NEWSLETTER #87
November 4, 2006
September 11, 2001 Revisited
November 4, 2006
September 11, 2001 Revisited
ACT IV: PART II
We next turn to
the case of
the mysterious white military jet that either was circling low and fast
over the
Shanksville area both before and after the alleged crash of Flight 93
(according to a number of eyewitnesses interviewed independently by
various
reporters), or did not exist at all (according to the authors of the
official 9/11
narrative).
As the UK’s Daily Mirror recounted on
the first
anniversary of the attacks, "The unmarked military-style jet swooped
down
at high speed through the valley, twice circled the smouldering black
scar
where Flight 93 had careened into the ground just seconds earlier and
then hurtled
off over the horizon. At least six eyewitnesses saw the mysterious
aircraft on
the morning of September 11 last year. But the US authorities deny it
ever
existed ... What was the white jet doing there and why won't they admit
to its
presence?" (Richard Wallace "What Did Happen to Flight 93?"
Daily Mirror, September 12, 2002)
By my count, there were far more than
six
eyewitnesses who reported seeing what was fairly consistently described
as a
white, rear-engine, military-type jet bearing no identifying markings
and
flying very fast and very low, just above treetop level. Reporter Jeff
Pillets
of Bergen County, New Jersey’s The Record spoke in separate interviews
with
five of these witnesses, all “residents who live and work less than
four miles
from the crash site”:
Susan Mcelwain of
Stoneycreek
Township said a small white jet with rear engines and no discernible
markings
swooped low over her minivan near an intersection and disappeared over
a
hilltop, nearly clipping the tops of trees lining the ridge. It was
less than a
minute later, Mcelwain said, that the ground shook and a white plume of
smoke
appeared over the ridge … About a mile north on Buckstown Road, Dennis
Decker
and Rick Chaney were at work making wooden pallets when they heard an
explosion
and came running outside to watch a large mushroom cloud spreading over
the
ridge. ‘As soon as we looked up, we saw a midsized jet flying low and
fast,’
Decker said. ‘It appeared to make a loop or part of a circle, and then
it
turned fast and headed out.’ Decker and Chaney described the plane as a
Lear-jet type, with engines mounted near the tail and painted white
with no
identifying markings … Susan Custer said she saw a small white jet
streaking
overhead. ‘Then I heard the boom and saw the mushroom cloud.’ Robin
Doppstadt
was working inside her family food-and-supply store when she heard the
crash.
When she went outside, she said, she saw a small white jet that looked
like it
was making a single circle over the crash site. ‘The it climbed very
quickly
and took off.’” (Jeff Pillets “In Rural Hamlet, the Mystery Mounts; 5
report
second plane at PA Crash Site,” The Record, September 14, 2001)
Meanwhile, “At least four witnesses who
were at
the crash scene within five minutes of the crash told WTAE’s Paul Van
Osdol
that they saw another plane in the area. Somerset County resident Jim
Brandt
said that he saw another plane in the area. He said it stayed there for
one or
two minutes before leaving. Another Somerset County resident, Tom
Spinello,
said that he saw the plane. He said that it had high back wings. Both
men said
that the plane had no markings on it, either civilian or military.”
(“Alleged
Partial Flight 93 Cockpit Transcript Obtained,”
ThePittsburghChannel.com,
September 12, 2001) Spinello later told the Daily Mirror: “I saw the
white
plane. It was flying around all over the place like it was looking for
something. I saw it before and after the crash.” (Richard Wallace "What
Did Happen to Flight 93?" Daily Mirror, September 12, 2002)
Reporters from the Pittsburgh
Tribune-Review also
encountered residents who spoke of a mysterious jet: “At least two
witnesses in
Shanksville said they saw a large plane circling the crash site
following the
explosion. About two or three minutes after the explosion, the airplane
climbed
into the sky almost vertically, the witnesses said. ‘It sure wasn’t no
puddle
jumper,’ said Bob Page, general sales manager at Shanksville Dodge.
Page said
he could not see if there were any markings on the plane or what kind
it was.”
(“Homes, Neighbors Rattled By Crash,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review,
September 12,
2001)
Elsewhere, John Feegle was identified
as yet
another eyewitness. He said that the jet “didn’t look like a commercial
plane.
