Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Redacted | Building 7
Comments
-
Told ya.
-
Bump for Goduckies.Blueduck said:
#1. produce the articleGoduckies said:
And popular mechanics debunked them years ago.Blueduck said:
Im not asking for your help46XiJCAB said:
I’m just trying to help you debunk this BS.Blueduck said:
The woman in the video called it a scud missile, I didn't...go argue with her.46XiJCAB said:
Educated yourself on the trajectory of a scud missile and their history of not being accurate.Blueduck said:
Where do the 800,000 missing/abducted children go every year?46XiJCAB said:
So where is Barbara Olson? And the molten theory only makes sense to non-conspiracy theorists.Blueduck said:
I didn't guarantee the authenticity of the video, I merely asked if it the timing was coincidence with the redacted piece.46XiJCAB said:Good grief.
The plane that hit the Pentagon was witnessed by drivers. I love the lunatic showing the grainy pick of the “scud missile” sounding so believable.
The plane turned into a molten ball as it tore through the building. Shocking there was nothing left.
To some.
Fwiw your molten ball theory doesn't cut the mustard.
The wings would have sheared And the engines would have been left outside.....or
The hole in the building does not jive with the damage that would have been caused if the engines had entered the building.
An engine was discovered but was not anywhere near the size of the reported planes engines.
You should probably do a little more research.
There is evidence that contradicts those "witness" accounts.
Why does the reporter at the scene clearly state there is no evidence a plane crashed into the pentagon.
He doesn't mention a molten ball that could have been a plane either.
You are a big boy, Im not going to answer your questions because you wont believe anything I say about it anyway.
You have to go look and find the truth for yourself..or not.
But sure, they fired one at ground level and scored a direct hit on the Pentagon.
Conspiracy nuts can create the narrative evidence to fit their insane theories.
A witness saw the plane clip a light pole on the freeway.
Back on page 1 I linked a couple documentary videos, I hope you go back and take the time to watch them. There are many independent expert architectural engineers in those videos who weigh in on the world trade center building(s) collapse and the official government report on 911.
If not.... that's your choice.
#2 explain why you believe an article in a magazine over a large group of credentialed architects, professors, engineers and demolition experts with years of experience working in the field and have actual degrees in designing building and demolition of high rise buildings and have to know and how these buildings collapse and study structural integrity before they can ever build their designs.
A group of experts in their respective fields that has read the official reports and studied all the evidence that was available on the WTC buildings and give their opinions and put their credibility on the line.
Are you going to put all your eggs in the popular mechanics basket or would you want to see/hear from people who are experts and not on the government payroll.
I see you've been back to the thread but ch
Thank you for posting this, I have one issue, this is from last year, you stated "years ago", do you have a link to the original articleGoduckies said:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/Blueduck said:
Bump for @Goduckies.Blueduck said:
#1. produce the articleGoduckies said:
And popular mechanics debunked them years ago.Blueduck said:
Im not asking for your help46XiJCAB said:
I’m just trying to help you debunk this BS.Blueduck said:
The woman in the video called it a scud missile, I didn't...go argue with her.46XiJCAB said:
Educated yourself on the trajectory of a scud missile and their history of not being accurate.Blueduck said:
Where do the 800,000 missing/abducted children go every year?46XiJCAB said:
So where is Barbara Olson? And the molten theory only makes sense to non-conspiracy theorists.Blueduck said:
I didn't guarantee the authenticity of the video, I merely asked if it the timing was coincidence with the redacted piece.46XiJCAB said:Good grief.
The plane that hit the Pentagon was witnessed by drivers. I love the lunatic showing the grainy pick of the “scud missile” sounding so believable.
The plane turned into a molten ball as it tore through the building. Shocking there was nothing left.
To some.
Fwiw your molten ball theory doesn't cut the mustard.
The wings would have sheared And the engines would have been left outside.....or
The hole in the building does not jive with the damage that would have been caused if the engines had entered the building.
An engine was discovered but was not anywhere near the size of the reported planes engines.
You should probably do a little more research.
There is evidence that contradicts those "witness" accounts.
Why does the reporter at the scene clearly state there is no evidence a plane crashed into the pentagon.
He doesn't mention a molten ball that could have been a plane either.
You are a big boy, Im not going to answer your questions because you wont believe anything I say about it anyway.
You have to go look and find the truth for yourself..or not.
But sure, they fired one at ground level and scored a direct hit on the Pentagon.
Conspiracy nuts can create the narrative evidence to fit their insane theories.
A witness saw the plane clip a light pole on the freeway.
Back on page 1 I linked a couple documentary videos, I hope you go back and take the time to watch them. There are many independent expert architectural engineers in those videos who weigh in on the world trade center building(s) collapse and the official government report on 911.
If not.... that's your choice.
#2 explain why you believe an article in a magazine over a large group of credentialed architects, professors, engineers and demolition experts with years of experience working in the field and have actual degrees in designing building and demolition of high rise buildings and have to know and how these buildings collapse and study structural integrity before they can ever build their designs.
