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: 17,813 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    You've been asked quite a few times to support your 911 conspiracy theory with direct evidence. You don't, and just deflect into this rehashed NIST stuff.

    For example, you just repeated another claim, that the BBC were sent a forewarning of a building collapsing.

    Okay. Where's the evidence for that? Who was the person who sent it? What was written on the transcript? Who received it at the BBC?

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

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was the body responsible for investigating the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building Seven and the fact that NIST lied about the true nature of the collapses here is important to some people. You even have to look too far to see the lies. I showed you photographic evidence of what was happening inside Building Seven on 9/11 at 4 p.m. ( this photo was officially taken around that time)

    According to their progression of fire model, the fires on the 12th floor are red hot and out of control at 4 pm, I provided a link to the NIST study so you can verify what I am saying.

    The physical evidence in the photos cannot be disputed and shows that no fire was still happening on the 12th floor. In the east corner.

    The photos show that the windows of the 12th floor were damaged, but there are no visible signs of heat or fire damage anymore. How can extinguished fire thermally expand steel, knock the girder down, and destroy column 79? Under the broken windows are white dots representing floor 12's east corner where the Penthouse fell.

    Regarding the BBC. The fact that the building was controlled demolition makes an announcement early curious. My knowledge is limited on what exactly happened here and who gave the BBC the news.

    Heard rumors from the scene that something was going to happen? People would be thinking on the day that the building would fall based on what occurred to the towers. I don't know why they announced it early, it's unimportant to the overall evidence anyway.   

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

    The NIST didn't discover the buildings were blown up. Nor did FEMA. Nor did the insurance investigations.

    Nor did they discover holograms, mini-nukes or energy weapons. Yet all those believers attack the investigations to hint at those theories.

    Whether it's Alex Jones or Dr Judy Wood, they attack investigations and facts with incredulity in order to hint at a conspiracy they can never detail. Note the similarities.

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

    Flip flop again.

    Previously you claimed that they announced the collapse early for the purpose of "getting people used to the idea of the building collapsing".

    You of course didn't explain what this meant and ran away from any questions about it.

    Clearly you realised how silly this notion was, changed your mind and dropped the idea and hoped no one would notice. You do this often.

    Unfortunately, it is important that you don't know why they announced it early.

    If you can't suggest a reason for why it would happen, then it means the notion doesn't make any sense and you can't actually explain it. As such the notion can be rejected out of hand.

    What's actually happening is that it's a factoid spread by 9/11 grifters and thier target audience who never dare question what they see in YouTube videos.