I was asking how the people who are claiming there was no plane explain the fact of witnesses.
It's not all about you.
:-)
-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 7:51 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: RE: Faked video of plane crashing into Pentagon
>
>
> || -----Original Message-----
> || From: Chip Berlet
> ||
> || Hi,
> ||
> || 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
> ||
>
> I must have absentmindedly posted in Turkish or Dutch or
> something... nope,
> looks like English. So which part of this didn't you understand:
>
> "this particular theory overlooks the fact that the
> Pentagon's Wedge One,
> which the plane hit so precisely, had been blast-reinforced
> shortly before
> S11."
>
> or this:
>
> " the plane apparently hit the ground before slamming
> into the facade, so it's reasonable to suppose it broke up on
> first impact
> and was further pulverized when it hit the hardened building"
>
> Or are you just pretending to be incredibly obtuse to make me
> to fill my
> dail quota?
>
> BTW there's an eyewitness that confirms the plane broke up
> before hitting
> the Pentagon:
>
> An eyewitness said the plane’s pilot appeared to add power to
> the engines as
> it prepared to plow into the west side of the Pentagon at
> 9:40 a.m. EDT.
> http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33484.html
> “I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward,” said
> Tim Timmerman,
> who watched the crash from his 16th-floor apartment building
> in suburban
> Virginia that overlooks the Pentagon.
>
> Hakki
>