A group of experts in their respective fields that has read the official reports and studied all the evidence that was available on the WTC buildings and give their opinions and put their credibility on the line.
Are you going to put all your eggs in the popular mechanics basket or would you want to see/hear from people who are experts and not on the government payroll.
I see you've been back to the thread to vote on poasts but chose not to respond to a direct quote.
You were challenged and asked to produce the Popular mechanics article you claim debunks the documentaries I linked.
Im not like 46, I am more than willing to consider evidence on a topic I haven't seen. I am eager to read what you believe so I can understand your position better!
Or does 46 speak for you?
I hate to think you two tried to play a distraction game so you didn't have to back up your claim .
I produced 2 documentary videos on page 1 of this thread and 46 refuses to consider or acknowledge them but has produced nothing except his opinion to refute and he liked your poast about a popular mechanics article.
What say you?
Will you cite this article?
Issue#month/year at least?
or do you intend I go looking for it?
Thank you for poasting this, and I have read it...Goduckies said:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/Blueduck said:
Bump for @Goduckies.Blueduck said:
#1. produce the articleGoduckies said:
And popular mechanics debunked them years ago.Blueduck said:
Im not asking for your help46XiJCAB said:
I’m just trying to help you debunk this BS.Blueduck said:
The woman in the video called it a scud missile, I didn't...go argue with her.46XiJCAB said:
Educated yourself on the trajectory of a scud missile and their history of not being accurate.Blueduck said:
Where do the 800,000 missing/abducted children go every year?46XiJCAB said:
So where is Barbara Olson? And the molten theory only makes sense to non-conspiracy theorists.Blueduck said:
I didn't guarantee the authenticity of the video, I merely asked if it the timing was coincidence with the redacted piece.46XiJCAB said:Good grief.
The plane that hit the Pentagon was witnessed by drivers. I love the lunatic showing the grainy pick of the “scud missile” sounding so believable.
The plane turned into a molten ball as it tore through the building. Shocking there was nothing left.
To some.
Fwiw your molten ball theory doesn't cut the mustard.
The wings would have sheared And the engines would have been left outside.....or
The hole in the building does not jive with the damage that would have been caused if the engines had entered the building.
An engine was discovered but was not anywhere near the size of the reported planes engines.
You should probably do a little more research.
There is evidence that contradicts those "witness" accounts.
Why does the reporter at the scene clearly state there is no evidence a plane crashed into the pentagon.
He doesn't mention a molten ball that could have been a plane either.
You are a big boy, Im not going to answer your questions because you wont believe anything I say about it anyway.
You have to go look and find the truth for yourself..or not.
But sure, they fired one at ground level and scored a direct hit on the Pentagon.
Conspiracy nuts can create the narrative evidence to fit their insane theories.
A witness saw the plane clip a light pole on the freeway.
Back on page 1 I linked a couple documentary videos, I hope you go back and take the time to watch them. There are many independent expert architectural engineers in those videos who weigh in on the world trade center building(s) collapse and the official government report on 911.
If not.... that's your choice.
#2 explain why you believe an article in a magazine over a large group of credentialed architects, professors, engineers and demolition experts with years of experience working in the field and have actual degrees in designing building and demolition of high rise buildings and have to know and how these buildings collapse and study structural integrity before they can ever build their designs.
A group of experts in their respective fields that has read the official reports and studied all the evidence that was available on the WTC buildings and give their opinions and put their credibility on the line.
Are you going to put all your eggs in the popular mechanics basket or would you want to see/hear from people who are experts and not on the government payroll.
I do have an issue with this article specifically, it is not the article you referenced as from " years ago". This article was published last year and is a revisit summary to the original article.
However, this article does give the issue number and date of the original published article from 2005 I am sure I can find it archived with that information.
I will hunt it down.
-
It's a repost of the original article
-
Bump for Goduckies.Blueduck said:
#1. produce the articleGoduckies said:
And popular mechanics debunked them years ago.Blueduck said:
Im not asking for your help46XiJCAB said:
I’m just trying to help you debunk this BS.Blueduck said:
The woman in the video called it a scud missile, I didn't...go argue with her.46XiJCAB said:
Educated yourself on the trajectory of a scud missile and their history of not being accurate.Blueduck said:
Where do the 800,000 missing/abducted children go every year?46XiJCAB said:
So where is Barbara Olson? And the molten theory only makes sense to non-conspiracy theorists.Blueduck said:
I didn't guarantee the authenticity of the video, I merely asked if it the timing was coincidence with the redacted piece.46XiJCAB said:Good grief.
The plane that hit the Pentagon was witnessed by drivers. I love the lunatic showing the grainy pick of the “scud missile” sounding so believable.
The plane turned into a molten ball as it tore through the building. Shocking there was nothing left.
To some.
Fwiw your molten ball theory doesn't cut the mustard.
