The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, Nov 1, 2016.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,098
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You aren't giving answers, you are hand waving them away with the moronic "plausible" claim. You just ignored that very post!

    What crazy number of people do you think is needed to invisibly accomplish it?

    Regarding the witness you have had major problems pointed out to you! Of course you basically ignore them.

    You have somehow to scorch either side of the impact hole to make it look like wings. BECAUSE that is what is in the photographs!

    You have something to actually hit the building and make sure nobody sees it. The least this would require is a facility or ship capable of launching such an object and the team who do this. You say magic bomb now, yet most of your "truther" peers say missile. Are they mistaken then?

    You have no credibility at all. You will say anything to avoid conceding your spammed claims.


    You really are a majorly irritating person. Post answered in full above - #1975!
     
  2. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,098
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow, I post a concise rebuttal from a truther and you pretty much ignore the whole thing and just reassert your mad claims.
     
  3. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This "Truther" misrepresents what he said.

    The person who wrote this...
    http://www.911review.com/articles/ashley/tocon.html#search

    ...was not a truth-seeker and had a foregone conclusion.

    The viewers can compare what he said to what that person wrote.
     
  4. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,098
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No he did not.

    Utterly pathetic. A truther disagrees with you, therefore he isn't a truther. None of you people can agree on a damn thing. It's always a case of the government are lying and any bullshit counts.

    And conclude that he saw the C130, and that he is a very unreliable witness!!

    http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-06/cit-transcript-roosevelt-roberts

    1. Roosevelt Roberts: Looked like to me at that time....a large aircraft liner, it wasn't a jet, it was a commercial aircraft.

    2. Roosevelt Roberts: It looked like jet engines at that time

    Get a clue! And stop evading:

    What crazy number of people do you think is needed to invisibly accomplish it?

    Regarding the witness you have had major problems pointed out to you! Of course you basically ignore them.

    You have somehow to scorch either side of the impact hole to make it look like wings. BECAUSE that is what is in the photographs!

    You have something to actually hit the building and make sure nobody sees it. The least this would require is a facility or ship capable of launching such an object and the team who do this. You say magic bomb now, yet most of your "truther" peers say missile. Are they mistaken then?
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2018
  5. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    just talk, nothing to show as usual.
    you have no evidence its perfectly clear you believe what you want without any facts to back you up.
    does not rule out that they survived, more gubmint worship.
    you certainly quoted him when you tried to put me down only to be checkmated and forced into concession.
    I'm making points that you fail to counter.
    I have, maybe you should consider my response was most likely above your pay grade if you dont comprehend it.
    Please reread my posts, everyone else got it.
    you gave me a pile of trash and now you try to sell it to me as evidence.
    Because poles cut wings off.
    I believe there is still hope for you.
     
  6. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This page seems to be just classic damage-control.
    http://www.911review.com/articles/ashley/tocon.html#history

    Public-relation agencies have come up with sophistry to address everything that challenges the official story. All that's there is testimony from other witnesses who might be lying themselves.


    The plane was flying very low.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-99#post-1070040488

    At that height it's not likely that anyone would mistake prop engines for jet engines. Other witnesses' testimonies' conflicting with his don't make his go away. In a plan this big there are bound to be lots of planted bogus witnesses. You're just cherry picking the witnesses that support what you want to be true which isn't going to impress anyone with any brains. With all of these conflicting testimonies we have to use the actual physical evidence to come to our conclusions and there doesn't seem to be anything conclusive to show a 757 hit the Pentagon. Plane parts can be planted before and after an explosion.

    You pro-official version posters don't seem moved by the fact that the government confiscated all of the cameras in the area and refuses to release the footage which is very telling. You also don't seem to be moved by this.

    http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson
    (excerpt)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An objective truth-seeker wouldn't play that down.


    You also don't seem to be moved by this.

    April Gallup - Was there a bomb in the Pentagon?



    You can't make any of this go away by playing it down and ignoring it. The viewers have seen it and they've seen your lame responses to it. They are watching and judging.
     
