Debunked: 9/11: Flight 77 "suspicious" Passenger list

Grieves said:

was not employed in the IT field herself. Was simply attending the conference with an IT employee, both of whom worked for the Census Bureau.

Does not have an IT related job. His job is in the IT field though, unlike most all the other listed employees with jobs in computing.

from his obituary. Owner of an import business doesn't equate to an IT job, or a job within the IT field in my mind.
He was CEO of The Bingham Group, which is a marketing firm period, with no exclusivity to the web. Web design was one of the nine services they offered.

So you've got 4 computer techs/programers in wholly unrelated fields, and one account-manager for an IT company. 'They all used computers/teh web!' isn't a trend of IT professionals. It's the 21'st century. All those jobs likely involved paper/paperwork too, but that can hardly be considered a significant connection.

Click to expand...

really? Beamer worked for one of the biggest IT companies in the World and somehow that doesn't count...and yet an budget analyst with the defense department is somehow similar to a Boeing engineer?

As salesperson for an IT company myself...I think that constitutes being employed in the IT industry.

Marion was going to an IT conference- why would she attend if it wasn't related to her job?

Bingham group WAS an IT marketing firm:

the Bingham Group is well known for its expertise in the wireless networking industry and its special proficiency in European press relations, servicing such clients as 3Com, NetSanity, No Wires Needed and VARStreet.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+B...th+SIPR,+LLC+Following+Sept.+11...-a079616881

The Bingham Group officially opened for business in 1999 in a loft space Mark shared with a friend's Web-design firm. By focusing on what he knew best-high-tech PR-Mark was able to secure a number of clients, hire several employees, and, in May 2000, open his own office on San Francisco's Lafayette Street.

http://www.markbingham.com/legend.html

You may be right about Rothenberg- the only "MDR Resources" I could find was an IT company located 20 miles from where he lived.


but then again there was Jeremy Glick who worked fro Vividence- which is on online market research firm

Our vertical-focused, syndicated research provides comparative data on industry trends and best practices. Together, our solutions offer the customer-driven enterprise with an unprecedented view into the strategies that win and retain profitable customers online. Vividence’s customer experience evaluation methodology intercepts live users or sends actual or target customers to any Web site

So they use IT to research people who use IT.

These are not any less related to IT then the lawyers, budget analysts, satellite engineers, pilots etc..that you claim are suspiciously related.

This topic is bordering on the absurd.

I take you don't travel for business.

A man directing the Defense Departments fiscal economics program in the Pentagon was murdered, coincidentally, when a plane he was in flew into his regular place of business, a crash which may well have killed several of his colleagues, and you don't find that even remotely suspicious on any level?

Click to expand...

My pea-soup of preconception? If anyone is looking through pea soup it's you. I don't find it suspicious at all. And you have not stated WHY you think it's suspicious. What was the purpose? "I'm going to fill a plane full of defense and computer people and fly them into the Pentagon to make a statement!"? How did "they" get them all onto the plane at the same time? Or do you think they WEREN'T on the plane, the list is made up? Then what happened to those people. You are being very obtuse.

My hubby just mentioned a late night flight into Dallas that had over a dozen rodeo cowboys on it.

I am still waiting for a second point to make you 'line of reasoning' . Was there something that made them all fly that morning?

Grieves said:

Other than...? Are you kidding me?
A man directing the Defense Departments fiscal economics program in the Pentagon was murdered, coincidentally, when a plane he was in flew into his regular place of business, a crash which may well have killed several of his colleagues, and you don't find that even remotely suspicious on any level?
The point is it's fucking suspicious.

Click to expand...

Is it suspicious that Bernard Brown Sr. was not at his desk in the pentagon that morning because he took the day off to drop his young son Bernard Brown Jr at the airport to travel with other school kids from the area on a field trip to California sponsored by the National Geography Society? Is it suspicious that had he not taken the day off he would have been sitting in the very section of the pentagon that was hit by the plane his son was on? Or is it just the randomness of the universe?

The point is it isn't suspicious and neither is what you pointed out.

Grieves said:

What is remotely normal about a high ranking member of the Defense Department being flown into his own place of business? That seems a pretty goddamn unusual series of events to me.
So you worked at the Pentagon for 10 years? Which ten, if you don't mind my asking? And how many flights is 'hundreds', by your best estimation? How many of your co-workers were also frequent flyers? What, if you don't mind my asking, was your general role during these business trips? I'm assuming a fairly large percentage of those 28k jobs at the Pentagon don't require frequent air-commuting, am I wrong in that? Did you speak often with your fellow passengers? If so, did you often find yourself speaking to employees of defense contractors/Boeing?