The wings would have sheared And the engines would have been left outside.....or
The hole in the building does not jive with the damage that would have been caused if the engines had entered the building.
An engine was discovered but was not anywhere near the size of the reported planes engines.
You should probably do a little more research.
There is evidence that contradicts those "witness" accounts.
Why does the reporter at the scene clearly state there is no evidence a plane crashed into the pentagon.
He doesn't mention a molten ball that could have been a plane either.
You are a big boy, Im not going to answer your questions because you wont believe anything I say about it anyway.
You have to go look and find the truth for yourself..or not.
But sure, they fired one at ground level and scored a direct hit on the Pentagon.
Conspiracy nuts can create the narrative evidence to fit their insane theories.
A witness saw the plane clip a light pole on the freeway.
Back on page 1 I linked a couple documentary videos, I hope you go back and take the time to watch them. There are many independent expert architectural engineers in those videos who weigh in on the world trade center building(s) collapse and the official government report on 911.
If not.... that's your choice.
#2 explain why you believe an article in a magazine over a large group of credentialed architects, professors, engineers and demolition experts with years of experience working in the field and have actual degrees in designing building and demolition of high rise buildings and have to know and how these buildings collapse and study structural integrity before they can ever build their designs.
A group of experts in their respective fields that has read the official reports and studied all the evidence that was available on the WTC buildings and give their opinions and put their credibility on the line.
Are you going to put all your eggs in the popular mechanics basket or would you want to see/hear from people who are experts and not on the government payroll.
I see you've been back to the thread but ch
Thank you for posting this, I have one issue, this is from last year, you stated "years ago", do you have a link to the original articleGoduckies said:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/Blueduck said:
Bump for @Goduckies.Blueduck said:
#1. produce the articleGoduckies said:
And popular mechanics debunked them years ago.Blueduck said:
Im not asking for your help46XiJCAB said:
I’m just trying to help you debunk this BS.Blueduck said:
The woman in the video called it a scud missile, I didn't...go argue with her.46XiJCAB said:
Educated yourself on the trajectory of a scud missile and their history of not being accurate.Blueduck said:
Where do the 800,000 missing/abducted children go every year?46XiJCAB said:
So where is Barbara Olson? And the molten theory only makes sense to non-conspiracy theorists.Blueduck said:
I didn't guarantee the authenticity of the video, I merely asked if it the timing was coincidence with the redacted piece.46XiJCAB said:Good grief.
The plane that hit the Pentagon was witnessed by drivers. I love the lunatic showing the grainy pick of the “scud missile” sounding so believable.
The plane turned into a molten ball as it tore through the building. Shocking there was nothing left.
To some.
Fwiw your molten ball theory doesn't cut the mustard.
The wings would have sheared And the engines would have been left outside.....or
The hole in the building does not jive with the damage that would have been caused if the engines had entered the building.
An engine was discovered but was not anywhere near the size of the reported planes engines.
You should probably do a little more research.
There is evidence that contradicts those "witness" accounts.
Why does the reporter at the scene clearly state there is no evidence a plane crashed into the pentagon.
He doesn't mention a molten ball that could have been a plane either.
You are a big boy, Im not going to answer your questions because you wont believe anything I say about it anyway.
You have to go look and find the truth for yourself..or not.
But sure, they fired one at ground level and scored a direct hit on the Pentagon.
Conspiracy nuts can create the narrative evidence to fit their insane theories.
A witness saw the plane clip a light pole on the freeway.
Back on page 1 I linked a couple documentary videos, I hope you go back and take the time to watch them. There are many independent expert architectural engineers in those videos who weigh in on the world trade center building(s) collapse and the official government report on 911.
If not.... that's your choice.
#2 explain why you believe an article in a magazine over a large group of credentialed architects, professors, engineers and demolition experts with years of experience working in the field and have actual degrees in designing building and demolition of high rise buildings and have to know and how these buildings collapse and study structural integrity before they can ever build their designs.
A group of experts in their respective fields that has read the official reports and studied all the evidence that was available on the WTC buildings and give their opinions and put their credibility on the line.
Are you going to put all your eggs in the popular mechanics basket or would you want to see/hear from people who are experts and not on the government payroll.
I see you've been back to the thread to vote on poasts but chose not to respond to a direct quote.
You were challenged and asked to produce the Popular mechanics article you claim debunks the documentaries I linked.
Im not like 46, I am more than willing to consider evidence on a topic I haven't seen. I am eager to read what you believe so I can understand your position better!
Or does 46 speak for you?
I hate to think you two tried to play a distraction game so you didn't have to back up your claim .
I produced 2 documentary videos on page 1 of this thread and 46 refuses to consider or acknowledge them but has produced nothing except his opinion to refute and he liked your poast about a popular mechanics article.
What say you?
Will you cite this article?
Issue#month/year at least?
or do you intend I go looking for it?
