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

Status
Not open for further replies.
The pentagon is PART of the pentacle---not the whole thing, just like a LINE is part of a cross, but no one would confuse a line with a cross.

I don't believe that occupations of passengers are recorded and released to the public.

Why are we being expected to provide the evidence? It seems that those that find it unusual should be the folks doing the evidence providing.
 
The pentagon is PART of the pentacle---not the whole thing, just like a LINE is part of a cross, but no one would confuse a line with a cross.

I don't believe that occupations of passengers are recorded and released to the public.

Why are we being expected to provide the evidence? It seems that those that find it unusual should be the folks doing the evidence providing.

You deny the pentagon is an occult symbol? Any other wiccans here want to comment?

So the real data is not available?

We?
 
Well since that data is not available, we have to use less direct data, like the proximity of the Pentagon to the airport, and the number of people who work there.

What data do you base your suspicion on?

But the 'data not being available' never seems a viable excuse when you ask such questions.

You've got no data for your opinion. That's a pretty serious condition for a materialist reductionist science worshipper.
 
Oswald, actually read this. its why we cant debate with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_repetition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

First one being the most important.


According to your reasoning, i must prove unicorns dont exist if i child says they do. this simply is not how an argument is handled.

Contrarian, troll, sophist, time has had many names for people who enjoy doing what it is you are taking part in here.

I am done with this thread until you are, i can feed trolls on facebook and 4chan that is NOT what i come here to do.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/30/unicorns-existence-proven-says-north-korea/

I guess i better start coming up with proof.....
 
Oswald, actually read this. its why we cant debate with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_repetition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

First one being the most important.


According to your reasoning, i must prove unicorns dont exist if i child says they do. this simply is not how an argument is handled.

Contrarian, troll, sophist, time has had many names for people who enjoy doing what it is you are taking part in here.

I am done with this thread until you are, i can feed trolls on facebook and 4chan that is NOT what i come here to do.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/30/unicorns-existence-proven-says-north-korea/

I guess i better start coming up with proof.....


Bye!
 
Oswald, actually read this. its why we cant debate with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_repetition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

First one being the most important.


According to your reasoning, i must prove unicorns dont exist if i child says they do. this simply is not how an argument is handled.

Contrarian, troll, sophist, time has had many names for people who enjoy doing what it is you are taking part in here.

I am done with this thread until you are, i can feed trolls on facebook and 4chan that is NOT what i come here to do.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/30/unicorns-existence-proven-says-north-korea/

I guess i better start coming up with proof.....

You look upset.
 
Quit trolling lee. This is your last warning.

It's perfectly obvious that "we" in that context refers to the people in this thread who are arguing that the passenger list does not seem suspicious.

So, if it's not politeness it's trolling. You don't want a challenge to your thinking and 'logic', you want it homogeneous and fake.
 
Quit trolling lee. This is your last warning.

It's perfectly obvious that "we" in that context refers to the people in this thread who are arguing that the passenger list does not seem suspicious.

You pick me out when someone else is being stupid and insulting?
 
Dulles Airport, where flight 77 departed, is 22 miles from the Pentagon

That's data.

The Pentagon has it's own airport, directly north of the facility, called the Pentagon ahp.
Shortly to the east-southeast, directly across the Jefferson Davis Highway, is Washington Airport, a public international airport. Does that not impact your assertion that a Pentagon employee would almost certainly be on any given morning flight out of Dulles? For most, wouldn't Dulles be 22 miles out of their way?

of trolling
Quit trolling lee.
Contrarian, troll, sophist,
dont feed the troll...
Seriously? Are we going to descend into that lame 'troll' meme? Aside from being an increasingly tired product of the internet hate-machine, aren't there rules on this site about that sort of thing?
  • Do not insult people either directly or indirectly
  • Do not call them names, such as "stupid", "ignorant", "uneducated", or "liar"
'Troll' isn't an 'official term', folks. Interesting that the guy who wasn't calling people names gets banned.
 
The Pentagon has it's own airport, directly north of the facility, called the Pentagon ahp.
Shortly to the east-southeast, directly across the Jefferson Davis Highway, is Washington Airport, a public international airport. Does that not impact your assertion that a Pentagon employee would almost certainly be on any given morning flight out of Dulles? For most, wouldn't Dulles be 22 miles out of their way?
They don't actually live in the Pentagon. And they would want to take commercial direct flights to LA. And they don't have to walk, 22 miles is hardly out of their way.

Seriously? Are we going to descend into that lame 'troll' meme? Aside from being an increasingly tired product of the internet hate-machine, aren't there rules on this site about that sort of thing?

'Troll' isn't an 'official term', folks. Interesting that the guy who wasn't calling people names gets banned.