  7. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Their shenanigans regarding the Tsarnev brothers in Boston also demonstrate the dishonest nature of the agency.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  8. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,098
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Mangled and melted aluminum, burnt to a crisp soft components. That is a perfect description of what is seen on the 747. It isn't just talk it is what occurs, visibly proven and scientifically backed up.

    Apart from all the 757 pieces, the masses of mangled aircraft, the human DNA, the missing flight, the witness testimony, the onsite expert testimony.

    As mangled burnt junk that is flat and not recognizable as seats. You have no argument, you are afraid to admit anything.

    I referenced another thread where you spammed the same arguments and were not thought very highly of. That isn't a quote and it certainly is no factor in my knowing him.

    ]quote]only to be checkmated and forced into concession.[/quote]

    Well I conceded just on you pointing out this miniscule point. I don't recall you checkmating me and I pity you if you think such a concession is anything more than mild carelessness on my part. I guess after you have been battered so consistently over the years that any victory must be a wonderful feeling for you.

    You said the wheel is from a "Tonka truck" I countered this by saying you are either trolling or deluded. It is from the 757 landing gear. You lose.

    You are really having trouble reading basic English here. I have been asking you to respond to a whole series of things and you have failed each time. My point stands and I don't have a pay grade I am self employed.

    I've reread your posts and experienced the same head shaking reaction. I see nothing to substantiate your total bullshit about one Toyota truck. Now explain in your own words - I asked you what you were referring to about the Toyota.

    No, I gave you a dozen pick up trucks plane debris, including parts that are clearly from a plane that would not fit onto a Toyota truck. You are once again surprisingly afraid to admit this.

    LMAO. Seriously dude? The 8" hollow poles cut through a plane wing travelling at maximum speed and with aircraft fuel inside it? That is one of the dumbest things you've said and there is stiff competition on that front.
     
  9. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,098
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is completely irrelevant what anything seems like to you. It disagrees with your ludicrous and conflicting nonsense. THAT is why you now attempt to poison the well.

    Hogwash. The self supporting bullshit that enables everything you don't like to be discarded without you having the task of addressing it.

    Correct.

    He did, or didn't. He contradicts himself in the space of 15 seconds!

    Nor do we need his testimony to go away. He is talking about the C130. His conflicting testimony doesn't make all the other testimony go away. The ones that saw a plane crash into the Pentagon.

    Circular reasoning no evidence to support your claim.

    A complete fabrication and this is exactly what the truthers have done themselves!

    Primarily yours that conflicts with itself!

    Circular reasoning once again. Plane parts matching a 757, visibly large amounts of plane debris, plane shaped hole, missing flight and all its occupants DNA identified, video footage that shows something striking the Pentagon/ The witnesses stand.

    Addressed in post #1959. Of course ignored by you.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-98#post-1070039578

    Spammed twice and answered both times quite comprehensibly.

    He isn't an expert and his observation is irrelevant. The plane was deliberately NOT slowed down, no fuel dump was performed to limit fire, it was an enclosed space and the objective was to destroy the craft. NONE of the crashes the colonel referred to had any of those criteria. Which part of your brain fails to get that? How is he expert in crash investigation?

    Spam again. Just pitiful how you think it significant and how you ignore the meat of the story!

    http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/strange-case-of-april-gallop.html

    "GALLOP: Again, it wasn't anything expected. I was just going to turn on the computer to do a letter. And I never got to do that. As soon as I touched the computer, boom, and I actually thought it was a bomb. And to leave out graphic details, you know, all of a sudden, due to the impact of the plane, we were blown away from the location we were at and covered under four floors of debris, walls, office equipment, et cetera."


    I don't need to make anything go away. All addressed and ignored by you. What you regard as lame is irrelevant, you simply have no credibility to even log onto the internet.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2018
  10. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
  11. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,098
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reported again for the barrage of off topic spam below this and for once again misrepresenting my position. I said this below:

    "Large mass travelling very fast hits a not immoveable object - that's all you need to know."

