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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
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?
Ronald Reagan Washington National has perimeter restrictions as outlined in the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_National#Perimeter_restrictions
Government employees are limited to flying contract carriers. These carriers change throughout the year. Contractors (I used to work for a defense contractor based in the DC area). are usually required to fly cheaply. Both sets can retain their frequent flyer miles for personal use and thus try to fly the same carrier. The government employee can't always do this because of the requirement to fly contract carriers.

As I was based in the DC area and flew to the west coast a lot (50k miles a year) I would fly mostly out of Dulles but sometimes out of Baltimore as the flight could be significantly cheaper. I have flown on the same plane as my companies CEO (who was famous in the company for not having a private jet) many fellow staff members of company and program office (i.e. government personnel). Don't forget a direct flight is not the same as non-stop. Most of the time I used Dulles even though it was a longer distance from where I lived than DCA because the overall travel time was less or it was cheaper.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Please try again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Airport

Washington Airport occupies part of the grounds of what is now the pentagon. What was Washington National which is now called Reagan National Airport is further down the Potomac River and actually was constructed to replace Washington Airport.
Washington Airport = Washington National in the context of the conversation. You're correct, I misnamed it, but replace 'Washington airport' with 'Reagan National Airport' or 'Washington National'. It remains an international airport in close proximity to the Pentagon.

general angst at the "bankers" et al doesn't suggest that.
I'm very curious as to what made you put quotations around bankers.

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,
evidence of what, exactly?
the specific reasons why each person was on the plane IS evidence,
Doubtless. Are you aware of them?
the fact that another flight to a similar industry hub had a similar percentage of industry types on it IS evidence,
If that were true, yes, it might qualify. I saw you claim a 40% figure earlier. Didn't your list of 8 names at 20% turn out to be 7 names at best, with a few rather entirely tenuous connections to that industry (suggesting using computers/having an interest in understanding computers constituted a profession in the IT industry)?
the anecdotes of other travelers on similar flights IS evidence.
To a limited extent, yes. Except none of us have been on similar flights, quite obviously.

That you and Grieves choose to ignore this evidence and try and claim there is none is highly noteworthy.
It's opposite day on metabunk!

It wasn't directed at me.
Where's the love?

Sorry a five pointed star is NOT an occult symbol.
It's an exceedingly common idiom used the globe over for hundreds if not thousands of years, with a history heavily rooted in Religion/'the occult'.
 

lotek

Active Member
the fuck does occult have to do with this thread stop trying to derail this into oblivion, do i need to tell you which argument fallacy that is called as well?
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Washington Airport = Washington National in the context of the conversation. You're correct, I misnamed it, but replace 'Washington airport' with 'Reagan National Airport' or 'Washington National'. It remains an international airport in close proximity to the Pentagon.
Reagan National is not, strictly speaking, an international airport.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_National

 

lotek

Active Member
the status quo is that the list is normal, you have made the claim it is not, the burden to prove such lies on you oxy. i am more than happy to return to our productive doing so before this was turned into a circular argument. however i would ask you abstain from arguments from ignorance and logical fallacy while doing so. these are well established norms of debate that were established in some cases over a thousand years ago....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
 

Grieves

Senior Member
he fuck does occult have to do with this thread stop trying to derail this into oblivion, do i need to tell you which argument fallacy that is called as well?
I was responding to Cairenn's somewhat ill-informed comments on something Oswald had said by pointing out that pentagrams, pentagons, and five-pointed stars are all indeed common religious/'occult' symbols, as well as, of course, shapes / collections of shapes. Addressing this comment you've just made is another diversion, and not even an informative one. I none the less tend to feel statements directed toward me deserve a response. Again, that's how conversation works, isn't it? You're talking a lot about proper forms of debate for a guy who's been generally disruptive/insulting.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I was responding to Cairenn's somewhat ill-informed comments on something Oswald had said by pointing out that pentagrams, pentagons, and five-pointed stars are all indeed common religious/'occult' symbols. Addressing this comment you've just made is another diversion, and not even an informative one. I none the less tend to feel statements directed toward me deserve a response. Again, that's how conversation works, isn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon

There is mention of the Hoover Airport site too.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
I'm very curious as to what made you put quotations around bankers.
it was a catch-all for all the PTB

evidence of what, exactly?
really??? do we have to go through this again. The percentage of people involved in the defense industry in the local area is an indication of what might be expected on a mid-week flight typically carrying business travelers.


Doubtless. Are you aware of them?
Yes- why aren't you? some of the supposed suspicious passengers were on that specific plane merely by last minute travel plan changes.

