to exaggerate a normal phenomenon
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.
How likely? I would almost guarantee it, be willing to bet my salary on it. I, myself, have hundreds of flights in and out of the metro DC area (via all three major airports) in the 10 years I was assigned there.
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 find your assertion that its its unusual based on your lack of knowledge of the region to be ridiculous. Those of us who have had and do live and work in the Metro DC area, that have done this type of traveling for our means saying that is the norm should be good enough.
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?
And still NOTHING to show a second point of connection between them.
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?
No explanation on HOW all of them were convinced to take that flight. Without that there is nothing.
Once more, I'm not prescient. Why the fuck would I guess after details I can't possibly know? What purpose does it serve? Why is there such a desire to veer back into what's imagined might have happened over discussing reality?
There is more evidence for Big Foot and the Loch Ness monster.
Better start up some new threads then Cairenn.