Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Geggy
|
NO. You do
not get away with that game, not this time. Do as you've done below, quote text, and make an argument as to why the
physics and experts cited IN the PM article lack credibility. Otherwise, you've proven nothing.
um, well yeah. I wonder what happened on 9/11/2001 that made the government adjust that policy a tad? What you've cited here doesn't disprove anything, in fact it only completes a thought.
Fewer planes were scrambled prior to 9/11 than after. Well done, Watson.
From your own link:
"The Federal Aviation Administration has stayed in closer contact with the military since Sept. 11 to ensure that fighter jets take off quickly to chase hostile or suspicious aircraft.
On Sept. 11, flight controllers suspected around 8:25 a.m. EDT that American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston's Logan Airport had been hijacked, but the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) wasn't notified until 8:40 a.m. _ six minutes before the plane struck the World Trade Center.
Today, NORAD would know instantly of a suspected hijacking.
"NORAD is now linked up telephonically 24 hours a day, seven days a week, so anything that's an anomaly or a suspected anomaly that's found in the system, NORAD knows about it as quickly as we do," said David Canoles, FAA's manager of air traffic evaluations and investigations."
Sounds pretty consistent to me.
Quote:
Wrong. As you can see in the area of puff of clouds ejecting, there is no sign of floor pancaking or trusses failing, otherwise cracks around the concrete on the outside of the building would be clearly visible.
|
WHAT!??? You're kidding, right? Are you serioulsy making that expert analysis based off of that picture??
Quote:
|
The PM attack on the 9/11 activists is extremely dishonest and misleading. Only reason why people bought into it is because of the credibility of PM.
|
How about the experts cited in the article? Did Hearst buy them too? And btw, what's with the fucking Hearst paranoia, what is it, 1925???
Threaded Mode