    That is nothing whatsoever to do with anything the FBI has or has not fed me.
     
  12. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,098
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2018
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    True I forgot about that, it needs to be added to the long list of FBI crimes.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  14. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your answer made you look silly too. If I remember correctly, it was just empty rhetoric and invective.
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm supposed to quote you in full (like it matters).

    Report me all you want, you can't make history disappear but you could try to report history too and hope the mods make the history you're terrified of facing disappear. Your position is to defend the OCT 24/7 and question none of it, there's nothing "misrepresented" about that.
     
  16. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    could you take this to the proper tread and please detail said accusations against the FBI ... thx ...
     
  17. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,098
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It matters when you deliberately misrepresent ANY context! I think my opinion was corroborated.

    Thanks, I shall. Try to follow the forum rules, you started this.

    Nor do I need to.

    Circular reasoning. I have no fear of history and your claims are not part of it.

    That in itself is provably bullshit. I am neither here 24x7 or here to defend the official account. I have appeared pretty much only on this thread discussing whether the Pentagon was struck by a plane. Once again you fabricate my position and misrepresent me.
     
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you cant see that the seats/frames are melted from 75 yards away, stop jerking everyone around.
    You have not come up with so much as one 757 piece, just a bunch of plane parts.
    nothing is recognizable as seats when you are 75 yards from the ****in plane
    thats it call counterarguments that forced them to concede and strawmanning spam, loser talk.
    You conceded to falsifying evidence.
    metaphor, if the meaning is not in your face obvious you dont know the subject matter.
    you have been dodging my questions and answering with beer farts and belches which if its not obvious to you is without substance, or in color book terms garbage.
    Like I said you fail to comprehend the material you are trying to argue, everyone else (that has done their home work) has no problem.
    Bullshit, you cant even produce 2engines, 2 main landing gear, 8 wheel and explain how a vertical stabilizer can crash into windows without leaving a scratch. Hell neither do you comprehend how a pole can cut off a wing.
    as I was saying.
    yep he said he is self employed lol.



    as far as pole chopping is concerned, aside from actual tests done that clearly anyone who has done miniscule home work and has 101 high school physics under their belt, this completely discredits the whole pole story.

    Its clear I will never get an honest response.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2018
  19. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,098
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Firstly, you aren't the spokesperson for "everyone". I am not even "jerking around" those who believe this brainless no plane claim. I don't need to see the frames to know that aluminum melts at a certain temperature. I know how hot jet fuel burns and I know if it is in an enclosed space like the cabin, it will melt any aluminum. Then once that is accomplished, it will do the same to the outer and upper fuselage. Unless of course you think magic pixies lifted it off and flattened the seats.

    A rather inept strawman. I don't need to prove it was a 757, Occam does most of that for you.

    [​IMG]

    The FACT is that there are copious amounts of PLANE wreckage and the only theory that you can come up with is that they went around planting it. You have the burden of proof to show this happened. Since we both know that you cannot or that you will even acknowledge such burden, it seems pointless to continue discussing this. You have been given evidence and ask for more. Since you dismiss the evidence given what mad reason is there to supply you with more, if such were available.

    Well, we can use our brains and see that the aluminum fuselage has melted, so we can deduce that with raging fire inside, unabated, the seats would be affected the same way.

    Hmmm, rather poor grammar. I suggest you gain some perspective and realise that the whole point of debate is to exchange ideas and adapt. You seem so fixated on your crazy no plane idea, that you are unable to concede anything.

    I did no such thing. I posted some pictures that I failed to check and after you pointed it out to me, I immediately acknowledged my error. To claim I falsified evidence is being dishonest.

    Explain it to me. The wheel came from a 757 landing gear, yes or no? If not, see picture above and tell me what the problem is.

    I have dodged nothing and given you answers that you are afraid to acknowledge.

    You aren't the spokesperson for "everybody else". Point me to a post explaining what the hell you are waffling on about, or kindly zip it.

