5th Airplane on 9/11 - FBI Coverup?

Goduckies said:
Blueduck said:
Goduckies said:
pawz said:
The reason I will never believe out government was not involved, is because Building 7 was so clearly a controlled demolition. A controlled demolition takes WEEKS to set up.

I’m happy to leave the rest of the day up for debate.

I agree this story is kind of a nothing burger other than additional background information.

.
Click to expand...
Again popular mechanics debunks that
Click to expand...
I've already debunked you claim popular mechanic debunked it because the "documentaries" that I provided you links to and you still refuse to watch, were made 2-3 years AFTER your popular mechanics debunking article.
Click to expand...
I watched it, didn't debunked shit
Click to expand...
Correct,
The fact that the documentary was 2 + years later proves popular mechanics was not debunking the documentary films I tried to get you to watch on multiple occasions.
I don't believe you watched any of the links I gave you. There is enough information in those videos backed up by unbiased unpaid experts and career professors in structural engineering to make you question the "official"report given by the 911 commission.
You can disagree and that's ok if you actually watched but you continually tout the popular mechanics article as the gospel truth without ever seeing all the evidence....and I have time and time proved your article was not pointing to the documentary(s) I produced
Condemnation before investigation
The single biggest barrier to truth is the assumption you already have it..
Im done trying to help you understand . but Im not going to sit by quietly while you continue to hide behind that article as proof of anything except it came out to quell the theories of anything other than the government narrative years prior to the point when actual experts working and teaching in the field came out and called BS!

DTM!
 
RaceBannon said:
Content providers need to be better. This was on X as BREAKING. I thought to myself - I've seen this before. Turns out it is 2 years old and was on Youtube and the A&E Network where I saw it
It's interesting and convincing. Probably true. It also shows how retarded the FBI is. No reason to deny it happened
The government was not directly involved in 9-11. Osama was an asset that got out of control. You had the same dumbfucks in government that didn't want to look at the hijackers because of profiling and they knew they fucked to dog bigly
Hey we don't need to learn how to land brother
Click to expand...
I don't think Osama was an asset but more so "allowed to operate" as long as he was causing problems for the "right" people.
There's multiple operators who have talked about how they could have assassinated him easily and the cia wouldn't let them.
Then oopsie he made the US a target and had uncomfortable ties to Saudis. Can't have all that be public. Well, never let a crisis go to waste, let's usher in a massive surveillance state, pump a ton of money into the MIC, and go on the deep state's nation building wishlist in the middle east.
 
Anyone who thinks kerosine (read: jet fuel) can melt steel beams is a special kind of something.

Building 7, only the third concrete and steel building to collapse due to fire in recorded history. Anyone want to guess the first two?

.
 
Goduckies said:
Here is the actual facts of wtc 7...
=cpuhOmvRw0irkXh8

Click to expand...
This CGI presentation comes from someone who got their post grad degree in 2012. Im not dismissing his explanation because of that but it has some serious flaws from the outset. Jmho..
Yes I just watched the presentation you poasted objectively..because I believe your evidence deserves consideration. I cannot say you gave me the same respect.
You however have on multiple occasions walked away from the discussion after I proved your claim incorrect and came back in different threads to claim the popular mechanics article to debunk everything again
The fact that you will listen to anything except what I present from actual engineering experts already working in the field when the event happened only proves your not going to listen to me because you don't like me.
That's fine if you have a problem with me but it's apparent the lengths you will go to to avoid pulling your head out of the sand to review ALL evidence including that which might refute your argument.
Again, I'm done trying to help you.
Believe what you will but if you claim the Popular Mechanics preemptively debunks any new evidence, (which you are now trying to present new evidence as fact)… Im going to call you out again!
Good day!
 
Last edited:
pawz said:
Anyone who thinks kerosine (read: jet fuel) can melt steel beams is a special kind of something.

Building 7, only the third concrete and steel building to collapse due to fire in recorded history. Anyone want to guess the first two?

.
Click to expand...
They didn't melt them, make them weaker.
 
Blueduck said:
Goduckies said:
Here is the actual facts of wtc 7...
=cpuhOmvRw0irkXh8

Click to expand...
This CGI presentation comes from someone who got their post grad degree in 2012. Im not dismissing his explanation because of that but it has some serious flaws from the outset. Jmho..
Yes I just watched the presentation you poasted objectively..because I believe your evidence deserves consideration.
You however have on multiple occasions walked away from the discussion after I proved your claim incorrect and came back in different threads to claim the popular mechanics article to debunk everything again
The fact that you will listen to anything except what I present from actual engineering experts already working in the field when the event happened only proves your not going to listen to me because you don't like me.
That's fine if you have a problem with me but it's apparent the lengths you will go to to avoid pulling your head out of the sand to review ALL evidence including that which might refute your argument.
Again, I'm done trying to help you.
Believe what you will but if you claim the Popular Mechanics preemptively debunks any new evidence, (which you are now trying to present new evidence as fact)… Im going to call you out again!
Good day!
Click to expand...
I watched what you posted... didn't see the need to reply since you are so invested in it not being possible... the sound alone debunks the dynamite... there were never recorded sounds loud enough...
 
Goduckies said:
Blueduck said:
Goduckies said:
Here is the actual facts of wtc 7...
=cpuhOmvRw0irkXh8

Click to expand...
This CGI presentation comes from someone who got their post grad degree in 2012. Im not dismissing his explanation because of that but it has some serious flaws from the outset. Jmho..
Yes I just watched the presentation you poasted objectively..because I believe your evidence deserves consideration.
You however have on multiple occasions walked away from the discussion after I proved your claim incorrect and came back in different threads to claim the popular mechanics article to debunk everything again
The fact that you will listen to anything except what I present from actual engineering experts already working in the field when the event happened only proves your not going to listen to me because you don't like me.
That's fine if you have a problem with me but it's apparent the lengths you will go to to avoid pulling your head out of the sand to review ALL evidence including that which might refute your argument.
Again, I'm done trying to help you.
Believe what you will but if you claim the Popular Mechanics preemptively debunks any new evidence, (which you are now trying to present new evidence as fact)… Im going to call you out again!
Good day!
Click to expand...
I watched what you posted... didn't see the need to reply since you are so invested in it not being possible... the sound alone debunks the dynamite... there were never recorded sounds loud enough...
Click to expand...
I am open to ALL evidence new and old, expert testimony and historical data aaand eyewitness testimony that was suppressed!
I am invested in the truth and wherever the evidence leads, not conjecture.
You didn't reply because I would have tried to have a conversation with you about specific evidence in those documentaries that directly refutes the 911 commission report.
You avoid any conversation about the evidence I have given you over and over and over
Unfortunately... That's evidence of your bias and YOUR investment, and why you dodge real discussion with me.
Good day
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top