I'm being provided with knowledge on the region, and I understand now there are many defense contractors in the area, that some of their employees would do a fair bit of flying, and that the Pentagon employs 28k people. but I stand by my doubts that these facts are some kind of powerful evidence against the idea this particular collection of passengers being on that particular plane during those particular events is a suspicious coincidence. It's being said a lot, and with all sorts of inflammatory language attached, but I've still not even seen any actual indication such a trend is a commonality as claimed. That aside, I have to say again, a director of fiscal economics for the Defense Department, working at the Pentagon, was on a plane which was flown into a section of the pentagon which coincidentally had been recently refurbished and reinforced against attack, a section of the Pentagon which also coincidentally contained a large number financial personnel, at a time when massive amounts of money was unaccounted for in the Pentagon's budget. Why is that not even remotely suspicious? Please, someone, explain that to me, besides saying 'Oh, well, pentagon people fly all the time...!' Yeah.. right... no doubt... but they don't typically wind up being murdered in an express flight to their own office. That's a little unusual, No?

A director of fiscal economics for the defense department was flown into a section of the pentagon containing a large number of Army employees working as economic functionaries for a department of Resource Services which lost about 75% percent of its employees, a section of the pentagon which according to the official account was targeted at random, in spite of the unquestionably complex maneuver carried out to strike the building there. A Navy Scientist doing 'black-ops' work, and several Navy/ex-navy personnel, some of which were since employed by defense contractors, are flown into a section of the Pentagon containing the Navy Command Center, where the majority of the fatalities in the Pentagon took place. Those are supposedly coincidental passengers with direct connections to the targeted victims. Why is it so mind-boggling to thus suspect they may have been targeted victims as well, given this obvious connection?

Click to expand...

The problem is that there is no connection, you and others are trying to make lines that are not there. Just because someone is ex-Navy or ex-Army has no more ramification than just that. Its like saying that they went to a school in the same school district and ended up working for the same employer. Those job descriptions are from relatives not from the airline or employers to the best of my knowledge. They extremely subjective and are no more official or accurate then the computer screens everyone is reading this on. The airlines do not know what their passengers do for a living anymore than you or I would of people driving on the same highway with us. Someone that did alleged "secret work" is not equatable to a "black project", Everyone I work with right now has at least a GENSER security clearance as does a vast majority of the Pentagon Staff. My work is for sure not a "black project". If you asked my parents what I do they would say I was in the Navy, possibly that I now babysit the air farce and that is all, if you ask my kids they would say 'dada works on airplanes', you ask my teammates and they would say "that douche bag?".

My time in metro DC was during the 90's, I was 'on the road' an average of 275 days a year, I know this because we had to keep a daily track of it and I still have all of my expense reports (not sure why though). I had just over 200 flights during that time, my team, depending on the organization assigned at the time, traveled equally to as little as 25%, I was a key player at each of my assignments so I was a busy bugger. No one in my office was a 'stay at home only' worker, we all had to our share of the traveling. I was not at the Pentagon (thank god - too political for me) which is not the only hub for the DoD in the beltway. I worked for several organizations such as the Naval Research Laboratory, Dept of State and other three and four letter agencies. I am a Navy vet now working as a contractor and still frequently travel.

I was not and still am not interested in my fellow passengers unless they were/are a pretty girl. I have been on a few flights with celebrities and other vip's but I could give a rats behind about them just as they do me. The airplane is a bus taking us from point A to point B, its not a yuppie health club meant for socializing. Many times I would see people that I knew worked in similar fields, from company/agency A or company/agency B, from other offices within my organization or from previous assignments but other than exchanging pleasantries its not a high school reunion or a job fair. While some people are constantly networking it was nto something that I or my team did. We flew under the radar if you would and that was because of various lessons learned from hijackings.

What irks me is that so many people have no clue about the ways of the world. They expect their little microcosm to be the all perfect truth. Tis why American tourists are often referred to as ugly Americans; the same can be said for many other countries citizens when they step outside their safe and secure personal box. The other side of the railroad tracks are not the same as yours, thank god!

JRBids said:

My pea-soup of preconception? If anyone is looking through pea soup it's you. I don't find it suspicious at all. And you have not stated WHY you think it's suspicious. What was the purpose? "I'm going to fill a plane full of defense and computer people and fly them into the Pentagon to make a statement!"? How did "they" get them all onto the plane at the same time? Or do you think they WEREN'T on the plane, the list is made up? Then what happened to those people. You are being very obtuse.