It had a real goofy tail on it, like a high tail. It circled around,
and it was
gone.” (Rowland Morgan “Flight 93 ‘Was Shot Down’ Claims Book,” Daily
Mail,
August 18, 2006) Kathy Bates, who was at her summer cottage just a
quarter-mile
from the alleged crash site, saw the plane as well: “Blades and her son
ran
outside after the crash and saw the jet, with sleek back wings and an
angled
cockpit, race overhead … she said she was so shocked by the crash she
can’t say
exactly how long after the impact it was.” (William Bunch “We Know It
Crashed,
But Not Why,” Philadelphia Daily News, November 15, 2001) Lee Purbaugh,
who
will be discussed later in this post, has also claimed that he saw the
white
jet.
It appears as though Shanksville
residents were
eager to talk about the mystery jet to any reporter who would listen.
It’s odd
then that, with the national press descending on the area in the days
following
September 11, 2001, the story of the unidentified white jet remains, to
this
day, little known outside of that rural community.
Despite the numerous witness reports,
officials
initially denied that there were any other aircraft, military or
civilian, in
the Shanksville area at the time of the ‘crash’ of Flight 93. A few
days after
the attacks, however, the official position abruptly changed and the
FBI was
assigned the task of offering an explanation that was apparently
designed to
quiet down the troublesome locals: "Hoping to dispel rumors that United
Airlines Flight 93 might have been shot down by military aircraft, the
FBI Saturday
said that two other planes were in the area but had nothing to do with
the
hijacked flight crashing in western Pennsylvania. The FBI said that a
civilian
business jet flying to Johnstown was within 20 miles of the low-flying
airliner, but at an altitude of 37,000 feet. That plane was asked to
descend to
5,000 feet -- an unusual maneuver -- to help locate the crash site for
responding emergency crews. The FBI said that is probably why some
witnesses
say they saw another plane in the sky shortly after Flight 93 crashed
at 10:10
a.m. [sic] Tuesday in a grassy field near Shanksville, about 80 miles
southeast
of Pittsburgh." ("FBI Explains Other Planes at Flight 93 Crash,"
ThePittsburghChannel.com, September 15, 2001)
In August 2002, John Carlin of the UK's
Independent
deconstructed that official fable: "The FBI has said, on the record,
that
the plane was a civilian business jet, a Falcon, that had been flying
within 20
miles of Flight 93 and was asked by the authorities to descend from
37,000ft to
5,000ft to survey and transmit the co-ordinates of the crash site 'for
responding emergency crews'. The reason, as numerous people have
observed, why
this seems so implausible is that, first, by 10.06am on 11 September,
all
non-military aircraft in US airspace had received loud and clear orders
more
than half an hour earlier to land at the nearest airport; second, such
was the
density of 911 phone calls from people on the ground, in the
Shanksville area,
as to the location of the crash site that aerial co-ordinates would
have been
completely unnecessary; and, third, with F-16s supposedly in the
vicinity, it
seems extraordinarily unlikely that, at a time of tremendous national
uncertainty when no one knew for sure whether there might be any more
hijacked
aircraft still in the sky, the military would ask a civilian aircraft
that just
happened to be in the area for help."
Who knew that at a time when no one
knew for sure
what was going on in America's skies and any civilian aircraft still in
the air
was considered a possible threat, authorities were calling on random,
unidentified civilian pilots to do the work of the US military?
There are, alas, other problems with
the
government's belated explanation for the presence of the second
aircraft, not
the least of which is the fact that several of the witnesses
specifically
reported seeing the jet before the crash, which would seem to
rule out
the possibility that the mystery aircraft was there doing some
impromptu,
post-crash surveillance work. In addition, virtually all of the
witnesses described
the jet as flying extremely low, not much above treetop level, which is
just a
tiny bit lower than the 5,000 feet claimed by the FBI. And one final
problem:
all civilian planes – with the exception, of course, of those involved
in
‘black ops’ – are required to bear readily identifiable markings.
