Redacted | Building 7

pawz said:

show previous quotes

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

Goduckies said:

Blueduck said:

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

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.

I didn't guarantee the authenticity of the video, I merely asked if it the timing was coincidence with the redacted piece.

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.

So where is Barbara Olson? And the molten theory only makes sense to non-conspiracy theorists.

Where do the 800,000 missing/abducted children go every year?

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.

Educated yourself on the trajectory of a scud missile and their history of not being accurate.

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.

The woman in the video called it a scud missile, I didn't...go argue with her.

I’m just trying to help you debunk this BS.

Im not asking for your help

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.

And popular mechanics debunked them years ago.

#1. produce the article

#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.

There are conspiracy nuts in all walks of life. Doctors told us to wear masks outside and stay 6 feet apart.

I was going to wait to see how long it took you to realize the error but The Throbber was on it!
+1 for the throbber.

The fact that you are unwilling to consider evidence presented to you and dismiss it out of hand shows your willingness to believe anything you are told read or heard and not do the hard work for yourself
(In this case it's watching a video so not hard at all).

I could respect your position had you taken time to consider the content in the documentaries I linked and afterwards still held the position that you disagree with their findings and then you can argue point by point why or what you disagree with..that is admirable and proves you are at the very least, willing to do your due diligence.

Unfortunately you are not and just seek to discredit any position you don't agree with by calling a "conspiracy" or anyone involved a "nut"

No need to continue this discussion with you further.

I’ve heard the various conspiracy nut theories for years. I choose not to believe them. You’re free to believe what you want.

The floors being attached to exterior walls was unique. The brackets melted. The floors collapsed onto each other. It’s no more complicated than that.

I agree, no need to continue on.

This is about building 7, Lizzy.

Not 1 & 2


Hope this helps.

Blueduck said:

show previous quotes

46XiJCAB said:

pawz said:

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

Goduckies said:

Blueduck said:

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

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.

I didn't guarantee the authenticity of the video, I merely asked if it the timing was coincidence with the redacted piece.

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.

So where is Barbara Olson? And the molten theory only makes sense to non-conspiracy theorists.

Where do the 800,000 missing/abducted children go every year?

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.

Educated yourself on the trajectory of a scud missile and their history of not being accurate.

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.

The woman in the video called it a scud missile, I didn't...go argue with her.

I’m just trying to help you debunk this BS.

Im not asking for your help

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.

And popular mechanics debunked them years ago.

#1. produce the article

#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.

There are conspiracy nuts in all walks of life. Doctors told us to wear masks outside and stay 6 feet apart.

I was going to wait to see how long it took you to realize the error but The Throbber was on it!
+1 for the throbber.

The fact that you are unwilling to consider evidence presented to you and dismiss it out of hand shows your willingness to believe anything you are told read or heard and not do the hard work for yourself
(In this case it's watching a video so not hard at all).

I could respect your position had you taken time to consider the content in the documentaries I linked and afterwards still held the position that you disagree with their findings and then you can argue point by point why or what you disagree with..that is admirable and proves you are at the very least, willing to do your due diligence.

Unfortunately you are not and just seek to discredit any position you don't agree with by calling a "conspiracy" or anyone involved a "nut"

No need to continue this discussion with you further.

I’ve heard the various conspiracy nut theories for years. I choose not to believe them. You’re free to believe what you want.

The floors being attached to exterior walls was unique. The brackets melted. The floors collapsed onto each other. It’s no more complicated than that.

I agree, no need to continue on.

This is about building 7, Lizzy.

Not 1 & 2


Hope this helps.

BD referenced WTC “buildings.”

Conspiratard.

Good lord, the 2 videos cover all 3 buildings, one specifically is about building 7.
But you would know that had you opened the links.

Proverbs 18:13
But I know you won't bother looking at that either..
Smh!

Blueduck said:

show previous quotes

Blueduck said:

Goduckies said:

Blueduck said:

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

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.

I didn't guarantee the authenticity of the video, I merely asked if it the timing was coincidence with the redacted piece.

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.

So where is Barbara Olson? And the molten theory only makes sense to non-conspiracy theorists.

Where do the 800,000 missing/abducted children go every year?

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.

Educated yourself on the trajectory of a scud missile and their history of not being accurate.

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.