Click to expand...

But the flight wasn't full of defense and computer people. The cherry-picked list provided is of just 15 names, from 53 passengers.

I'm starting to get worried for Mr. Grieves, this level of paranoia coupled with a noticeable disregard for every sensible explanation given can't be healthy.

Alhazred The Sane said:

But the flight wasn't full of defense and computer people. The cherry-picked list provided is of just 15 names, from 53 passengers.

I'm starting to get worried for Mr. Grieves, this level of paranoia coupled with a noticeable disregard for every sensible explanation given can't be healthy.

Click to expand...

He's a question in search of a conclusion.

It reminds me of the list of folks that BP has 'knocked off' . Their list varied from folks with no connection, including one the died BEFORE the blowout, to folks that had very little connection, like Sen Ted Stevens, to folks that hadn't 'disappeared'. They were LOOKING for anyone that might could be linked to the spill.

Cairenn said:

It reminds me of the list of folks that BP has 'knocked off' . Their list varied from folks with no connection, including one the died BEFORE the blowout, to folks that had very little connection, like Sen Ted Stevens, to folks that hadn't 'disappeared'. They were LOOKING for anyone that might could be linked to the spill.

Click to expand...

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is an informal fallacy in which pieces of information that have no relationship to one another are called out for their similarities, and that similarity is used for claiming the existence of a pattern.[1] This fallacy is the philosophical/rhetorical application of the multiple comparisons problem (in statistics) and apophenia (in cognitive psychology). It is related to the clustering illusion, which refers to the tendency in human cognition to interpret patterns in randomness where none actually exist.

The name comes from a joke about a Texan who fires some shots at the side of a barn, then paints a target centered on the biggest cluster of hits and claims to be a sharpshooter.

​

I'm starting to get worried for Mr. Grieves, this level of paranoia coupled with a noticeable disregard for every sensible explanation given can't be healthy.

Click to expand...

I don't appreciate the concern. Insert sarcastic remark implying the opposite. [...]

The problem is that there is no connection, you and others are trying to make lines that are not there. Just because someone is ex-Navy or ex-Army has no more ramification than just that. Its like saying that they went to a school in the same school district and ended up working for the same employer.

Click to expand...

And then were on a plane which happened to be hijacked and flown into their employer. Nothing odd about that. Pentagon/Navy employees being on a plane used in an attack on the Pentagon/Navy is a connection. it's an obvious, blatant, glaring connection, beyond all doubt and refute. It's downright ludicrous to suggest otherwise. I say that connection is suspicious. If you say it isn't, and is just coincidental, that's your opinion and I clearly can't change it. To say it's not even a connection now is [wrong]

Those job descriptions are from relatives not from the airline or employers to the best of my knowledge. They extremely subjective and are no more official or accurate then the computer screens everyone is reading this on.

Click to expand...

And on what are you basing this? These people either are who it says they are or they aren't, which is pretty easily provable/disprovable. Do you have any reason whatsoever to believe the job descriptions are inaccurate? Especially the extremely specific ones..?

Grieves said:

And then were on a plane which happened to be hijacked and flown into their employer. Nothing odd about that. Pentagon/Navy employees being on a plane used in an attack on the Pentagon/Navy is a connection. it's an obvious, blatant, glaring connection, beyond all doubt and refute. It's downright ludicrous to suggest otherwise. I say that connection is suspicious.

Click to expand...

But you don't say WHY it is suspicious. You seem to be creating an argument that it sounds suspicious, when all the facts indicate it's very likely that that's what would happen if someone were to hijack an aircraft from Dulles and fly it into the Pentagon.

But you don't say WHY it is suspicious.

Click to expand...

A crime was committed in which Pentagon and Navy officials were murdered, the weapon used in that crime being a passenger airplane. A fair number of the passengers of that airplane were Navy personnel, and one's daily work took him to the very target of the attacks, in the same branch of work done there to many of those killed. If passengers aboard the plane would themselves have been targets of the attack, what's so hugely unreasonable about the suspicion that/those passenger/s might have been targeted themselves? Perhaps it's unlikely, but when someone's murdered it seems worth exploring whether it was as a bystander or with motive.

when all the facts indicate it's very likely that that's what would happen if someone were to hijack an aircraft from Dulles and fly it into the Pentagon.

Click to expand...

