Talk:9/11: The Big Lie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details. |
|
==9/11: The Big Lie==
Wordy and hard to follow. Could be a useful article after cleanup. Raymond Arritt 00:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Added to User:hmcook87/Desk Hamish Cook 13:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
[edit] FAA
- This thesis would be complete with an explanation on the disappearance of the plane which, according to the official version, crashed against the Pentagon. Besides, the official version has been rejected by the FAA, for which the plane disappeared over a natural reserve 500 kilometers from Washington, without showing again on the radar screens.
Is Meyssan just claiming that the FAA rejected the official version of the events of 9/11, or did they really? It isn't clear. If they did, isn't a citation needed? Herorev 05:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Have swaped a few words around here, I think it makes a bit more sense now. Hamish Cook 01:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that the above italicized quote must be from some previous version of the article. But however the words get swapped around, it doesn't seem to make any sense. The suggestion that no plane hit the Pentagon is contradicted by numerous eyewitness accounts. NCdave 11:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Criticsm vs. Praise?
Unbalanced. Totally. 203.218.112.238 13:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't understand how the criticism vs. praise section can be unbalanced? I find it hard to imagine a notable journal or other media outlet praising this book...CoolMike 22:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how criticism can be balanced. The people who originally added, and re-added, the unbalanced tag did not add them with their accounts nor left any information about what they believed was unbalanced. Retropunk (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