Yes it even says it is.Goduckies said:It's a repost of the original article
-
In the history of concrete and steel construction, how many buildings have failed due to fire?46XiJCAB said:
Good grief.PurpleThrobber said:
You mean the Smithsonian - a government entity?46XiJCAB said:
The Smithsonian Channel helped debunk all of this stupidity years ago. Go watch it on YouTube.Blueduck said:
Bump for @Goduckies.Blueduck said:
#1. produce the articleGoduckies said:
And popular mechanics debunked them years ago.Blueduck said:
Im not asking for your help46XiJCAB said:
I’m just trying to help you debunk this BS.Blueduck said:
The woman in the video called it a scud missile, I didn't...go argue with her.46XiJCAB said:
Educated yourself on the trajectory of a scud missile and their history of not being accurate.Blueduck said:
Where do the 800,000 missing/abducted children go every year?46XiJCAB said:
So where is Barbara Olson? And the molten theory only makes sense to non-conspiracy theorists.Blueduck said:
I didn't guarantee the authenticity of the video, I merely asked if it the timing was coincidence with the redacted piece.46XiJCAB said:Good grief.
The plane that hit the Pentagon was witnessed by drivers. I love the lunatic showing the grainy pick of the “scud missile” sounding so believable.
The plane turned into a molten ball as it tore through the building. Shocking there was nothing left.
To some.
Fwiw your molten ball theory doesn't cut the mustard.
The wings would have sheared And the engines would have been left outside.....or
The hole in the building does not jive with the damage that would have been caused if the engines had entered the building.
An engine was discovered but was not anywhere near the size of the reported planes engines.
You should probably do a little more research.
There is evidence that contradicts those "witness" accounts.
Why does the reporter at the scene clearly state there is no evidence a plane crashed into the pentagon.
He doesn't mention a molten ball that could have been a plane either.
You are a big boy, Im not going to answer your questions because you wont believe anything I say about it anyway.
You have to go look and find the truth for yourself..or not.
But sure, they fired one at ground level and scored a direct hit on the Pentagon.
Conspiracy nuts can create the narrative evidence to fit their insane theories.
A witness saw the plane clip a light pole on the freeway.
Back on page 1 I linked a couple documentary videos, I hope you go back and take the time to watch them. There are many independent expert architectural engineers in those videos who weigh in on the world trade center building(s) collapse and the official government report on 911.
If not.... that's your choice.
#2 explain why you believe an article in a magazine over a large group of credentialed architects, professors, engineers and demolition experts with years of experience working in the field and have actual degrees in designing building and demolition of high rise buildings and have to know and how these buildings collapse and study structural integrity before they can ever build their designs.
A group of experts in their respective fields that has read the official reports and studied all the evidence that was available on the WTC buildings and give their opinions and put their credibility on the line.
Are you going to put all your eggs in the popular mechanics basket or would you want to see/hear from people who are experts and not on the government payroll.
I see you've been back to the thread to vote on poasts but chose not to respond to a direct quote.
You were challenged and asked to produce the Popular mechanics article you claim debunks the documentaries I linked.
Im not like 46, I am more than willing to consider evidence on a topic I haven't seen. I am eager to read what you believe so I can understand your position better!
Or does 46 speak for you?
I hate to think you two tried to play a distraction game so you didn't have to back up your claim .
I produced 2 documentary videos on page 1 of this thread and 46 refuses to consider or acknowledge them but has produced nothing except his opinion to refute and he liked your poast about a popular mechanics article.
What say you?
Will you cite this article?
Issue#month/year at least?
or do you intend I go looking for it?
It’s not my “opinion” I’m sharing. It’s based on watching non-conspiratard documentaries on the buildings collapsing and why.
Now do PBS.
Steel melts at 2600 degrees.
Jet fuel reaches 1500 degrees.
Steel begins to bend at 600 degrees.
Now do the math and understand that as the steel began to and continued to lose structural integrity, the weight of the upper floors caused a collapse.
But do carry on with the dipshittery that it was something nefarious.
It’s amusing.
Take as much tim as you need.
-
46XiJCAB said:
Told ya.haie said:
Literally zero duck fans/alums can do that though.46XiJCAB said:
Now do the mathPurpleThrobber said:
You mean the Smithsonian - a government entity?46XiJCAB said:
The Smithsonian Channel helped debunk all of this stupidity years ago. Go watch it on YouTube.Blueduck said:
Bump for @Goduckies.Blueduck said:
#1. produce the articleGoduckies said:
And popular mechanics debunked them years ago.Blueduck said:
Im not asking for your help46XiJCAB said:
I’m just trying to help you debunk this BS.Blueduck said:
The woman in the video called it a scud missile, I didn't...go argue with her.46XiJCAB said:
Educated yourself on the trajectory of a scud missile and their history of not being accurate.Blueduck said:
Where do the 800,000 missing/abducted children go every year?46XiJCAB said:
So where is Barbara Olson? And the molten theory only makes sense to non-conspiracy theorists.Blueduck said:
I didn't guarantee the authenticity of the video, I merely asked if it the timing was coincidence with the redacted piece.46XiJCAB said:Good grief.
