According to witnesses, the aircraft hit the ground first and then
bounced up before hitting the building. This was also shown in the
video from the ATM security camera.

These theories are very insulting to those who died and those who
risked their lives to get others out of the building during the fire.

larry

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:27:11 -0400, Angel Stewart
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well..I had fun disassembling it, not having the benefit of eyewitness
> accounts etc.
>
> At first glance though, it does catch your attention and make you
> think," Hmm...what if..".
> It is easy to see why people latch onto such conspiracy theories. The
> manner of entry, and the damage seems to be very reminiscent of images
> of Tomahawk missiles hitting their targets during the gulf war....except
> for that huge fireball evident in the Pentagon security cam footage.
>
> The whole 'where are the wings' 'Where is the debris' was answered by
> the wings folding against the fuselage as the plane hit the building,
> most of the plane was blown to bits, and the wing damage can be seen in
> other pictures on the net on either side of
> where the fuselage ploughed through the building.
>
> One thing I still want to know though, is how difficult would it have
> been to keep a jet liner on course and steady at that altitude to hit
> the second floor of a building.
>
> And asking questions about *What* caused those people to die isn't doing
> them a disservice anymore than questioning the reasons behind a war does
> its soldiers a disservice.
>
> -Gel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Given that I know witnesses and had a neighbour who was injured in the
> attack, yes I can.
>
> larry
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]

Reply via email to