If that were true, yes, it might qualify. I saw you claim a 40% figure earlier. Didn't your list of 8 names at 20% turn out to be 7 names at best, with a few rather entirely tenuous connections to that industry (suggesting using computers/having an interest in understanding computers constituted a profession in the IT industry)
No! there were 8 connections to the IT industry.- the connections I brought to light are not any more tenuous than a former Navy pilot who retired in 1967 traveling with his wife on vacation., or a lawyer who speaks on CNN. Moreover, it IS EVIDENCE that industry hubs may have a significant percentage of travelers on any given plane to and/or from that hub.

Also- you can work in IT and not work for an IT company- if you are traveling to attend an IT conference- then chances are you work in IT.

To a limited extent, yes. Except none of us have been on similar flights, quite obviously.
By that standard- only another flight that was deliberately crashed into the pentagon would constitute a similar flight for you...
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Yar, as I said, any 'occult' connection to The Pentagon is to me less than likely. I don't even like the word 'occult', as whether you're doing it in secret or doing it on TV, it's all hocus-pocus to me.
 

lotek

Active Member
" Except none of us have been on similar flights, quite obviously."

that is a HUGE assumption. is everyone to have known everyone they every flew with? or do you mean a flight which was used as a missile?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I've flow from Los Angeles to Washington a couple of times. I paid no attention to my fellow passengers.
 

lotek

Active Member
likewise ive flown from STL to LAX 12 or so times, STL to DC twice, then back and i remember 3 people i flew with, two of them were women with nice breasts when i was like 14..... one was a man who smelled bad. I recall a handful of conversations from other professionals i sat near, but nothing beyond that.
 

Alhazred The Sane

Senior Member.
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 wouldn't trust the 'authorities' as far as I could spit a pig. However, in this thread they're not the issue. Personally, I've just been trying to show that a plane with a certain number of people on board either previously employed or currently employed in the predominant industries, which are serviced by the airport from whence the plane leaves, is not inherently suspicious. To think that because one person worked in the Pentagon and the plane hit the Pentagon is the basis of a conspiracy strikes me as paranoid, to put it mildly. That 2 Boeing engineers die on a Boeing plane? Don't such planes make up much of the world's existing stock of airplanes? Chances are high that when you board a plane you're going to be on a Boeing, possibly higher if that flight is transcontinental rather than local.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
is the basis of a conspiracy
The flaw in your criticism, and your suggestion of high paranoia. It's not the 'basis' of a conspiracy. It's a vaguely suspicious element of an obviously highly suspect event which is the basis of a conspiracy. No one's suggesting this list is some kind of proof-positive of anything, just that it's somewhat suspicious to have so many people on the same plane with ties, either direct or indirect, to the highly suspicious attack that plane was involved in. Are there reasons that such a plane manifest might be entirely commonplace? Sure. A few have been presented. Does that actually mean such a plane manifest actually would be entirely commonplace? I've seen nothing but vague anecdotes and insistent statements to suggest as much.

The percentage of people involved in the defense industry in the local area is an indication of what might be expected on a mid-week flight typically carrying business travelers.
Again, that's not exactly evidence is it..?

By that standard- only another flight that was deliberately crashed into the pentagon would constitute a similar flight for you...
It was a pretty damn unique flight, was it not? To say 'well there's nothing suspicious about the passenger list on flight 77, because you might see similar people on another flight going out of that same airport...' is to me a shaky argument because it takes flight 77 out of context. It was the flight chosen to perform the attack, not any old flight out of Dulles.

if you are traveling to attend an IT conference- then chances are you work in IT.
by that standard every person attending a seminar on proper Power-Point presentations, or a conference on developing research software would be considered in the IT industry.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
It was the flight that HAPPENED to be at the right time---nothing to indicate that the 'choose' that flight, for any reason other than the time it departed.

I ask you again to show us some evidence that there was SOME link, or something that caused that set of folks to take that flight. All you have a 'point' and you are trying to make a line of it. Give us a conference or free tickets to Disneyland or something that would have gotten a 'selected' group on the plane.

Without that there is NOTHING suspicious.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Again, that's not exactly evidence is it..?
yes, its called circumstantial evidence.

It was the flight chosen to perform the attack, not any old flight out of Dulles.
But any transcontinental mid week morning flight out of dulles could be expected to have a similar make up of travelers.