    I gave you many truck loads of visible airpIane debris. You can bleat "bullshit" all you like, but you are just sticking your head in the ground. I don't need to produce anything more to prove a plane hit the building. It has been explained to you many times that a high energy impact would annihilate most of the plane into pieces. Must I explain yet again about the tail fin? You ignored it the first time, I don't hold out much hope that you even comprehend it, let alone have the balls to respond to it!

    The leading edge of the tail went through the impact hole, the upper part is almost certainly sheared off as it strikes the upper edge of the impact hole.

    Regarding the scratch free window - Prove the tail is alleged to have struck it. Explain with diagrams and physics why the plane tail would hit a window.

    So an 8 inch hollow pole can cut a reinforced 757 wing, but the edge of a reinforced concrete wall can't slice off the top of a tail fin!? EXPLAIN THIS!

    I asked you to show why the pole would leave the plane NOT intact. How come you avoided that? Are you afraid?

    The vertical wing stabilizer is adjudged to have sliced through the edge of Being wing. Okay, so how does that relate to a wing knocking over a pole?

    Tests performed incompetently, discredit the tester. The supporting bolts of the poles are the weak points and where they all gave way. If you think they would resist a maximum speed 757, then you have no business talking to me about high school physics!

    This video shows the pole pictures and how they were struck. Please spare me the claim that you don't believe the work of the forensic engineers!



    https://integratedconsultants.com/services/forensics

    It's clear you have been given nothing but and that you are making a statement that reflects your own behaviour.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2018
    Adam Fitzgerald likes this.
  20. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Scott,

    You have stated before that you believe an actual 757 was involved. That it approached the Pentagon, pulled up at the last second as an explosion went off, continued to fly over the Pentagon, make a 360 degree turn in ten seconds or less to come BACK to the point where it came in, and then fly off in a southwest direction.

    Here's a few questions.

    1. You believe the flight data was faked. Why, if a real 757 was used, did they create faked data that DIDN'T match the real 757's flight path up to the Pentagon?
    2. You believe that a 757 could not fly low to the ground do to ground effects, but believe an actual 757 was there that was low enough to have to have pulled up to fly OVER the Pentagon. How is that possible?
    3. Do you believe a pilot made the 360 degree banked turn in 10 seconds or less, starting at the Pentagon wall impact site, flying at high speed, to end up over the 27/395/south parking lot at 50-100 feet above the ground, and heading back in the same direction it came from?
    4. You believe the 330 degree turn made prior to the approach to the Pentagon was impossible, but the 360 degree turn mentioned above in point #3 IS possible. Can you explain why that is?
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2018
  21. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
  22. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And what of YOUR answers/claims thus far Scott?

    So far you've admitted to screwing up measurements of the aircraft you performed using a ruler on a computer monitor because of caffeine.
    You retracted your statement that Roosevelt Roberts said that "The plane flew over the Pentagon"?
    You say that in this video, starting at the 2:25 mark, Eric Dihle says he "saw a plane fly over the Pentagon when he actually says he HEARD OTHER PEOPLE SAY they saw a plane. He never saw anything.

     
    Adam Fitzgerald likes this.
  23. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Good afternoon, and Happy New Year. New to this forum, but i have been a 9/11 researcher since 2006...but took me some time to overcome my "shyness" regarding social media. Lets hop right into the Pentagon issue which is a hot topic for both "debunkers" and "truthers" (im a skeptic). American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, thats what i have assessed with the evidence at hand that i have studied. There are some here who do not even believe a hijacked airliner crashed here, and there are some who believe it was a drone which crashed into the building and a drone fly over the building at moment of impact.