Troll is in the dictionary. Lee was just posting to irritate people and provoke a response. He has a long history of this and had been banned before.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/troll--2
2 informal submit a deliberately provocative posting to an online message board with the aim of inciting an angry response:
"if people are obviously trolling then I’ll delete your posts and do my best to ban you"
Content from External Source
 
Have you conflated pentagram with pentagon?
At the center of every pentagram, there is a pentagon. In most modern Pagan circles, the points of the pentagram represent the 'elements', (earth, air, fire, water, spirit), and the pentagon represents the central being.
pentagram.jpg
Here's a nice little artistic representation of the symbolism described above. Each point of the pentagram contains a depiction of its corresponding element, and at the center, within the pentagon, is a representation of the three stages of life for women of Pagan belief: maiden, mother, and crone. With modern takes on old traditions there's bound to be a fair bit of deviation, but pentagrams, pentagons, and related symbols do date back rather far into actual 'pagan' traditions. Thus, its not unfair to say the pentagon has an 'occult' symbolism, representing the self, centrality, balance, ect. To say The Pentagon itself was constructed to play into this might be a bit of a stretch, but the building does represent 'centrality' where American defense is considered... a place where Navy, Army, Airforce, Intelligence and the National Guard all mix and mingle.
 
They don't actually live in the Pentagon.
But they work there. Presumably most days.
And they would want to take commercial direct flights to LA.
direct commercial flights between LA and Washington Airport are readily available.

Troll is in the dictionary.
So's faggot.
Lee was just posting to irritate people and provoke a response.
it seemed to me he was participating in the discussion until the business of 'trolling' came up. That he inspired a reaction doesn't make that reaction his aim.
 
But they work there. Presumably most days.
direct commercial flights between LA and Washington Airport are readily available.

It was a 7:15 AM flight. Obviously they are not going to go into the office first.

There are no direct flights from Washington (DCA) before 9AM. So Dulles is the choice if you want to get into LA for the start of the business day.

This all seems like the most tenuous basis for suspicion.
 
This all seems like the most tenuous basis for suspicion.
It's certainly not at all of the same caliber as the administrations reaction to independent investigation, or the baffling collapse of building 7. The passenger list, given the prevalence of occupants with jobs directly relating to the events of the day, is vaguely suspicious... whereas the events of the day as a whole, the reaction to those events and their evident exploitation, and the hugely impeded investigation in the wake of those events, are all heavily suspicious.
 
The Pentagon has it's own airport, directly north of the facility, called the Pentagon ahp.
Shortly to the east-southeast, directly across the Jefferson Davis Highway, is Washington Airport, a public international airport. Does that not impact your assertion that a Pentagon employee would almost certainly be on any given morning flight out of Dulles? For most, wouldn't Dulles be 22 miles out of their way?

Grieves - there is no such place as "Washington Airport". There use to be prior to 1933 when it closed. The Washington DC Metro area, as I pointed out previously, is served by 3 major airports: Washington National (now known as Reagan National Airport), Washington Dulles and Baltimore Washington International (BWI). Depending on flight availability and personal preference (when able to accommodate) will dictate what airport we/they would utilize. The Pentagon has a Helipad only.
 
The Pentagon has it's own airport, directly north of the facility, called the Pentagon ahp.
Shortly to the east-southeast, directly across the Jefferson Davis Highway, is Washington Airport, a public international airport. Does that not impact your assertion that a Pentagon employee would almost certainly be on any given morning flight out of Dulles? For most, wouldn't Dulles be 22 miles out of their way?

The airport you are referring to is an Army Heliport, ahp is the abbreviation for Army Heliport. It is not used for commercial flights.

pentagon-army-heliport-485x304.jpg
 
The passenger list, given the prevalence of occupants with jobs directly relating to the events of the day, is vaguely suspicious.

Thats an exaggeration at best.

Lawyers, pilots, engineers, software developers, budget analysts, scientists etc...all with only tangential connections to the events of the day in that they are connected to the defense industry and the symbol of the US military was a target.
 
all with only tangential connections to the events of the day in that they are connected to the defense industry and the symbol of the US military was a target.
An employee of the Pentagon being flown into the Pentagon/employees of Boeing dieing in a Boeing plane are not 'tangential connections'.
Grieves - there is no such place as "Washington Airport". There use to be prior to 1933 when it closed. The Washington DC Metro area, as I pointed out previously, is served by 3 major airports: Washington National (now known as Reagan National Airport)

Washington Airport = Washington National.
 
An employee of the Pentagon being flown into the Pentagon/employees of Boeing dieing in a Boeing plane are not 'tangential connections'.

those are the ONLY direct connections...so, 4 out of how many?? The rest are quite tangential.

So, only 6% had any direct connection.
 
Just because a pentagon is part of a pentacle, doesn't make it any more of an occult symbol than a five pointed star is. Or that a LINE is (because it part of a cross) or a + sign is because it is a 'cross'.

Tradationally, the pentacle was also used as the the arms for either Sir Gawain or Sir Lancelot.
 
doesn't make it any more of an occult symbol than a five pointed star is.
A five pointed star is an 'occult'/religious symbol. Has been for centuries and centuries. That the meanings of the symbol change from age to age/culture to culture doesn't change that.
 
those are the ONLY direct connections...so, 4 out of how many?? The rest are quite tangential.

So, only 6% had any direct connection.