Do you understand why I have difficulty with your frequent use of the word 'likely' in this thread...? We're talking about an extremely unlikely event, perhaps the most unlikely event to have taken place in history. To say "Well of course Hijackers taking a plane out of DC in the morning with the intention of flying it into the Pentagon would have Pentagon and Navy employees making up a fairly sizable percentage of its crew! That's how all morning flights mid-week out of D/C are...!" strikes me as a baseless argument. I've seen nothing other than a few unspecific anecdotes to suggest such a compliment is common, and even so, this was not a common flight. A bank-manager taking the bus home every second day is commonplace. Getting on the Bus only to have it hijacked and driven violently and fatally into his bank isn't. The police might wonder, and rightly so, if he, as well as the bank, had been a target.

You are thinking about this backwards Grieves. Here's what happened:

1) Hijackers decided to hijack a plane and fly it into the Pentagon, as a way of attacking America for its actions in the Middle East.
2) There was a normal looking passenger list for that flight.

Grieves said:

Do you understand why I have difficulty with your frequent use of the word 'likely' in this thread...? We're talking about an extremely unlikely event, perhaps the most unlikely event to have taken place in history. To say "Well of course Hijackers taking a plane out of DC in the morning with the intention of flying it into the Pentagon would have Pentagon and Navy employees making up a fairly sizable percentage of its crew! That's how all morning flights mid-week out of D/C are...!" strikes me as a baseless argument. I've seen nothing other than a few unspecific anecdotes to suggest such a compliment is common, and even so, this was not a common flight. A bank-manager taking the bus home every second day is commonplace. Getting on the Bus only to have it hijacked and driven violently and fatally into his bank isn't. The police might wonder, and rightly so, if he, as well as the bank, had been a target.

Click to expand...

There were only 2 current employees of either the DoD or Navy on the plane.

Mid week, early morning planes typically contain business travelers.

One of the core business's in the areas is Defense as is evidenced by the extraordinary number of defense contractors within a few miles of the airport.

That some their employees would fly to the west coast at 8:30 on a tuesday morning is not unusual or suspicious...it is, in FACT, likely that a mid week morning flight to the west coast would contain a significant proportion of people in the predominant industry in the area. This is also shown by the number of people in "hi-tech" on the flight bound for San Francisco.

People in the defense industry flying on a mid week plane to the west coast...not unusual.

That the plane was hijacked was the unusual bit.

1) Hijackers decided to hijack a plane and fly it into the Pentagon, as a way of attacking America for its actions in the Middle East.

Click to expand...

So the motive determined before the crime had taken place, let alone before it's investigation began, precludes all other possibilities?

Grieves said:

So the motive determined before the crime had taken place, let alone before it's investigation began, precludes all other possibilities?

Click to expand...

Not at all, you could replace it with:

1) Hijackers decided to hijack a plane and fly it into the Pentagon, for some reason.
2) There was a normal looking passenger list for that flight.

For this to have been deliberate, then there would have been a COMMON factor that got that SET of folks on THAT plane. Have you found anything to indicate that there was any ONE reason that all of them were on that flight? Other than it being normal?

So the hijackers would have to have access to the flight list, or engineer a way to get their targets on the plane. Did they also set up the meetings/conferences/interviews/jobs those people were flying out for?
Remembering there were a couple of other significant hijacking incidents that day, did they choose the day of the operation based on the passenger list of that one Washington plane? Presumably the passenger lists of the other planes are random and circumstantial and this is the only one you want to be deliberately planned for.
The complexity increases as you try to account for them engineering the occupants of that plane.
It is hard to understand why you see it as being impossible that those occupations could be represented randomly, especially given the nature of the area. What about it is so impossible?

because a natural world without finite reason and is just too strange for some people to accept?

i think its beautiful.

It is hard to understand why you see it as being impossible that those occupations could be represented randomly, especially given the nature of the area. What about it is so impossible?

Click to expand...

It's not impossible. I never claimed it was. Only unlikely to the point of seeming suspicious. I'm not the one in this thread dictating what's possible/impossible. That's a station apparently reserved for others.

1) Hijackers decided to hijack a plane and fly it into the Pentagon, for some reason.

Click to expand...

Motive is rather important when trying to define a crime, isn't it? 'For some reason' became 'as a way of attacking America for its actions in the Middle East' before the crimes had even fully transpired, and alternatives were never properly investigated. Shouldn't a suspicious, or if you can't acknowledge that then at least a vaguely conspicuous connection between the passengers of a hijacked plane and its intended target warrant some scrutiny/attention? Apparently of course not, and I'm just paranoid for thinking so, because everyone knows precisely what happened that day, how it happened, and why it happened, based in the thorough and complete investigative work of NIST and the 9/11 commission, job done and problem solved, not a worthy question left unanswered.

