's three major airports and other Port Authority properties""

    Granting summary judgment for the insurers in his May 1 ruling, Judge Bissell found among other things that the costs of removing asbestos do not constitute "physical loss or damage" triggering coverage under the Port Authority's all-risk policies.

    Many of these psychopaths are motivated by money and power, and they are willing to do whatever it takes to increase their profits, even if it means taking advantage of tragic events like 9/11. They may be willing to take risks that others would not, and they may have access to resources that could have been used to bring down the Twin Towers.

    This is because the cost of repairs kept going up as the towers aged, and the cost of repairs eventually exceeded the value of the buildings. As a result, the towers were no longer making a profit and were actually costing money.

    It was for this reason that the towers came down, can I prove that? I can't. This information was a good reason, if any, to bring the towers down when they lost court battles with insurance companies four months before the 9/11 attacks.

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,201 ✭✭✭bobbysands81

    The British Government have funded and equipped many terrorist attacks against this State and Irish people… but people don’t like this pointed out.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    More hare-brained appeal to motive.

    You have "researched" 9/11 by reading conspiracy sites, listening to quacks and ignoring the actual experts who investigated. We know what happened on 9/11, it's not a mystery. Except to individuals determined to make it such.

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

    It's weird how the conspiracy seems to change every week depending on what latest YouTube video is fed to him.

    We've gone from it being a giant global secret nazi plot to now just insurance fraud.

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

    NIST investigations ignore evidence that does not support their conclusion and only focus on evidence that does.

    Manipulating a building's construction (WTC7) to make it appear like something else happened would be misleading and deceptive here. Eyewitness accounts provide crucial evidence in determining what really happened on the ground, and these accounts should be taken seriously. NIST's failure to do proper due diligence casts doubt on the accuracy of their conclusions.

    The FEMA report mentions the phenomenon of steel melting down. The FEMA report actually backed up eyewitnesses' statements of steel melting and steel girders being damaged by melting phenomenon.

    NIST never discussed that FEMA report again. Why is that? Surely you be trying to find out more?

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

    Again. Whole bunch of projecting going on here.

    It's bizarre you think that you're fooling people into thinking you aren't ignoring things.

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

     This statement is in direct contrast to the official explanation that the Twin Towers collapsed due to the weakening of the steel structure of the building.

    The skeptical community typically argues that the collapse of the building was due to the weakened structure caused by the fire. ignored the possibility that the melting phenomenon may have started during the fire and actually accelerated the collapse on 9/11. Why the debunker community ignore a government research paper? Clearly, the truthers aren't that crazy if they're an unknown phenomenon taking place before the collapse?

    Either way, the fact that the building collapsed in an hour or so indicates that it was not a corrosion attack.

    The only way you have melting in an office building is when something placed there shouldn't be there. 

    Here, the XEDS shows sulfur is present in the red layer of the WTC nano-thermite. 

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

    But there's no aluminum oxide. That proves there was no thermite.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    You ignore anything that doesn't support your belief that it was some sort of inside job.

    One day it's Nazi's, next it's Silverstein, next it's asbestos. Anything will do as long as it's a "conspiracy".

  • Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored

    governments have no problem sending people to their deaths in war, so by extension, they probably wouldn't stop a 'terrorist attack' if there was a strategic advantage to not doing so. We all saw the reporting of the last building fall on SKY news before it had apparently happened so the whole 9/11 debate should end there

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

    It wasn't Sky News, it was the BBC.

    But not once has any conspiracy theorist actually been able to explain why this occurred in the context of the conspiracy that makes any kind of sense.

    So not sure how that supposedly "ends the debate."

    Honestly it's just one of a long line of debunked factoids that theorists half remember from some YouTube video and never questioned or thought about.

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

    There is plenty of evidence if you open your eyes. NIST also commented on the strange white flame.

    I stumbled into this tonight.

    Page 324

    Of course, NIST didn't understand the significance of the white light and very white smoke in the area.

    Of course, the distinctive white smoke could be the aluminum oxide that everyone says doesn't exist. NIST even pointed out the very usual smoke.

    The video captures the collapse of the second tower the best, with all the liquid pouring out and a trail of smoke at the end. Sorry, Towers did not collapse due to a loss of steel strength. What a load of bullshit.

    There was a snap-off here of this corner area. Just completely broke 

    Video is

    even better.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    Twenty years on, still waiting for proper evidence of this so-called "inside job". Still absolutely nothing.

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

    What is the proper evidence?

    This FEMA study is relevant to understanding the collapse because it provided a very unique evidence of the possibility of the Tower's steel frame being severed by melting phenomenon.

    In place of the FEMA study's findings, NIST proposed an alternative explanation that steel lost strength yet lacked scientific, photographic, and video evidence. Based on FEMA's findings here, an inside job is a real possibility.

    . FEMA's accounts of the steel attack are consistent with reports of molten steel. Why is it that NIST says nobody saw molten steel at Ground Zero? It was aluminum flowing out of that window that the debunkers put forward, which is obviously rubbish and a deflection.

    The combination of Iron, copper, and Sulfur, was a liquid, which would be molten steel.

    Debunkers and NIST nonsense that there was no molten liquid of Iron noticed or seen is complete and utter lie.

    FEMA liquid of Iron is not the same as Iron Microspheres, which are tiny microscopic Iron particles that usually form when you cut into steel at really high temperatures and are byproducts of a thermatic reaction.

    An official dust study of the Liberty Building in New York found unusually high concentrations of Iron microspheres in the dust that covered that building. In relation to the amount of steel cut by the workers at ground zero, it was impossible to explain. Liberty building has not yet been touched. They presumed that all those Iron Microspheres must have traveled inside the dust and had been formed during a very high-temperature event inside the Twin Towers. The fact all these particles formed inside the Twin Towers prior to collapse very important overlooked finding.