The plane that hit the Pentagon was witnessed by drivers. I love the lunatic showing the grainy pick of the “scud missile” sounding so believable.
The plane turned into a molten ball as it tore through the building. Shocking there was nothing left.
To some.
Fwiw your molten ball theory doesn't cut the mustard.
The wings would have sheared And the engines would have been left outside.....or
The hole in the building does not jive with the damage that would have been caused if the engines had entered the building.
An engine was discovered but was not anywhere near the size of the reported planes engines.
You should probably do a little more research.
There is evidence that contradicts those "witness" accounts.
Why does the reporter at the scene clearly state there is no evidence a plane crashed into the pentagon.
He doesn't mention a molten ball that could have been a plane either.
You are a big boy, Im not going to answer your questions because you wont believe anything I say about it anyway.
You have to go look and find the truth for yourself..or not.
But sure, they fired one at ground level and scored a direct hit on the Pentagon.
Conspiracy nuts can create the narrative evidence to fit their insane theories.
A witness saw the plane clip a light pole on the freeway.
Back on page 1 I linked a couple documentary videos, I hope you go back and take the time to watch them. There are many independent expert architectural engineers in those videos who weigh in on the world trade center building(s) collapse and the official government report on 911.
If not.... that's your choice.
#2 explain why you believe an article in a magazine over a large group of credentialed architects, professors, engineers and demolition experts with years of experience working in the field and have actual degrees in designing building and demolition of high rise buildings and have to know and how these buildings collapse and study structural integrity before they can ever build their designs.
A group of experts in their respective fields that has read the official reports and studied all the evidence that was available on the WTC buildings and give their opinions and put their credibility on the line.
Are you going to put all your eggs in the popular mechanics basket or would you want to see/hear from people who are experts and not on the government payroll.
I see you've been back to the thread to vote on poasts but chose not to respond to a direct quote.
You were challenged and asked to produce the Popular mechanics article you claim debunks the documentaries I linked.
Im not like 46, I am more than willing to consider evidence on a topic I haven't seen. I am eager to read what you believe so I can understand your position better!
Or does 46 speak for you?
I hate to think you two tried to play a distraction game so you didn't have to back up your claim .
I produced 2 documentary videos on page 1 of this thread and 46 refuses to consider or acknowledge them but has produced nothing except his opinion to refute and he liked your poast about a popular mechanics article.
What say you?
Will you cite this article?
Issue#month/year at least?
or do you intend I go looking for it?
It’s not my “opinion” I’m sharing. It’s based on watching non-conspiratard documentaries on the buildings collapsing and why.
Now do PBS.46XiJCAB said:Told ya.
46XiJCAB said:
I’m one of a kind!Goduckies said:And for the record i am definitely not 46xi
46XiJCAB said:Told ya
The mental firepower here is staggering, quite honestly.46XiJCAB said:Told ya.
-
Conspiratard Pawz is clearly broken.pawz said:46XiJCAB said:
Told ya.haie said:
Literally zero duck fans/alums can do that though.46XiJCAB said:
Now do the mathPurpleThrobber said:
You mean the Smithsonian - a government entity?46XiJCAB said:
The Smithsonian Channel helped debunk all of this stupidity years ago. Go watch it on YouTube.Blueduck said:
Bump for @Goduckies.Blueduck said:
#1. produce the articleGoduckies said:
And popular mechanics debunked them years ago.Blueduck said:
Im not asking for your help46XiJCAB said:
I’m just trying to help you debunk this BS.Blueduck said:
The woman in the video called it a scud missile, I didn't...go argue with her.46XiJCAB said:
Educated yourself on the trajectory of a scud missile and their history of not being accurate.Blueduck said:
Where do the 800,000 missing/abducted children go every year?46XiJCAB said:
So where is Barbara Olson? And the molten theory only makes sense to non-conspiracy theorists.Blueduck said:
I didn't guarantee the authenticity of the video, I merely asked if it the timing was coincidence with the redacted piece.46XiJCAB said:Good grief.
The plane that hit the Pentagon was witnessed by drivers. I love the lunatic showing the grainy pick of the “scud missile” sounding so believable.
The plane turned into a molten ball as it tore through the building. Shocking there was nothing left.
To some.
Fwiw your molten ball theory doesn't cut the mustard.
The wings would have sheared And the engines would have been left outside.....or
The hole in the building does not jive with the damage that would have been caused if the engines had entered the building.
An engine was discovered but was not anywhere near the size of the reported planes engines.
You should probably do a little more research.
There is evidence that contradicts those "witness" accounts.
Why does the reporter at the scene clearly state there is no evidence a plane crashed into the pentagon.
He doesn't mention a molten ball that could have been a plane either.
You are a big boy, Im not going to answer your questions because you wont believe anything I say about it anyway.
You have to go look and find the truth for yourself..or not.
But sure, they fired one at ground level and scored a direct hit on the Pentagon.
