How do you explain the people that saw the plane flying into the Pentagon?
Are they all agents, or subjects of mind control experiments?
-Chip
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Hakki
Alacakaptan
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 6:57 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: RE: Faked video of plane crashing into Pentagon
>
>
>
> || -----Original Message-----
> || From: Steve Perry
> ||
> || to take just one of your points: if you suppose the pentagon
> || was 'hardened'
> || in a particular spot to withstand attack, then what are
> the odds that a
> || hijacked jetliner flown by someone who is still basically an
> || amateur pilot
> || will be able to strike exactly that spot on purpose? trained
> || fighter pilots
> || probably couldn't do it in battle conditions more than 4 out
of
> || 5. and guys
> || like this, i'm guessing, 1 or 2 out of 5.
>
> You seem to have trouble concentrating,let me help you. Pay
attention:
>
> 1 - I don't "suppose" anything. I didn't say "I'm guessing, 1 out
of 5
> wedges was reinforced". I said Wedge One was, period. I've
> posted at length
> on this with ample sources.
> http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1003/news_1-2.html
> Pentagon Battered but Firm
> So resilient was the newly strengthened section of the
> {Pentagon} that a
> glass display case only 40 feet (12 meters) from where the
> plane entered the
> building survived without a crack.
> (...)
>
> 2 - The amateur pilot couldn't have been pilot then, could he?
>
> Are you a combat pilot? You must be an authority as you don't cite
any
> sources. None of the aviation sources I've read were able to
> narrow down the
> flying skill needed for the Pentagon approach down to 10
> percentage points
> like you have, so you gotta be a top jock.
>
> Hakki
>