Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Willravel · 11-22-2004, 09:44 AM

xxSquirtxx, thank you for actually contributing. Please allow me to address each of the points made by truthorfiction.
1. The article on the bomb oroginally used in the attack on the pentagon was removed from the internet promptly. Unfortunatally, none of the reports have been surfaced. Ruling: Tie
2. This question is obviously manufactured. No one with even a basic knowledge of the crash would ask this. The impact DID do damage to the inside of the building. The problem there is that the damage it did is not consistant with damage from a 757. The hole it poked was far to small, while still being very much circular, to accomidate the fusaloge of the 757. It could not have crumpled into a perfect cylander during the crash. Ruling: Conspiracy
3. I love how the author refers to "video from a security camera at the Pentagon", because there is only one video declassified, and it does not show the impact. That automatically undoes this argument. Although the supports of the pentagon are really really strong (they have a different design structure than normal reinforcement, using more of a corkscrew design). Also, there was NO wing or tail damage on the wall. There were not even marks! Sorry, kiddo. Ruling: Conspiracy
4. We all know there was basically no damage to the lawn from the attack. The sand and gravel being there is moot. Ruling: Conspiracy
5. Same as answer #3, indeed. While the wings did not have the tensile strength necessary to puncture the walls, the notion that they did not even make a mark on the walls is absolutely offensive to your intelligence. Ruling: Conspiracy
6. Stupid question. No one asked this. Of course it impacted. Ruling: Stop making up questions, truthorfiction!

Final ruling: Conspiracy wins!

As far as the other considerations listed, you need to accept the dacts about the crash before you can go on a wild goose chase. The simple fact is that on the information available, making an accusation would be a stab in the dark at best. It would be irresponsible for me to accuse the Bush administration or terrorists for this. There is NO evidence to point at either. People asking for an accusation usually are already dead set against this. Too bad.

Oh before I forget, radar has never been able to tell what kind of aircraft it is seeing. ll it can do is say there is a large object moving through the sky. Obviously SOMETHING hit the pentagon. It was probably not a 757.

11-22-2004, 09:44 AM	#182 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	xxSquirtxx, thank you for actually contributing. Please allow me to address each of the points made by truthorfiction. 1. The article on the bomb oroginally used in the attack on the pentagon was removed from the internet promptly. Unfortunatally, none of the reports have been surfaced. Ruling: Tie 2. This question is obviously manufactured. No one with even a basic knowledge of the crash would ask this. The impact DID do damage to the inside of the building. The problem there is that the damage it did is not consistant with damage from a 757. The hole it poked was far to small, while still being very much circular, to accomidate the fusaloge of the 757. It could not have crumpled into a perfect cylander during the crash. Ruling: Conspiracy 3. I love how the author refers to "video from a security camera at the Pentagon", because there is only one video declassified, and it does not show the impact. That automatically undoes this argument. Although the supports of the pentagon are really really strong (they have a different design structure than normal reinforcement, using more of a corkscrew design). Also, there was NO wing or tail damage on the wall. There were not even marks! Sorry, kiddo. Ruling: Conspiracy 4. We all know there was basically no damage to the lawn from the attack. The sand and gravel being there is moot. Ruling: Conspiracy 5. Same as answer #3, indeed. While the wings did not have the tensile strength necessary to puncture the walls, the notion that they did not even make a mark on the walls is absolutely offensive to your intelligence. Ruling: Conspiracy 6. Stupid question. No one asked this. Of course it impacted. Ruling: Stop making up questions, truthorfiction! Final ruling: Conspiracy wins! As far as the other considerations listed, you need to accept the dacts about the crash before you can go on a wild goose chase. The simple fact is that on the information available, making an accusation would be a stab in the dark at best. It would be irresponsible for me to accuse the Bush administration or terrorists for this. There is NO evidence to point at either. People asking for an accusation usually are already dead set against this. Too bad. Oh before I forget, radar has never been able to tell what kind of aircraft it is seeing. ll it can do is say there is a large object moving through the sky. Obviously SOMETHING hit the pentagon. It was probably not a 757.