I am not really surprised at the level of confirmation bias used in attempting to debunk this. The fact is many people find it suspicious. Suspicion cannot be analysed in the way you attempt to. It is subjective. If you do not find it suspicious, that likely says far more about your general trust or affiliation with/in 'authority' rather than the particular issue. As you have demonstrated repeatedly, you will go to extraordinary lengths to justify the 'trustworthiness' of the authorities, no matter how much they show they are untrustworthy.

Guess you think it is patriotic... but is it really?
 
I am not really surprised at the level of confirmation bias used in attempting to debunk this. The fact is many people find it suspicious. Suspicion cannot be analysed in the way you attempt to. It is subjective. If you do not find it suspicious, that likely says far more about your general trust or affiliation with/in 'authority' rather than the particular issue. As you have demonstrated repeatedly, you will go to extraordinary lengths to justify the 'trustworthiness' of the authorities, no matter how much they show they are untrustworthy.

Guess you think you are a patriot... but are you really?

You shouldn't guess Oxy- your odds of being right are very small.

I am not analyzing suspicion. I am analyzing facts.

"authority" has nothing to do with the facts regarding the passengers on the plane- who they were and why they were on it.

It is your bias that leads you into subjective ad hominem attacks.
 
You shouldn't guess Oxy- your odds of being right are very small.

I am not analyzing suspicion. I am analyzing facts.

"authority" has nothing to do with the facts regarding the passengers on the plane- who they were and why they were on it.

It is your bias that leads you into subjective ad hominem attacks.

We all have bias which affects the fact of whether we find something suspicious or not.

Trying to isolate things so narrowly and 'prove' your view, is a waste of time because it will always be taken in the context of all the rest of the suspicious circumstances. Yes, even liars can tell the truth. I.e 'the boy who cried wolf', or the politicians who cried WMDs.
 
Sorry a five pointed star is NOT an occult symbol. It is just one figure for a star. Not all 6 pointed stars are 'Stars of David' either. A plus sign is not a cross, the circled cross used by the Episcopalians is not the Celtic Sun cross ( it may have been influenced by it).

The flags of Chili and Cuba are similar to the Texas flag, but they are not the same thing.
 
So...you wasted everyone's time by bring it up as a thread topic?

laughing out loud!!

I cannot be held responsible for peoples propensity to argue something is not suspicious even when others find it suspicious. :)

Live and let live I say. If people find something suspicious, especially in context, why would someone expend so much time and energy trying to prove it wasn't.

I can accept that you do not find it suspicious but you seem to have a problem accepting that others, do find it suspicious.
 
I cannot be held responsible for peoples propensity to argue something is not suspicious even when others find it suspicious. :)

Live and let live I say. If people find something suspicious, especially in context, why would someone expend so much time and energy trying to prove it wasn't.

I can accept that you do not find it suspicious but you seem to have a problem accepting that others, do find it suspicious.

live and let live- really?? funny...the general tenor of your posts and general angst at the "bankers" et al doesn't suggest that.

YOU were the one who posted it as a topic to isolate it....So, perhaps some reflection on your part is in order.

I have no problem with people finding it suspicious...but seeing as how we are on a forum to discuss such things- I shouldn't have to take criticism from YOU- the thread starter- for pointing put that the suspicion is based on lack of logic and irrational fear mongering.
 
live and let live- really?? funny...the general tenor of your posts and general angst at the "bankers" et al doesn't suggest that.

YOU were the one who posted it as a topic to isolate it....So, perhaps some reflection on your part is in order.

I have no problem with people finding it suspicious...but seeing as how we are on a forum to discuss such things- I shouldn't have to take criticism from YOU- the thread starter- for pointing put that the suspicion is based on lack of logic and irrational fear mongering.

As for the Banksters, they do not appear to live by the 'live and let live ethos'... more like the 'live like a god and let die' ethos. I don't like the live like gods and let die ethos which is why I fight it.

As far as 'not being suspicious', there has been no evidence put forward as to why it is not suspicious. As Grieves has stated in response to
Its been shown why its very logical and likely for the flight contain the types of people it did.
No, it's been stated insistently. Nothing's been shown. ... 'simply

And as for ad hominem attacks:
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.
, I don't see you complaining here.

Of course you also get the isolationist approach as usual:
Originally Posted by Grieves

Hide their incompetence..? They lovingly embraced it, and yet none of them were punished for it
.
Is nothing to do with the thread.

It seems pretty clear that you and others cannot stand it that people dare to find things suspicious.

And yet who gets banned yet again?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As far as 'not being suspicious', there has been no evidence put forward as to why it is not suspicious. As Grieves has stated in response to

That is simply not true- the level of defense employment in the area IS evidence, the number of retired military personnel in the area IS evidence, the specific reasons why each person was on the plane IS evidence, the fact that another flight to a similar industry hub had a similar percentage of industry types on it IS evidence, the anecdotes of other travelers on similar flights IS evidence.

That you and Grieves choose to ignore this evidence and try and claim there is none is highly noteworthy.

And as for ad hominem attacks:, I don't see you complaining here.

It wasn't directed at me. Moreover, does the fact I didn't complain make it right for you to engage in them?


And yet who gets banned yet again?

He was banned for being an Ass- not for being suspicious
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top