Are you saying the flight was "chosen" because of the passengers? How does that work? especially since some of the "suspicious" passengers were only on the flight after last minute travel plan changes?


by that standard every person attending a seminar on proper Power-Point presentations, or a conference on developing research software would be considered in the IT industry.
People attending a conference on developing research software IS an IT conference. software= information technology.

She was attending an Information Technology conference because her job function was in IT.

You are really grasping at straws.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
People attending a conference on developing research software IS an IT conference. software= information technology.
But people who use research software are not, by any means, IT professionals by default. I do not by any stretch consider myself an IT professional, but I frequently employ research software which I attended a seminar or two in order to better understand. That does not make me an IT professional, or in the IT field... for the same reason that an assistant regional director for the U.S. Census Bureau isn't an IT professional, or in an IT industry, just for attending a computer operations conference. She simply worked in a field that (relatively recently) incorporated a fair bit of computer technology, as do the vast majority of business and government professions in our current times.
It was the flight that HAPPENED to be at the right time---nothing to indicate that the 'choose' that flight, for any reason other than the time it departed.
Do you seriously believe the hijackers walked into the airport, looked up at the departure boards, stroked their chins contemplatively, and then said 'How about that one there...? That one looks good. Yeah, lets try that one..!' Never in history has there been a more highly coordinated series of hijackings. They didn't just 'happen' to pick Flight 77 because the time was right. They surely knew exactly which flight they were going for before the morning of.

I ask you again to show us some evidence that there was SOME link
obvious links have been frequently stated and re-stated. Being flown into your place of business is a link. Obviously.

Are you saying the flight was "chosen" because of the passengers?
Not necessarily. What I'm saying is that given flight 77 was clearly chosen preemptively by the hijackers, it's worth at least considering, given the passengers were all victims of murder, that there could have been some motivation to those murders beyond happenstance. Where their various business arrangements, last-minute changes, and secretive travel plans all fabricated or orchestrated by shady forces? I haven't the faintest clue, and once more, I'm not going to speculate. It could be just a really big coincidence that those people happened to be on that plane. This is really just a tiny drop in a rather large pool of highly suspicious elements surrounding the crimes of that day.

It's strange that my stating I also find this list somewhat suspicious has turned into something of a melee over the nature of suspicion itself.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Do you seriously believe the hijackers walked into the airport, looked up at the departure boards, stroked their chins contemplatively, and then said 'How about that one there...? That one looks good. Yeah, lets try that one..!' Never in history has there been a more highly coordinated series of hijackings. They didn't just 'happen' to pick Flight 77 because the time was right. They surely knew exactly which flight they were going for before the morning of.
Of course they did. They picked the flight based on the time, the plane type, and the fuel load. It's just happened to be the one those people were on.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
But people who use research software are not, by any means, IT professionals by default. I do not by any stretch consider myself an IT professional, but I frequently employ research software which I attended a seminar or two in order to better understand. That does not make me an IT professional, or in the IT field... for the same reason that an assistant regional director for the U.S. Census Bureau isn't an IT professional, or in an IT industry, just for attending a computer operations conference. She simply worked in a field that (relatively recently) incorporated a fair bit of computer technology, as do the vast majority of business and government professions in our current times.
Again- really reaching here Grieves...you wrote "attending a conference on developing research software"- If you are developing software I think that constitutes IT.

REGARDLESS- there was a significant number of people associated with IT on the flight to the IT hub of San Francisco. Just as there was defense people from the defense hub of DC/LA. EVIDENCE that industry hubs generate significant amounts of passenger travel. Its basic logic. Ignore it you must. Both Census ladies traveled to the IT conference in SF because thats where the IT conference was...a lot of IT conferences happen in SF because it is an IT hub...thus a lot of people travel to SF because its an IT hub....which is EXACTLY why they were traveling to SF.


Not necessarily. What I'm saying is that given flight 77 was clearly chosen preemptively by the hijackers, it's worth at least considering, given the passengers were all victims of murder, that there could have been some motivation to those murders beyond happenstance. Where their various business arrangements, last-minute changes, and secretive travel plans all fabricated or orchestrated by shady forces? I haven't the faintest clue, and once more, I'm not going to speculate. It could be just a really big coincidence that those people happened to be on that plane. This is really just a tiny drop in a rather large pool of highly suspicious elements surrounding the crimes of that day.
Sure- its worth considering...and then when looking at the facts understanding that there is no real basis of motivation other than picking a plane to hijack and fly into the pentagon.

It just doesn't seem like a "big coincidence" that a mid week flight from DC had some people involved- or formerly involved- in rather tangential ways to the defense industry.



but....Not going to speculate??? What??