Susan McElwain, who lives just two
miles from the
alleged crash site, "knows what she saw - the white plane rocketed
directly over her head. 'It came right over me, I reckon just 40 or 50
ft.
above my mini-van,' she recalled. 'It was so low I ducked
instinctively. It was
traveling real fast, but hardly made any sound ... There's no way I
imagined
this plane - it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white
with no
markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look ... The
FBI came
and talked to me and said there was no plane around. Then they changed
their
story and tried to say it was a plane taking pictures of the crash
3,000 feet
up. But I saw it and it was there before the crash and it was 40ft
above my
head. They did not want my story - nobody here did.'" (Richard Wallace
"What Did Happen to Flight 93?" Daily Mirror, September 12, 2002)
In addition to the numerous witnesses
who saw the
white jet, the Daily Mirror noted that further "verification that some
kind of military aircraft was operating in the area is scientifically
irrefutable. At 9:22am a sonic boom - caused by supersonic flight -
was
picked up by an earthquake monitoring station in southern Pennsylvania,
60
miles from Shanksville." (Richard Wallace "What Did Happen to Flight
93?" Daily Mirror, September 12, 2002) Another UK newspaper, The
Independent, cited additional evidence suggesting the presence of
military
aircraft, including a report from “a federal flight controller
published a few
days [after the attacks] in a newspaper in New Hampshire: that an F-16
had been
'in hot pursuit' of the hijacked United jet and 'must have seen the
whole
thing.' Also there was one brief report on CBS television before the
crash that
two F-16 fighters were tailing Flight 93." (John Carlin "Unanswered
Questions: The Mystery of Flight 93," The Independent, August 13, 2002)
It is difficult to conceive of any
rational explanation
for why interceptor aircraft would not have been shadowing
Flight 93. As
John Carlin reports, "What the government acknowledges is that the
first
fighters with the mission to intercept took off at 8.52am; that another
set of
fighters took off from Andrews Air Force base near Washington at 9.35am
–
precisely the time that Flight 93 turned almost 180 degrees off course
towards
Washington and the hijacker pilot was heard by air-traffic controllers
to say
that there was 'a bomb aboard'. Flight 93, whose menacing
trajectory was
made known by the broadcast media almost immediately, did not go
down for
another 31 minutes." (John Carlin "Unanswered Questions: The Mystery
of Flight 93," The Independent, August 13, 2002) The Daily Mirror added
that "military officials ... were informed that it was a suspected
hijack
at 9:16am, 50 minutes before the plane came down." (Richard Wallace
"What Did Happen to Flight 93?" Daily Mirror, September 12, 2002)
So I
guess what
happened is this: even though the entire country was following
the
events live on television and knew what was happening, the U.S.
Department of
Defense – which, after all, has the words “U.S.” and “defense” right
there in
its moniker – had not yet figured out that responding to the crisis
might be a
good use of taxpayer money. In fact, the military was feeling so
lethargic that
when the fourth hijacked flight of the morning went down, the Pentagon
responded with (or so we are to believe): “Most of our guys are on
break right
now; can’t you track down a local pilot that has failed to comply with
orders
to touch down at the nearest airport and have him go take a look?” And
that is
why, you see, there never actually was a military jet in the area, even
though
numerous witnesses saw a military jet, and at least one air traffic
controller
tracked a military jet, and an earthquake monitoring station recorded
the
presence of a military jet.
There
was,
however, “a C-130 military cargo aircraft about 17 miles away
that saw
smoke or dust near the crash site, but that plane wasn't armed and had
no role
in the crash. That plane was flying at 24,000 feet.”
That plane, flying at an altitude of nearly five miles, was clearly not
the
aircraft seen by Shanksville residents, so it is unclear why the FBI
acknowledged its presence. It is unclear, for that matter, if it
actually was
present. If it was, it could have, if outfitted with the right
communications
technology, served as a very effective mobile command post. ("FBI
Explains Other Planes at Flight 93 Crash," ThePittsburghChannel.com,
September 15, 2001)
In a rather strange twist, a Lt.
Col. Steve O’Brien belatedly came forward to claim that the C-130 that
purportedly flew over the Shanksville site after the alleged crash of
Flight 93
was, amazingly enough, the very same C-130 that, a half-hour earlier,
had been
seen flying over the Pentagon at the time of the alleged crash of
Flight 77! As
O’Brien himself said in an interview (click on video link to the left),
“You
just wonder how you could be at two places that geographically separate
at
those exact times and witness both those events.”