There is NOTHING unlikely about it. Just folks doing what they normally did.

My hubby's late night flight with all the rodeo cowboys was unusual, but quite reasonable . Just a bunch of cowboys coming home (many bronc and bull riders travel by plane since they don't need a horse).

Have you managed to even link 2 of those folks together, in any way? Other than they were retired vets or worked in the defense industry? Where some of them going to the same conference or convention?

Have you managed to even link 2 of those folks together, in any way? Other than they were retired vets or worked in the defense industry? Where some of them going to the same conference or convention?

Click to expand...

Two worked together in precisely the same field, Cairenn... as Boeing satellite engineers. That you'd ask such a question suggests you've been arguing this thread without even paying attention to the content, something also indicated by your repeat questions on subjects already addressed.

Grieves said:

Two worked together in precisely the same field, Cairenn... as Boeing satellite engineers.

Click to expand...

Indeed...and yet the fact that they were on the same plane was purely a coincidence.

Ruben was scheduled to board a plane next week but a lull in an extended business trip in Washington, D.C., gave him an opportunity to go home for a day or two. He wanted to see his wife of three months, Sheila, who is pregnant.

http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/passengers.html

2 others (Leonard Taylor and John Sammartino) worked for the same company...and as business people often do- were traveling for their business:

John, a platinum frequent flier on American Airlines, was heading to company headquarters in Van Nuys, Calif., with colleague Leonard Taylor.

...and what about Vick Yancy- the former Naval electronics technician then working for a defense contractor??

Her presence on the plane was last second chance:

Vicki was on her way to Reno for a business conference but hadn't planned to be on Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on Tuesday.
Yancey, a former naval electronics technician, worked for a defense contracting company and had planned to leave Washington earlier, but ticketing problems delayed her departure, her husband, David, told the Washington Post. She called her husband 10 minutes before the flight boarded, to tell him that she got a seat on the plane.

Just making vague assertions about vague connections seems misguided unless you look at the circumstances of each individual in question.

Grieves said:

It's not impossible. I never claimed it was. Only unlikely to the point of seeming suspicious. I'm not the one in this thread dictating what's possible/impossible. That's a station apparently reserved for others.

Click to expand...

You give the impression that you think it's impossible, because when the larger implications of the scenario you're suggesting IS given some scrutiny - ie, how they could set up such a payload of passengers, and deliberately target a part of the building one guy worked in that was supposedly a message to somebody or a way of wiping out knowledge that was a threat to someone, versus the chances of a random sample of people in a plane that was lucky to hit the building at all - the scenario you are implying becomes way more unlikely than the banal (relatively) explanation.
Your insistence on saying the even more complicated conspiracy with multiple unknown factors is more likely than the mundane one with known factors is what made me say you seem to think it's impossible.
Apologies for the hyperbole.

in a plane that was lucky to hit the building at all -

Click to expand...

I take issue with this. As stated in several other threads in arguments against 'CT'ers, flying a Boeing into a building is a rather simple task, which any starter pilot could do with ease. That being said, the pilot of flight 77 didn't just fly it straight into the building, he conducted a complex and skillful controlled maneuver in order to hit the building at the side. Debates about the possibility of an inexperienced hijacker performing such a maneuver aside, I don't think anyone denies it would have taken a considerable level of skill to pull it off without crashing the plane short of their target. There's a strict policy of avoidance/dismissal of this issue within this forum I've noted, but given the nature of that maneuver, why is it not even considered possible that that particular section of the Pentagon might have been targeted? The plan executed that day was carried out with startling precision- a resounding, baffling success on the part of the perpetrators. To assume the Pentagon collision took place the way it did 'Just because', and that the attacks were 'lucky flukes', is willful ignorance so far as I'm concerned.

Your insistence on saying the even more complicated conspiracy with multiple unknown factors is more likely than the mundane one with known factors is what made me say you seem to think it's impossible.

Click to expand...

