My response to those who mock me for believing a cover up (debate is fine) is this:
"If a plane hit the pentagon, show me the plane. Show me steele turbines, show me a report of the plane that supposedly hit it, when it left, where it came from, when it was suspected or reportedly taken over. Last but certainly not least, show me a video tape of a large aircraft smashing the side of a government building. You won't convince me the only surveillance close enough was one camera that looked ground level."
Where was the grass tore up from the plane skidding into the building? (Maybe it didn't hit the ground first)
So it flew through the upper portion and into the middle of the building? (Well no, the picture doesn't have the damage all the way through).
So, some terrorist flew this plane at an angle and enormous rate of speed into a government building that could only show one angle of surveillance, which didn't include any semblance of a massive plane, and these people manage to not hit the grass on the way in?
Right, wrong, or indifferent that's usually my beef. I don't squander too much over the NY details, because if it was anything other than a true planned terrorist attack, the truth about the Pentagon would prove or disprove it all.