According to his interviewer, O’Brien
“saw
firsthand the end of American Flight 77 and United 93.” So here we have
a most
remarkable witness: the only man on the planet who claims to have been
a
witness to two separate events that, if the available evidence is to be
believed, never actually happened. Flights 77 and 93 are, as far as I
can
ascertain, the only two passenger jets in aviation history to crash
without
leaving behind any visible aircraft wreckage, and Colonel O’Brien,
curiously
enough, bore witness to the demise of both of these uniquely
self-destructing
planes. What are the odds of that happening?
Actually, the odds are pretty good, I
suppose,
considering that September 11 was a day on which the impossible became
possible
and the improbable became commonplace. Consider that in all of modern
history,
only three steel-framed towers have experienced complete spontaneous
collapses;
all three fell on September 11, 2001. In the last 30 or so years, only
four
aircraft have been successfully hijacked in US airspace; all four were
on
September 11, 2001. So it shouldn’t come as any great surprise that
September
11 was also the day that both immaculate plane crashes took place, and
that one
man witnessed both of these extraordinary events. That’s just the kind
of day
that it was.
Unfortunately, however, O’Brien seems
to have
trouble keeping the details of his story straight, which doesn’t
inspire a lot
of confidence in him as a witness. In the video interview, we hear that
“O’Brien speaks of an unusually clear and beautiful summer day along
the East
Coast. But the splendor of that summer morning ultimately gave a more
clear
view of the first horrific sight of his day [the alleged crash of
Flight 77 at the
Pentagon].” But when O’Brien spoke to the Minnesota Star-Tribune, he
said that
when he was allegedly asked to shadow Flight 77 over Washington, he
“had a hard
time picking him out” because of “all the East Coast haze.” (Bob Von
Sternberg
“How We’ve Changed,” Minnesota Star-Tribune, September 11, 2002)
O’Brien also told the Star-Tribune
that, after
passing over the Pentagon, “He flew west, not exactly sure where he was
supposed to land. Somewhere over western Pennsylvania, O’Brien looked
down at a
blackened, smoldering field. ‘I hoped it was just a tire fire or
something, but
when I checked with Cleveland center, he told me he’d just lost a guy
off the
scope petty close to where we saw it. By then, we were able to patch in
AM
radio, so we heard about all the planes. It was like a domino effect –
a really
bad day for airplanes.” About a year and a half later, in May 2004,
O’Brien
told Minnesota Public Radio a much different story: “In a recent
interview, Lt.
Col. Steve O’Brien, commander of Gopher 06, says he remembers seeing a
big
explosion … Through the haze the shape of the Pentagon emerged where
the
explosion had occurred. The crew alerted the controllers and tuned in a
newscast using navigation radios. ‘The first thing we heard on there
was ‘We’re
now hearing about a second airplane hitting the World Trade Center.’
That was
not what we were expecting to hear. We were expecting to hear about an
airplane
impacting the Pentagon, and they haven’t even mentioned that yet,’ says
O’Brien. ‘They’re just talking about a second airplane hitting the
World Trade
Center, and the light goes on, and it’s like, ‘Oh my God, the nation’s
under
attack!’’” (Bill Catlin “Museum Features Air Guard’s History and Role
in the
War on Terror,” Minnesota Public Radio, May 31, 2004)
Now, you
would think that, given the significance of the events of that day and
the
impact they had on his life, Lt. Col. O’Brien would remember clearly
whether
the skies over Washington were crystal clear or hazy that morning, and
whether
he learned that the nation was under attack after viewing the alleged
Pentagon
crash scene or after viewing the alleged Pennsylvania crash scene. You
would
also think that, if his crew had in fact tuned in a newscast right
after the
explosion at the Pentagon – which occurred more than a half-hour after
the
second WTC tower was hit, on live television – the first thing
they
would have heard would not likely have been “We’re now hearing about a
second
airplane hitting the World Trade Center,” as if it had just happened
moments
before. By the time of the attack on the Pentagon, every station on the
dial
had already replayed the footage of the second tower strike
approximately 12
times.
There is one other minor problem with
O’Brien’s
story: if, as he has maintained in all the interviews that he has done,
he
called in the location of the smoke cloud immediately after the alleged
crash
of Flight 93, then why did authorities need to purportedly call in a
local
civilian pilot to provide those coordinates?
During
the 2004
interview with MPR, O’Brien revealed that there was a little surprise
awaiting
him after he came forward with his story: “the story turned up on the
Internet
as part of a conspiracy theory maintaining that no plane hit the
Pentagon. ‘To
be called a liar and a part of a government conspiracy kind of affected
me.’”