The woman in the video called it a scud missile, I didn't...go argue with her.

I’m just trying to help you debunk this BS.

Im not asking for your help

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.

And popular mechanics debunked them years ago.

#1. produce the article

#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.

Bump for @Goduckies.

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?

Blueduck said:

show previous quotes

Blueduck said:

Goduckies said:

Blueduck said:

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

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.

I didn't guarantee the authenticity of the video, I merely asked if it the timing was coincidence with the redacted piece.

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.

So where is Barbara Olson? And the molten theory only makes sense to non-conspiracy theorists.

Where do the 800,000 missing/abducted children go every year?

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.

Educated yourself on the trajectory of a scud missile and their history of not being accurate.

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.

The woman in the video called it a scud missile, I didn't...go argue with her.

I’m just trying to help you debunk this BS.

Im not asking for your help

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.

And popular mechanics debunked them years ago.

#1. produce the article

#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.

Bump for @Goduckies.

I see you've been back to the thread but ch

show previous quotes

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

Blueduck said:

Goduckies said:

Blueduck said:

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

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.

I didn't guarantee the authenticity of the video, I merely asked if it the timing was coincidence with the redacted piece.

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.

So where is Barbara Olson? And the molten theory only makes sense to non-conspiracy theorists.

Where do the 800,000 missing/abducted children go every year?

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.

Educated yourself on the trajectory of a scud missile and their history of not being accurate.

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.

The woman in the video called it a scud missile, I didn't...go argue with her.

I’m just trying to help you debunk this BS.

Im not asking for your help

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.

And popular mechanics debunked them years ago.

#1. produce the article

#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.

Bump for @Goduckies.

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?

The Smithsonian Channel helped debunk all of this stupidity years ago. Go watch it on YouTube.

It’s not my “opinion” I’m sharing. It’s based on watching non-conspiratard documentaries on the buildings collapsing and why.

You excused yourself from discussing this without producing or citing anything. Now you want to jump back in?

I, as before when you injected yourself, am now trying to talk to Goduckies.

If you want to log out and log back in as Goduckies I will be glad to continue a discussion about a popular mechanics article he reference but I am done with 46 on this topic

PurpleThrobber said:

show previous quotes

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

Blueduck said:

Goduckies said:

Blueduck said:

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

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.

I didn't guarantee the authenticity of the video, I merely asked if it the timing was coincidence with the redacted piece.

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.

So where is Barbara Olson? And the molten theory only makes sense to non-conspiracy theorists.

Where do the 800,000 missing/abducted children go every year?

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.

Educated yourself on the trajectory of a scud missile and their history of not being accurate.

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.

The woman in the video called it a scud missile, I didn't...go argue with her.

I’m just trying to help you debunk this BS.

Im not asking for your help

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.

And popular mechanics debunked them years ago.

#1. produce the article

#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.

Bump for @Goduckies.

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?

The Smithsonian Channel helped debunk all of this stupidity years ago. Go watch it on YouTube.

It’s not my “opinion” I’m sharing. It’s based on watching non-conspiratard documentaries on the buildings collapsing and why.

You mean the Smithsonian - a government entity?

Now do PBS.

haie said:

show previous quotes

46XiJCAB said:

PurpleThrobber said:

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

Blueduck said:

Goduckies said:

Blueduck said:

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

46XiJCAB said:

Blueduck said:

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.

I didn't guarantee the authenticity of the video, I merely asked if it the timing was coincidence with the redacted piece.

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.

So where is Barbara Olson? And the molten theory only makes sense to non-conspiracy theorists.

Where do the 800,000 missing/abducted children go every year?

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.

Educated yourself on the trajectory of a scud missile and their history of not being accurate.

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.

The woman in the video called it a scud missile, I didn't...go argue with her.

I’m just trying to help you debunk this BS.

Im not asking for your help

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.

And popular mechanics debunked them years ago.

#1. produce the article

#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.

Bump for @Goduckies.

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?

The Smithsonian Channel helped debunk all of this stupidity years ago. Go watch it on YouTube.

It’s not my “opinion” I’m sharing. It’s based on watching non-conspiratard documentaries on the buildings collapsing and why.

You mean the Smithsonian - a government entity?

Now do PBS.

Now do the math

Literally zero duck fans/alums can do that though.