Conspiracy nuts can create the narrative evidence to fit their insane theories.
A witness saw the plane clip a light pole on the freeway.
Back on page 1 I linked a couple documentary videos, I hope you go back and take the time to watch them. There are many independent expert architectural engineers in those videos who weigh in on the world trade center building(s) collapse and the official government report on 911.
If not.... that's your choice.
#2 explain why you believe an article in a magazine over a large group of credentialed architects, professors, engineers and demolition experts with years of experience working in the field and have actual degrees in designing building and demolition of high rise buildings and have to know and how these buildings collapse and study structural integrity before they can ever build their designs.
A group of experts in their respective fields that has read the official reports and studied all the evidence that was available on the WTC buildings and give their opinions and put their credibility on the line.
Are you going to put all your eggs in the popular mechanics basket or would you want to see/hear from people who are experts and not on the government payroll.
I see you've been back to the thread to vote on poasts but chose not to respond to a direct quote.
You were challenged and asked to produce the Popular mechanics article you claim debunks the documentaries I linked.
Im not like 46, I am more than willing to consider evidence on a topic I haven't seen. I am eager to read what you believe so I can understand your position better!
Or does 46 speak for you?
I hate to think you two tried to play a distraction game so you didn't have to back up your claim .
I produced 2 documentary videos on page 1 of this thread and 46 refuses to consider or acknowledge them but has produced nothing except his opinion to refute and he liked your poast about a popular mechanics article.
What say you?
Will you cite this article?
Issue#month/year at least?
or do you intend I go looking for it?
It’s not my “opinion” I’m sharing. It’s based on watching non-conspiratard documentaries on the buildings collapsing and why.
Now do PBS.46XiJCAB said:Told ya.
46XiJCAB said:
I’m one of a kind!Goduckies said:And for the record i am definitely not 46xi
46XiJCAB said:Told ya
The mental firepower here is staggering, quite honestly.46XiJCAB said:Told ya.
-
Two too many.pawz said:
In the history of concrete and steel construction, how many buildings have failed due to fire?46XiJCAB said:
Good grief.PurpleThrobber said:
You mean the Smithsonian - a government entity?46XiJCAB said:
The Smithsonian Channel helped debunk all of this stupidity years ago. Go watch it on YouTube.Blueduck said:
Bump for @Goduckies.Blueduck said:
#1. produce the articleGoduckies said:
And popular mechanics debunked them years ago.Blueduck said:
Im not asking for your help46XiJCAB said:
I’m just trying to help you debunk this BS.Blueduck said:
The woman in the video called it a scud missile, I didn't...go argue with her.46XiJCAB said:
Educated yourself on the trajectory of a scud missile and their history of not being accurate.Blueduck said:
Where do the 800,000 missing/abducted children go every year?46XiJCAB said:
So where is Barbara Olson? And the molten theory only makes sense to non-conspiracy theorists.Blueduck said:
I didn't guarantee the authenticity of the video, I merely asked if it the timing was coincidence with the redacted piece.46XiJCAB said:Good grief.
The plane that hit the Pentagon was witnessed by drivers. I love the lunatic showing the grainy pick of the “scud missile” sounding so believable.
The plane turned into a molten ball as it tore through the building. Shocking there was nothing left.
To some.
Fwiw your molten ball theory doesn't cut the mustard.
The wings would have sheared And the engines would have been left outside.....or
The hole in the building does not jive with the damage that would have been caused if the engines had entered the building.
An engine was discovered but was not anywhere near the size of the reported planes engines.
You should probably do a little more research.
There is evidence that contradicts those "witness" accounts.
Why does the reporter at the scene clearly state there is no evidence a plane crashed into the pentagon.
He doesn't mention a molten ball that could have been a plane either.
You are a big boy, Im not going to answer your questions because you wont believe anything I say about it anyway.
You have to go look and find the truth for yourself..or not.
But sure, they fired one at ground level and scored a direct hit on the Pentagon.
Conspiracy nuts can create the narrative evidence to fit their insane theories.
A witness saw the plane clip a light pole on the freeway.
Back on page 1 I linked a couple documentary videos, I hope you go back and take the time to watch them. There are many independent expert architectural engineers in those videos who weigh in on the world trade center building(s) collapse and the official government report on 911.
If not.... that's your choice.
#2 explain why you believe an article in a magazine over a large group of credentialed architects, professors, engineers and demolition experts with years of experience working in the field and have actual degrees in designing building and demolition of high rise buildings and have to know and how these buildings collapse and study structural integrity before they can ever build their designs.
A group of experts in their respective fields that has read the official reports and studied all the evidence that was available on the WTC buildings and give their opinions and put their credibility on the line.
Are you going to put all your eggs in the popular mechanics basket or would you want to see/hear from people who are experts and not on the government payroll.
I see you've been back to the thread to vote on poasts but chose not to respond to a direct quote.
You were challenged and asked to produce the Popular mechanics article you claim debunks the documentaries I linked.