    The fly over scenario is obviously false. Not one single eyewitness who was in the vicinity of the Pentagon witnessed a plane/drone fly over the building. So we can discount this entirely. Over 87 eyewitnesses in the close proximity of the Pentagon witnessed an American Airliners Boeing fly quite low and impact the building. Here is a full listing of eyewitnesses which was compiled by Penny Schoner a long time researcher and advocate for civil rights (now retired):

    https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77pentagon.pdf


    Second, some people (from other forums) also believe a missile impacted the building. This too is obviously false. I had wrote a short summary on my Facebook profile about the story of three Fort. Myer firemen who were prepping a firetruck at the Western heliport. All 3 saw an American Airliners Boeing descend almost directly at them. I will link you to the story:

    https://www.facebook.com/AdamFitz1969/posts/420318228506389

    You can see for yourself that the fly over claim is false, for those whom purport this scenario you are most likely a victim of CIT Team/Craig McKee. Here is another link which i will provide about the Ft Myer firemen (Alan Wallace, Mark Skipper and Dennis Young).

    http://arlingtonfirejournal.blogspot.com/2005/03/attack-on-pentagon-sept-11-2001.html

    The first acting company was Arlington County Fire Department. They were on scene approximately ten minutes after impact, James Schwartz was the on site commander and in charge of the scene i will link you to his full presentation regarding what was experienced at the Pentagon:



    Numerous first responders arrived shortly thereafter and they included: Ft Myer FD, Ronald Reagan Airport FD, Fort Belvoir FD, District of Columbia FD, Fairfax County Urban Search and Rescue Team, Montgomery Urban Search and Rescue Team, Virginia Medical Technician Team, Fort Belvoir Transportation Division, FEMA, Navy Command Center. All teams worked in 12 hour shifts for the next 8 days of the incident.

    Over the course of these days numerous charred bodies of those from the plane and from the first floor were recovered. Navy Command Center Lt. Kevin Shaffer who was in the first floor and suffered massive injuries, observed a chunk of the plane's nose and landing gear in the service road which is located between rings B and C. His story can be read here:

    https://www.doncio.navy.mil/CHIPS/ArticleDetails.aspx?ID=3428

    Lt. Col. Brian Birdwell was standing outside a bathroom when the plane impacted. The nose of the aircraft landed 20 yards from where he once stood. He was doused from the jetfuel and suffered 60 percent burns of his body, and was rescued by Col. Rob Maness. That story can be read here:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ter-he-got-his-answer/?utm_term=.d5dc46131dbb

    So we can confidently dismiss the notion of no plane impacting the pentagon, and we can also dismiss that a fly over took place. As well as a missile impacting the Pentagon.

    One thing i do not tolerate whatsoever in debates/discussions:

    Insults (automatic ignore)
    Repetitive responses (automatic ignore)

    9/11 is one area in my experience that suffers greatly from rational discussion. Im often met with complete lunacy and trolling. I do not entertain such nonsense.
     
    Shinebox likes this.
  24. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Totally awesome!
    I look forward to your providing me with:

    8 main landing gear wheels,
    2 main landing gear struts and carriages
    2 rolls engines

    and at a minimum a 'believable' explanation:

    how the vertical stab can smash into windows and not break them,
    and how it became the invincible light pole mower.

    when we know or at least I assume 'we' know how fragile those wings are:



    Please show the full official chain of custody records of the debris and associated 'official' determinations.

    so well give you a chance, see how you get with this. Hopefully you can do better than the mindless parrots and prevail where they have miserably failed.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2018
    Eleuthera likes this.
  25. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,098
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Whoah there! You just completely ignored his entire post to spam your already answered claims?

    Crushed, disintegrated spread out.

    Crushed, disintegrated spread out.

    Crushed, disintegrated spread out..

    Explain firstly how they avoided being "Crushed, disintegrated spread out." and then explain why you think there are NOT numerous recovered parts that you are unaware of.

    Answered and ignored. Explain why the pole should slice the wing, but the reinforced brick wall would not disintegrate the tail.

    They broke at their weakest point, being the bolts holding them to their concrete seats.

    Spam, answered and ignored.

    Explain why that is necessary - we have sufficient evidence to identify what it was.

    The only failure is from you. You just do not know how to debate in good faith. No amount of logic, reason or evidence will suffice. Nobody even knows what you claim happened in any detail!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page