    No evidence will convince a debunker. They want to parade the people who do this in front of the court first.. First of all, people ignore all the fingerprint clues. How is that ever going to happen?

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    Your claim is that Twin Towers in New York were deliberately "blown up" in 2001.

    Okay. Let's start with the timeline, support each aspect with evidence, likewise provide a list of suspects and evidence of their involvement.

    Making stuff up in your head or nitpicking investigations or incredulity or denial is not evidence.

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

    You not fully considering all the evidence, and you are not giving the demolition and nanothermite theories a fair chance to be properly evaluated

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted a investigation into the collapse of the Twin Towers, and their report concluded that the collapse was caused by fire and structural steel weakening.

    NIST determined for some reason that the eyewitness accounts of steel melting and the FEMA steel report were not relevant to the investigation and therefore did not explore them further.

    In order to know the truth, a serious individual would reflect on what molten Iron discovery was not important enough for NIST to consider. For FEMA, the melting was a significant event that needed further research.

    There are only a few suspects I can think of, who had the means to commit the crime. There's nothing wrong with that speculation when there is hard evidence that Twin Towers steel was melting.

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

    The amount of heat generated by office fires, combined with the combustible materials in the building, would not be hot enough to cause the steel frame to melt. Nothing in the NIST findings explains the evidence of hot yellow/red liquid flowing out of the building near the corner that snapped off!!

    The fact that FEMA finds steel that melted like Swiss cheese and that videos and photos of WTC2 collapse show the same color liquid of molten iron flowing out near that corner is substantial enough to indicate that this event happened prior to the collapse.

    When the truther version combines all the evidence, it becomes more compelling. In my opinion, NIST's official explanation does not take into account all the discoveries as a whole.

    The FEMA study corroborated all eyewitness accounts of melted steel; engineers on site found steel girders that had undergone a melting process. Sulfur was discovered from an unknown source, which does not appear there by accident. Red/yellow liquid was pouring out where the steel snapped at the corner, and tons of iron microspheres were in the dust. Things can be confirmed through video, photography, and official reports.

    That's all there in actual evidence that would be accepted before we even look at nano thermite discoveries by the truth community that debunkers love to attack. 

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    There is no credible evidence to consider, that's the point.

    Pulling an Alex Jones and pointing to a bunch of counterfactual chicanery, denialism and pseudo-science doesn't imply anything other than being a massive red flag.

    Feel free to approach this like a normal case and provide proper evidence instead of doing everything but.

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

    You are clearly lying since FEMA is very clear in their report that the phenomenon witnessed could have started before the buildings fell down.

    Are the truthers being lied to by FEMA?

    The day's visual evidence confirms it happened before the collapse.

    What could cause such a phenomenon in the building? No debunkers will go there (avoiding the discussion) due to the fact that nano-thermite would be a better choice to explain it all. 

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

    Many YouTube videos show that Sky News broadcast feeds from CNN and Fox News on that day. It is very possible to hear it on Sky News. CNN, Fox News, and the BBC all reported an earlier collapse.

    Announcing an early collapse doesn't mean much really, media doing it. Depending on who is giving the information, it is more important.

    NIST's refusal to release its actual data means that there is no way for independent experts to verify their new "thermal expansion progressive collapse" phenomenon,. It is really hilarious when something brand new is invented at NIST headquarters to explain the collapse of the WTC seven and then they refuse to share the actual data about this new phenomenon with the world. It is truly a clown world in which science is disregarded, and many people are just going about their daily lives as if nothing has changed.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    You argued in the past that the BBC must have had prior knowledge of the attack when they reported building 7 falling earlier than it did. Not that they simply made a reporting error.

    Which is it now?

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

    Bullshit, why would the BBC be involved in controlling the demolition of building seven? As I recall, I said the people involved in this conspiracy may have released information earlier to clear the surrounding area for the event.

    There is no physical evidence or historical record to support NIST's assertion that steel's thermal expansion caused the collapse. Furthermore, all the other steel-framed buildings that have been involved in fires have not seen this phenomenon occur.

    NIST's refusal to release the modeling data undermines the credibility of their findings and makes it difficult to verify their conclusions. Furthermore, the omission of key elements such as stiffener plates and 32 shear studs from the construction at column 79 renders their modeling data incomplete and prevents a thorough and accurate evaluation of the building's integrity due to fire. Official study about the collapse a joke. 

    By the way they even laughably made mistakes about the fires before the collapse. The work is so sloppy. 

    NIST claimed the fires on floor 12 are red hot between 4 and 5 o clock using this model. Remember column 79 is located between 12 and 13 floor. page 30.

    A screenshot of the actual North Face of WTC seven at 4 o'clock shows a fire on floor 12 has long since been put out. Where are the 900 degree Celsius fires NIST imagined in this simulation model?

    The photograph rotated pretty much shows that the fires were completely fabricated by NIST. They're not even a single fire; there are only broken windows on Floor 12. This building seven progression of fires at 3.55pm in the afternoon.

    A falling girder at Column 79 did not cause the building to collapse. 

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    You previously expressed a belief that someone from the conspiracy informed the BBC that building 7 was "about to fall".

    "Sir, we need to inform a media organisation that the building we plan to secretly blow up is about to go down!"

    -"And reveal the entire conspiracy?? are you on drugs???"

    "No sir, we've just been responsible for the deaths of thousands of firefighters and Americans, we need to do it to... eh.. clear the area"

    -"OKAY make it so!"

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

    To prove the debunkers wrong and to demonstrate that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is incorrect, evidence of the fires is necessary.

    Even though floor 12 does not have a single fire, you debunkers insist that people should believe the NIST version

    You can go off on tangent all you want; the evidence is in the links and photographs posted