Creative Speculation

> That ridiculous collection of straw-man arguments from 2005?

In the first place, they weren't "straw-man arguments" -- they were responses to actual claims made by actual "truthers" -- and second, there's nothing "ridiculous" about calling bullshit on those claims. But I do recall that someone at 911blogger thought that calling them "straw-man arguments" was sufficient to justify ignoring them, so I know at least one of the sources of your misinformation.

> How about this whopper on the second page;

> "NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle."

> Maj. Nasypany said the problem was not a hole in the middle, it was too many blips.

You are conflating two different things -- NORAD's radar system and the FAA's radar system for commercial aviation -- and you are taking Martin's factual comment about NORAD's system out of context. With a poor start like that, I suppose it's just as well that you didn't actually try to make an actual argument.