rosy23 said:No I haven't really. Only what I've come across as a result of this thread. To me an apologist site I'd be interested in would give balance by including how some of the perceived facts they're challenging could be possible rather than think they have all the answers. Is that how the sites you linked to are different? If so I might check them out sometime. I have no interest in reading about lack of planes, pilot capabilities, grey windows or dead bodies. I read a statement yesterday where Boeing said the plane involved wasn't able to be flown remotely. Can't find it now unfortunately.
It seems to me some need to question for the sake of it and I don't see the benefit of that. The moon landing is another example. Next we'll be hearing the Govt blew up the shuttle...after all an undamaged journal and some live creatures survived it.
Not so much. They focus on specific claims made in the OR which they believe are blatantly wrong that are centred around their area of expertse. They discuss in detail why they object to these claims.