As a public service, I would offer O’Brien the following free advice
that may
help him to avoid such accusations in the future: first, try to tell
your story
in a reasonably consistent manner (if you have to, write it down and
memorize
it); second, make sure that your story is consistent with the known
timeline of
events and other aspects of the official story; and third, don’t worry
too much
about what us nutty conspiracy theorists are saying, because as long as
your
story bolsters the government account, you can tell it any way you like
and no
one in the ‘real’ media is going to call you on it.
You
can even tell
a story like this little gem out of Cambodia, which ran in my own
hometown
newspaper and various others on October 31, 2006, and no one in the
American
media establishment will seriously question the utter absurdity of the
claims
made therein: “Cambodian authorities said a San Francisco police
officer
accused of having sex with a 14-year-old girl killed himself while in
custody
in Phnom Penh. Donald Rene Ramirez, who had denied the offense,
‘committed
suicide by firing two bullets into his mouth,’ said capital police
officer Keo
Thea.” (“U.S. Police Officer Dies in Custody,” Los Angeles Times,
October 31,
2006) Elsewhere it was reported that, shockingly enough, “reporters in
Phnom
Penh were not allowed into the police station to verify the official
account.”
(“Officer in Child Sex case Reportedly Kills Self,” San Francisco
Chronicle, October
31, 2006)
Many
readers will
recall that more than a few eyebrows were raised when investigative
journalist
Gary Webb seemingly pioneered the concept of the
double-shot-to-the-head
suicide. But now we find that Mr. Ramirez has raised the bar further
still, by
not only duplicating Webb’s unprecedented accomplishment, but doing so
while
incarcerated! Not only did Ramirez have to pull off the difficult task
of operating
a firearm with a bullet already lodged in his brain, he first had to
acquire
the weapon, which is itself no easy task for someone who had spent the
last couple
days in a Phnom Penh jail cell. But here, perhaps, I may have digressed
–
though I have to add, while we’re still on the subject, that I won’t
really
know what to make of this story until Mike Ruppert weighs in to offer
his
professional opinion.
Returning then to our discussion of Lt.
Col. O’Brien,
it appears as though he belatedly came forward with his story on the
first
anniversary of the attacks. As many readers have probably noticed,
September 11
anniversaries have served as opportunities for the vast American media
machine
to crank up the volume of the propaganda campaign, attempting, as
always, to
silence any and all critics of the official story. O’Brien appears to
be very
much a part of this phenomenon. In all likelihood, he was sent forth by
his
handlers for the specific purpose of bolstering elements of the
official story
that were under attack: specifically, that Flight 77 crashed into the
Pentagon
and that Flight 93 crashed into a field in Shanksville.
Colonel O’Brien, it appears, saw it
all. Case
closed. And as an added benefit, he also managed to explain away the
supposedly
benign presence of military aircraft at both ‘crash’ sites. All in all,
not too
bad for a day’s work.
No investigation of the fate of Flight
93 would
be complete without a brief discussion of another star witness, Lee
Purbaugh,
whose claim to fame is being the only eyewitness on the ground to see
the crash
of the doomed airliner. The Daily Mirror described Purbaugh as "the
only
person to see the last seconds of Flight 93 as it came down on former
strip-mining land at precisely 10:06am," and his story was told as
follows: "He was working at the Rollock Inc. scrapyard on a ridge
overlooking
the point of impact, less than half a mile away. 'I heard this real
loud noise
coming over my head,' he told the Daily Mirror. 'I looked up and it was
Flight
93, barely 50ft above me. It was coming down in a 45 degree and rocking
from
side to side. Then the nose suddenly dipped and it just crashed into
the
ground. There was this big fireball and then a huge cloud of smoke.'"
(Richard Wallace "What Did Happen to Flight 93?" Daily Mirror,
September 12, 2002)
Similarly, The Independent
characterized Purbaugh
as being "the only person present in the field where, at 10:06am, the
aircraft hit the ground." Purbaugh relayed to Independent reporter John
Carlin this version of his alleged eyewitness account: "There was an
incredibly loud rumbling sound and there it was, right there, right
above my
head – maybe 50ft up. It was only a split second but it looked like it
was
moving in slow motion, like it took forever. I saw it rock from side to
side
then, suddenly, it dipped and dived, nose first, with a huge explosion,
into
the ground. I knew immediately that no one could possibly have
survived."