I have several problems with the 'mundane' story. The fact an enemy had been blamed, a plan of action composed, and nations we now know to have been entirely uninvolved were claimed as complicit and requiring destruction (claims which have been steadily acted upon ever since, in spite of their falsehood) the very morning of the attacks, before the attacks were even over/investigation had begun... and that not a single piece of that information, those plans of action, the list of perpetrators, or any aspect of that pre-release has changed or expanded ever since is highly troubling to me. Much of the rhetoric within the immediately televised outrage was a clear road-map to the next decade of warfare, and seemed eerily scripted. Instead of 'guilty until proven innocent', which is a problem in and of itself, it was 'Guilty, fuck proof.' right from the start. This seemingly pre-composed story of the events and their unfolding, coupled with the ludicrously inadequate funding/powers granted the investigation, coupled with the administrations very active resistance to independent investigators/inquiry, coupled with the clear and systematic way in which rights and liberties have been constricted at home while big business reaps the profits of a new Crusade to the suffering or anxiety of most everyone else on the planet, all makes the official account seem rather dubious to me. When it comes down to it, most of the more reasonable folks here admit the investigation was botched to an extent. Rather than view that as suspicious, or if not suspicious than outrageous, the general opinion seems to be a shrug and a 'no one's perfect.', suggesting holding people accountable for the many multiple failures would be some sort of cruel witch-hunt.

Grieves said:

the pilot conducted a complex and skillful controlled maneuver in order to hit the building at the side.

Click to expand...

No. He had to descend, and the spiral route he took was the obvious way to descend keeping the target in view.

The fact an enemy had been blamed before the attacks were even over.

Click to expand...

He had attacked the USA before. It's not rocket science. They had been watching his "team".

that information has not changed or expanded ever since

Click to expand...

That's the way it is with a terrorist cell. Information that never existed will never surface.

'Guilty, fuck proof.' right from the start.

Click to expand...

He had attacked the USA before. It's not rocket science. They had been watching his "team".

the administration's very active resistance to independent investigators/inquiry

Click to expand...

They had their incompetence to hide.

rights and liberties have been constricted

Click to expand...

You have yours to hide also if you think there's any connection between that and this topic.

accountability

Click to expand...

Ah. That buck never stopped anywhere. Even you watched it go by.

For your information, there's an armed camp, bristling with 200 nuclear-tipped weapons, inserted in the middle east with the active support of the USA, and some people objected to that. They even publicly stated their objections.

Perhaps you would rather pretend that's not the case, preferring to concentrate on your internal politics.

Am I correct in remembering that the side of the Pentagon that was hit was fairly clear of buildings and communication towers as such in the way? It faces Arlington Nat'l Cemetery I believe. There is a lot more development on the other sides and that hitting it from other directions would have taken it over DC proper.

Would they have risked that? Would they have been confident that a low flying plane over DC would not be shot down?

The order of the attacks is interesting to me, first the easy targets, guaranteed to send folks in the Pentagon to their offices, then the Pentagon with the hope of taking out military leadership. The thought has been that the fourth plane was intended to hit the capital building, to kill our civilian government.

Of course it could have just been dictated by when the flights took off.

They had their incompetence to hide.

Click to expand...

Hide their incompetence..? They lovingly embraced it, and yet none of them were punished for it. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, even Powell, each of them, even if none were complicit in some grander scheme, rather blatantly and admittedly screwed the pooch in the handling of the situation, both in the lead-up and the aftermath. Instead of losing their jobs and having their careers put under rigorous investigation for other similar blunders, and the clear implications for the manipulation of intelligence regarding National Security in order to bring the country into a state of illegitimate War, they were praised as heroes and given multiple book-deals for their bravery and resolve in the face of adverse times... even though most sensible people acknowledge Bush as either an idiot or a weasel, Cheney as entirely heartless figuratively as well as literally, Rice as an excellent but habitual liar, Rumsfeld as Mr. Rogers if he was hiding a butcher-knife behind his sweater-vested back, and Powell as a tag-a-long, who'll say what he's told even if he doesn't believe it.

No. He had to descend, and the spiral route he took was the obvious way to descend keeping the target in view.

Click to expand...

the spiral route he took was the obvious one...? Explain that too me. As frequently stated in other threads on this topic, the absolute easiest way to fly a plane into a building is by flying that plane in a straight line toward that building, 'something which can easily be done by drawing a dot on the windshield over the building', wasn't it? Why, rather than flying a a direct descent, at whatever angle, in a straight line toward a literally target-shaped building, would a diving spiral be the more obvious method? What sense does that make?
​
Wouldn't this be the obvious way?

He had attacked the USA before. It's not rocket science. They had been watching his "team".

Click to expand...

And were instantly prepared to blame him for a flabbergasting crime that had just been committed, as well blaming and urging war against Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran? Doesn't it seem odd for them to know exactly who did it, why, and what was going to be done about it before any investigation has begun... and yet at the same time claim they had absolutely no idea it was going to happen? Well, I already know your answer.

rights and liberties have been constricted

Click to expand...