Im not like 46, I am more than willing to consider evidence on a topic I haven't seen. I am eager to read what you believe so I can understand your position better!
Or does 46 speak for you?
I hate to think you two tried to play a distraction game so you didn't have to back up your claim .
I produced 2 documentary videos on page 1 of this thread and 46 refuses to consider or acknowledge them but has produced nothing except his opinion to refute and he liked your poast about a popular mechanics article.
What say you?
Will you cite this article?
Issue#month/year at least?
or do you intend I go looking for it?
It’s not my “opinion” I’m sharing. It’s based on watching non-conspiratard documentaries on the buildings collapsing and why.
Now do PBS.
Steel melts at 2600 degrees.
Jet fuel reaches 1500 degrees.
Steel begins to bend at 600 degrees.
Now do the math and understand that as the steel began to and continued to lose structural integrity, the weight of the upper floors caused a collapse.
But do carry on with the dipshittery that it was something nefarious.
It’s amusing.
Take as much tim as you need.
Next?
Watched these two teenage conspiradorks after 9-11 make fools of themselves with the same BS.
Pawz? -
Blueduck said:Goduckies said:
And popular mechanics debunked them years ago.Blueduck said:
Im not asking for your help46XiJCAB said:
I’m just trying to help you debunk this BS.Blueduck said:
The woman in the video called it a scud missile, I didn't...go argue with her.46XiJCAB said:
Educated yourself on the trajectory of a scud missile and their history of not being accurate.Blueduck said:
Where do the 800,000 missing/abducted children go every year?46XiJCAB said:
So where is Barbara Olson? And the molten theory only makes sense to non-conspiracy theorists.Blueduck said:
I didn't guarantee the authenticity of the video, I merely asked if it the timing was coincidence with the redacted piece.46XiJCAB said:Good grief.
The plane that hit the Pentagon was witnessed by drivers. I love the lunatic showing the grainy pick of the “scud missile” sounding so believable.
The plane turned into a molten ball as it tore through the building. Shocking there was nothing left.
To some.
Fwiw your molten ball theory doesn't cut the mustard.
The wings would have sheared And the engines would have been left outside.....or
The hole in the building does not jive with the damage that would have been caused if the engines had entered the building.
An engine was discovered but was not anywhere near the size of the reported planes engines.
You should probably do a little more research.
There is evidence that contradicts those "witness" accounts.
Why does the reporter at the scene clearly state there is no evidence a plane crashed into the pentagon.
He doesn't mention a molten ball that could have been a plane either.
You are a big boy, Im not going to answer your questions because you wont believe anything I say about it anyway.
You have to go look and find the truth for yourself..or not.
But sure, they fired one at ground level and scored a direct hit on the Pentagon.
Conspiracy nuts can create the narrative evidence to fit their insane theories.
A witness saw the plane clip a light pole on the freeway.
Back on page 1 I linked a couple documentary videos, I hope you go back and take the time to watch them. There are many independent expert architectural engineers in those videos who weigh in on the world trade center building(s) collapse and the official government report on 911.
If not.... that's your choice.
This statement is incorrectGoduckies said:
And popular mechanics debunked them years ago.Blueduck said:
Im not asking for your help46XiJCAB said:
I’m just trying to help you debunk this BS.Blueduck said:
The woman in the video called it a scud missile, I didn't...go argue with her.46XiJCAB said:
Educated yourself on the trajectory of a scud missile and their history of not being accurate.Blueduck said:
Where do the 800,000 missing/abducted children go every year?46XiJCAB said:
So where is Barbara Olson? And the molten theory only makes sense to non-conspiracy theorists.Blueduck said:
I didn't guarantee the authenticity of the video, I merely asked if it the timing was coincidence with the redacted piece.46XiJCAB said:Good grief.
The plane that hit the Pentagon was witnessed by drivers. I love the lunatic showing the grainy pick of the “scud missile” sounding so believable.
The plane turned into a molten ball as it tore through the building. Shocking there was nothing left.
To some.
Fwiw your molten ball theory doesn't cut the mustard.
The wings would have sheared And the engines would have been left outside.....or
The hole in the building does not jive with the damage that would have been caused if the engines had entered the building.
An engine was discovered but was not anywhere near the size of the reported planes engines.
You should probably do a little more research.
There is evidence that contradicts those "witness" accounts.
Why does the reporter at the scene clearly state there is no evidence a plane crashed into the pentagon.
He doesn't mention a molten ball that could have been a plane either.
You are a big boy, Im not going to answer your questions because you wont believe anything I say about it anyway.
You have to go look and find the truth for yourself..or not.
But sure, they fired one at ground level and scored a direct hit on the Pentagon.
Conspiracy nuts can create the narrative evidence to fit their insane theories.
A witness saw the plane clip a light pole on the freeway.
Back on page 1 I linked a couple documentary videos, I hope you go back and take the time to watch them. There are many independent expert architectural engineers in those videos who weigh in on the world trade center building(s) collapse and the official government report on 911.
