Hey look, another objective and unbiased piece of reporting from the NY Times.
Why don't they just come up with the subheading that says "official mouthpiece of the Democrat Party"? At least that way they would be honest about their so called reporting.
The problem (among many) with this story is that pre 9/11, there was simply no (or very very little) concept that someone would ram a jetliner into a sky scraper.
You can have 2,000 warnings that say hijackings are likely, but pre 9/11 what did that mean?? It means that a terrorist asshole will either blow up the plane mid-flight (like Pan Am 103 over Scotland) or hijack the plane to a friendly country like Cuba or Libya or Iran.
Flight crews prior to 9/11 were instructed that in the case of a hijacking, you comply to the best of your ability with the hijacker in order to get the plane on the ground and give the passengers the best chance of survival.
The Times conveniently leaves that part of the equation out of it and would like us all to pretend that prior to 9/11 everyone but the Bush administration had their crystal ball out and saw two planes ram into the WTC and one into the Pentagon.
No comments:
Post a Comment