You have yours to hide also if you think there's any connection between that and this topic.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, so 9/11 wasn't used as an excuse to introduce 'emergency' legislation with a severe impact on the rights of Americans? Is that 'emergency' legislation not still in place over a decade later? Am I incorrect in that..?

Ah. That buck never stopped anywhere. Even you watched it go by.

Click to expand...

True I suppose, but in my defense I was 14 at the time of the attacks, and don't live in your country.

For your information, there's an armed camp, bristling with 200 nuclear-tipped weapons, inserted in the middle east with the active support of the USA, and some people objected to that. They even publicly stated their objections.

Perhaps you would rather pretend that's not the case, preferring to concentrate on your internal politics.

Click to expand...

There's a point here, but I'm afraid I'm missing it.

Am I correct in remembering that the side of the Pentagon that was hit was fairly clear of buildings and communication towers as such in the way?It faces Arlington Nat'l Cemetery I believe. There is a lot more development on the other sides and that hitting it from other directions would have taken it over DC proper.

Click to expand...

Yes, it was hit on the western face, which was indeed facing the cemetery. The northern and eastern faces are also clear of development aside from roads, with the eastern side facing the Potomac, the river between the Pentagon and Washington. The only sizable buildings/obstacles in proximity to the Pentagon are south of it. Planes would have a relatively clear shot from most any other direction.

Would they have risked that? Would they have been confident that a low flying plane over DC would not be shot down?

Click to expand...

Why risk such a maneuver, when a more direct descent would be far easier? Maybe they were after something in particular, and not just the Pentagon as a whole?

Grieves said:

the spiral route he took was the obvious one...? Explain that too me. As frequently stated in other threads on this topic, the absolute easiest way to fly a plane into a building is by flying that plane in a straight line toward that building, 'something which can easily be done by drawing a dot on the windshield over the building', wasn't it? Why, rather than flying a a direct descent, at whatever angle, in a straight line toward a literally target-shaped building, would a diving spiral be the more obvious method? What sense does that make?

Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense to a pilot, because he was too high. You can't just put the nose down at 45 degrees on a 767 travelling at high speed. It would have been MUCH harder to hit the Pentagon directly from where he was.

A 360 turn is a standard maneuver. You just note where the compass is, and then turn until it has gone all the way around.

To descend while doing this you just reduce power. You will eventually end up where you were, but lower.

It did not really alter the target profile either. he was still in pretty much the same position, and then flew a straight shallow descent to the Pentagon.

It's not at all the complex maneuver it is sometime made out to be.

Here's an earlier post I made on the topic:

Mick said:

Here's what happened:



As they approached they had descended to 8,000 feet, however that then put them in a position too steep to descend from, so they did the descending turn. Then were lined up, back where they started the turn, but now at 2,200 feet, and went straight in. They pushed the nose down, and went straight in.

Rate of descent is controlled by two things - speed, and the aircraft attitude (if the nose is pointing up or down). Normally pilots descend by reducing power, and any pilot knows this automatically. But what he did here was go full power and push the stick forward. So long as you are going towards the target there's no need to reduce power. If you can't keep the nose down, then you'd reduce power.

Click to expand...

Grieves said:

I'm sorry, so 9/11 wasn't used as an excuse to introduce 'emergency' legislation with a severe impact on the rights of Americans? Is that 'emergency' legislation not still in place over a decade later? Am I incorrect in that..?

Click to expand...

I 100% agree with you there. and its the only reason when i was a teenager i believed the loose change ct. it gave so much credence to a megalomania backing to this mess. but it now seems far more clear to be the sole problem.

why not devote you energies to helping to pick that apart?

Grieves said:

Hide their incompetence..? They lovingly embraced it, and yet none of them were punished for it. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, even Powell, each of them, even if none were complicit in some grander scheme, rather blatantly and admittedly screwed the pooch in the handling of the situation, both in the lead-up and the aftermath.

Click to expand...

You should watch The World According to Dick Cheney if you get a chance. It's pretty mainstream, but it will make your head explode.
Showtime : The World According To Dick Cheney

It is so easy, with hindsight, to KNOW that Sadam didn't have WMD. The evidence presented then looked sort of sketchy to me (hmm---sort of like the evidence that we see from CTs---lots of parallels there--did we see an example of the same mind-think in the administration?). He had had them and he had been willing to use them.

I never really thought that he had anything to do with 9/11, of course, I was biased against Pres Bush also.

Cairenn said:

It is so easy, with hindsight, to KNOW that Sadam didn't have WMD.

Click to expand...