If not.... that's your choice.
The Popular mechanics article you reference, (original or reposted) does not debunk, address, or even mention the two documentary films I linked.
The article does claims to debunk several specific groups conspiracy claims and other general theories that swirled around in the years after leading up to the artcle.
Popular mechanics states it consulted with experts across many fields but it doesn't list them specifically individually or give any credentials.
It does go into some details about some specifics of the damage and conclusions..it sprinkles in some statistics but it geared towards the layman reader and doesn't go into depth because it isn't written to give all the information to the reader.
Further the article cites FEMA and NIST, as the major sources of the article which are both government agencies.
And the forward is authored by none other than John McCain
The article does not debunk the independent studies of the group of professionals in either documentary I linked which does cites each person qualifications training etc.who contribute an opinion.
. Nor does the PM article dive into the 9/11 commission reports problems, contradictions and omissions by government investigators.
I do appreciate you posting the link to the article -
Clearly.46XiJCAB said:
Conspiratard Pawz is clearly broken.pawz said:46XiJCAB said:
Told ya.haie said:
Literally zero duck fans/alums can do that though.46XiJCAB said:
Now do the mathPurpleThrobber said:
You mean the Smithsonian - a government entity?46XiJCAB said:
The Smithsonian Channel helped debunk all of this stupidity years ago. Go watch it on YouTube.Blueduck said:
Bump for @Goduckies.Blueduck said:
#1. produce the articleGoduckies said:
And popular mechanics debunked them years ago.Blueduck said:
Im not asking for your help46XiJCAB said:
I’m just trying to help you debunk this BS.Blueduck said:
The woman in the video called it a scud missile, I didn't...go argue with her.46XiJCAB said:
Educated yourself on the trajectory of a scud missile and their history of not being accurate.Blueduck said:
Where do the 800,000 missing/abducted children go every year?46XiJCAB said:
So where is Barbara Olson? And the molten theory only makes sense to non-conspiracy theorists.Blueduck said:
I didn't guarantee the authenticity of the video, I merely asked if it the timing was coincidence with the redacted piece.46XiJCAB said:Good grief.
The plane that hit the Pentagon was witnessed by drivers. I love the lunatic showing the grainy pick of the “scud missile” sounding so believable.
The plane turned into a molten ball as it tore through the building. Shocking there was nothing left.
To some.
Fwiw your molten ball theory doesn't cut the mustard.
The wings would have sheared And the engines would have been left outside.....or
The hole in the building does not jive with the damage that would have been caused if the engines had entered the building.
An engine was discovered but was not anywhere near the size of the reported planes engines.
You should probably do a little more research.
There is evidence that contradicts those "witness" accounts.
Why does the reporter at the scene clearly state there is no evidence a plane crashed into the pentagon.
He doesn't mention a molten ball that could have been a plane either.
You are a big boy, Im not going to answer your questions because you wont believe anything I say about it anyway.
You have to go look and find the truth for yourself..or not.
But sure, they fired one at ground level and scored a direct hit on the Pentagon.
Conspiracy nuts can create the narrative evidence to fit their insane theories.
A witness saw the plane clip a light pole on the freeway.
Back on page 1 I linked a couple documentary videos, I hope you go back and take the time to watch them. There are many independent expert architectural engineers in those videos who weigh in on the world trade center building(s) collapse and the official government report on 911.
If not.... that's your choice.
#2 explain why you believe an article in a magazine over a large group of credentialed architects, professors, engineers and demolition experts with years of experience working in the field and have actual degrees in designing building and demolition of high rise buildings and have to know and how these buildings collapse and study structural integrity before they can ever build their designs.
A group of experts in their respective fields that has read the official reports and studied all the evidence that was available on the WTC buildings and give their opinions and put their credibility on the line.
Are you going to put all your eggs in the popular mechanics basket or would you want to see/hear from people who are experts and not on the government payroll.
I see you've been back to the thread to vote on poasts but chose not to respond to a direct quote.
You were challenged and asked to produce the Popular mechanics article you claim debunks the documentaries I linked.
Im not like 46, I am more than willing to consider evidence on a topic I haven't seen. I am eager to read what you believe so I can understand your position better!
Or does 46 speak for you?
I hate to think you two tried to play a distraction game so you didn't have to back up your claim .
I produced 2 documentary videos on page 1 of this thread and 46 refuses to consider or acknowledge them but has produced nothing except his opinion to refute and he liked your poast about a popular mechanics article.
What say you?
Will you cite this article?
Issue#month/year at least?
or do you intend I go looking for it?
It’s not my “opinion” I’m sharing. It’s based on watching non-conspiratard documentaries on the buildings collapsing and why.
Now do PBS.46XiJCAB said:Told ya.
46XiJCAB said:
I’m one of a kind!Goduckies said:And for the record i am definitely not 46xi
46XiJCAB said:Told ya
The mental firepower here is staggering, quite honestly.46XiJCAB said:Told ya.