(John Carlin "Unanswered Questions: The Mystery of Flight 93," The
Independent, August 13, 2002)
Purbaugh's ‘eyewitness’ testimony is
significant
in that it differs from other witness accounts in three crucial
respects:
first, he is the only witness to claim that he actually saw the plane
plow into
the ground; second, Purbaugh maintains that Flight 93 was intact and
not
emitting any visible smoke when it impacted the ground; and third, he
has
stated quite specifically that the white mystery jet that he saw was
not a
military plane. He bases that assessment, naturally enough, on his
experience
in the US Navy. I am sure that all of you are just as shocked as I am
to find
that the only eyewitness on the ground in Shanksville whose testimony
supports
several aspects of the official narrative is a military man.
That fact alone, of course, is not
enough to
justify dismissing Purbaugh's eyewitness account. But there are also,
unfortunately,
clear indications that Lee Purbaugh probably is fibbing just a little
bit.
How do we know this? First of all, his
story has
changed dramatically from its original telling. As quoted by MSNBC,
Purbaugh's
initial account went something like this: "I heard this loud
noise,
and I happened to look up. And this jet come right straight over my
head. And
it went real low. And it probably crashed down, it went nose to tail." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14789502/page/5/)
Somewhere along the way, it appears, Purbaugh’s initial observation
that the
plane “probably crashed” somehow morphed into an eyewitness account of
the
actual crash. And to spice things up, he even tossed a white jet
sighting into
the mix, although the white jet that he saw was definitely non-military.
Even if Purbaugh hadn't obviously
embellished his
story, his tale of the alleged crash would still be rather difficult to
believe. Flight 93, it will be recalled, was purportedly plummeting
from the
skies at a speed of nearly 600 MPH. According to Purbaugh, he first
caught
sight of the plane when it was just 50 feet off the ground, traveling
on a
downward 45° trajectory. We can then deduce that he observed the
aircraft only
during its last 75 feet (more or less) of flight, a distance that the
speeding
aircraft would have covered – based on a conservative estimate of a
speed of
500 MPH – in roughly 1/10 of a second!
In the real world, Purbaugh would not
even have
had enough time to react and turn his head before the aircraft plowed
into the
ground. And even if he did turn to look, the plane would have
registered as, at
best, nothing more than a split-second blur. The notion that he could
have
watched it rocking from side to side, and then dipping and diving, is
ridiculous. As a matter of fact, so is the notion that he could have
looked up
and seen it at all at an altitude of fifty feet, as though it were
frozen in
suspended animation rather than traveling downward at an official speed
of 850
feet per second.
I believe that Lee Purbaugh could be
Shanksville's answer to the legions of dubious Pentagon witnesses (as
one
reporter noted, “Purbaugh’s account was perhaps the nearest of all the
witness
testimony to the official version of the story.”) True, he is greatly
outnumbered by his fellow travelers at the Pentagon, but you have to
factor in
that it is bound to be a lot harder to dig up compliant eyewitnesses in
rural
Shanksville than it is in Washington. (Rowland Morgan “Flight 93 ‘Was
Shot Down’
Claims Book,” Daily Mail, August 18, 2006)
I am not suggesting here, by the way,
that
Purbaugh was ‘part of the conspiracy,’ so to speak – a witness planted
in
advance to be there to ‘see’ what he was supposed to see. If that were
the
case, then there would have been more than one witness conveniently
placed near
the scene, and each of them would have gotten the government-approved
script
right from the beginning. What I am suggesting is that Mr. Purbaugh was
undoubtedly questioned at length about what he had seen on the morning
of
September 11, and during that questioning, he most likely was asked
leading
questions designed to impress upon the witness what he should have
seen,
and Mr. Purbaugh – being a military man, and seeing an opportunity to
please
his superiors – decided to do his patriotic duty by becoming the only
witness
to recall actually seeing Flight 93 plow into the ground.
It was the least he could do, given
that
authorities weren’t having much luck locating witnesses in Shanksville
who had
seen what the government wanted them to see. The situation was so bad,
in fact,
that a ringer had to be flown in from the Minnesota Air Guard. Whatever
works,
I guess.
No comments:
Post a Comment