I have always wondered....if BushCo were able to concoct and execute 9/11- an incredibly complicated, multifaceted plan involving extreme coordination by most estimations...(never mind they pulled it off only 9 months into his Presidency)

...why were they unable to "find" any WMDs??

Seems like if they were going to go to all the trouble of staging 9/11 in order to get their Pearl harbor so they could go into Iraq that they would have "found" some WMDs to justify their incursion. Why risk looking foolish coming up empty handed- when by comparison- staging some WMDs would have been quite easy? a few piles of Sarin canisters and you have "proof" splashed across the news...

Seems illogical and unlikely.

The more I think about it, the more that whole mess looks more like folks acting on the type of thinking processes we see in CTs. There are somethings to give a credence to a theory. However, there is no actual evidence, however, prior experience would indicate that the 'evidence' just hadn't been found yet.

Sadam was doing everything he could to make others THINK he had WMD. We need to remember that NONE of his neighbors liked or trusted him. He was sitting in the middle of 3 hostile countries, Iran, Israel and Saudi.

If people didnt think he had them he would have been a sitting duck, iraq would have been seen as far more weak. he would have done anything to make you think he had them. Sadam is not the only person to have done this as a self defense mechanism. it was a poker game of sorts.

but yea, hindsight...

SR1419 said:

I have always wondered....if BushCo were able to concoct and execute 9/11

Click to expand...

Bush couldn't fry an egg, why would you even wonder about anything more complex?

Cairenn said:

It is so easy, with hindsight, to KNOW that Sadam didn't have WMD. The evidence presented then looked sort of sketchy to me (hmm---sort of like the evidence that we see from CTs---lots of parallels there--did we see an example of the same mind-think in the administration?). He had had them and he had been willing to use them.

I never really thought that he had anything to do with 9/11, of course, I was biased against Pres Bush also.

Click to expand...

You've touched on something important there, C.

The USukisnato gangsters had been bombing and sanctioning Iraq since the first Gulf 'war' - and I mean 'war', because a war is when two armies are fighting. It was an unmitigated slaughter (as was GW11). Hindsight is not required - many of us knew at the time that it was bullshit - they had their plans and that was that. Did you know that your country and mine supplied and supported his chemical weapons capability during the war with Iran? Please do answer.
Please tell me, C, without looking it up - how many Iraqis died as a result of the war since the invasion in 2003? And how many as a result of GW1 and sanctions throughout the nineties up to GW2? In fact, same question to anyone and everyone....a straw poll....

...why were they unable to "find" any WMDs??

Seems like if they were going to go to all the trouble of staging 9/11 in order to get their Pearl harbor so they could go into Iraq that they would have "found" some WMDs to justify their incursion. Why risk looking foolish coming up empty handed- when by comparison- staging some WMDs would have been quite easy? a few piles of Sarin canisters and you have "proof" splashed across the news...

Seems illogical and unlikely.

Click to expand...

Perhaps because looking foolish is part of the plan. It's much, much easier to forgive and forget a fuck-up... consider how Bush had come to be regarded both during and in the wake of his presidency. This highly educated, extremely well connected individual who quite evidently and skillfully manipulated public emotion to instigate an ongoing series of Wars that serve no legitimate defensive purpose, is seen largely as a buffoon, a source of humor and embarrassment, who's actions inspire for most only a shrug and a 'well that's dumb old Bush for you.' Not to mention the effort to find WMD's was an international one, overseen by the United Nations. In order to do what you're suggesting, they'd have had to coerced or controlled a majority of the UN inspection teams. Instead, and far more simply, the UN inspection teams were largely ignored, with an answer of 'Woops' afterward... an answer everyone was willing to except, because that administration was just so gosh-darn incompetent. Who's an incompetent administration...! Aww, yes you are...! Here, have a book deal.

And weren't there a few 'false finds' of WMD's? As in reports of caches/labs found that later were retracted?

But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.

--George W. Bush
Interview with TVP Poland
5/30/2003

Click to expand...

The more I think about it, the more that whole mess looks more like folks acting on the type of thinking processes we see in CTs. There are somethings to give a credence to a theory. However, there is no actual evidence, however, prior experience would indicate that the 'evidence' just hadn't been found yet.

Click to expand...

And that most all of them stood to financially benefit while hugely enriching and ensuring the ongoing profit-rise of the most powerful lobbying force in history had absolutely nothing to do with it, of course.

lee h oswald said:

Bush couldn't fry an egg, why would you even wonder about anything more complex?

Click to expand...

My point exactly....so, thinking he (they) could have pulled off 9/11 seems an inherently flawed position.