I believe the implication is likely that these, along perhaps with other persons listed as having been on the other flights, could have been those who posed a potential threat/irritant to the operation, and were perhaps 'disappeared' prior to the events, with their names included on the passenger lists for the sake of convenience.

A man was murdered. The weapon used to kill him, the plane in which he was flying, targeted his place of business, meaning he himself had inherently already been a target of the crime to which he 'coincidentally' fell victim. Given that connection, is it not worth the vaguest consideration, from an investigative standpoint, that perhaps the plane he was on might have been targeted as well? That maybe his presence there, and the presence of other (debatably) high-profile defense professionals, had something to do with why that plane was 'chosen'? That he himself, and those with him, might have been targets?
I am sure you understand that the hijackers would not have had access to the passenger list...??

What about the other flights? were they all handpicked because of who was on them?

...and you never (i think) answered the questions as to who would you expect to be on a flight from DC to LA on a Tuesday morning?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
They Chose it because of it's departure time. Same as with the other flights.

Let's take a minute and look at the planner's reasoning.

Wants large loss of life---so the buildings need to be hit during working hours, so it must be during the week.
" deaths of 'important' folks (business, government) ---can't depend on them being in on Mon or Fri

Now we have 3 days of the week --Tues/ Wed/ Thurs

You prefer a flight with less passengers (less likely to accidentally have and air marshal or someone with police training) Early morning flights will tend to be heavy in business passengers.

You want flights that will allow you to hijack the plane with a nearly full fuel load. So you need a trans continental or trans ocean flight. You rule out trans ocean because of more security at the airport

You need flights out of airports close to your targets.

Now you have a basic set of parameters. You might check out how vigilant security is at selected East coast airports (I have often wondered why no flights from JFK were used--better security? or none leaving for the West coast at the right time?

Now you check the flight times and find some that will depart at the right times.

Now you are implying that after doing ALL that, they figured out how to get a certain set of passengers on one of the planes. Yet you offer no EVIDENCE of a single reason for those folks to be on that flight.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I wouldn't trust the 'authorities' as far as I could spit a pig.
Well you say that A and you also stated that on many things 'we are reading from the same page' but I have yet to see it. If I am wrong and I have simply missed it, I apologise unreservedly. Can you point me to some posts where you 'actually challenge the mainstream view' on here?

However, in this thread they're not the issue. Personally, I've just been trying to show that a plane with a certain number of people on board either previously employed or currently employed in the predominant industries, which are serviced by the airport from whence the plane leaves, is not inherently suspicious.
With respect that will depend on your personal skepticism level. I doubt you disagree with the OS regarding 9/11. Again, if I am incorrect please show me where you have voiced dissent.
To think that because one person worked in the Pentagon and the plane hit the Pentagon is the basis of a conspiracy strikes me as paranoid, to put it mildly. That 2 Boeing engineers die on a Boeing plane? Don't such planes make up much of the world's existing stock of airplanes? Chances are high that when you board a plane you're going to be on a Boeing, possibly higher if that flight is transcontinental rather than local.
But that is not the case and Grieves has done a stalwart job in showing this.

Even disregarding the other passengers, do you not find it strange that key Raytheon personnel were on every one of those attack flights?
 

lotek

Active Member
the burden of proof falls on the accuser .. i dont understand why you guys are giving into their game here, defending the list gives them the upper hand when they are the ones who need to defend their claims....
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
the burden of proof falls on the accuser .. i dont understand why you guys are giving into their game here, defending the list gives them the upper hand when they are the ones who need to defend their claims....
For me the interest is in why people find things like this suspicious. You can tell by the ping-pong nature of the discussion (and the WTC7 discussion) that there's a butting of heads. Is there any way in which it can be boiled down into just a plain agreement on the facts? What's the actual misunderstanding here? Are "we" misunderstanding something Grieves is trying to say, or is Grieves being unreasonable? Or is there just some kind of epistemological issue to do with the perception of significance, and/of a failure of logics building upon these faulty axioms.

So, I don't think it's suspicious, or even really interesting, but I'm fascinated as to why other people do.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
So, I don't think it's suspicious, or even really interesting, but I'm fascinated as to why other people do.
Because they do not believe the facts of what happened on that terrible day, and they will grab onto anything they feel will instill doubt in the official account?
 

Alhazred The Sane

Senior Member.
Well you say that A and you also stated that on many things 'we are reading from the same page' but I have yet to see it. If I am wrong and I have simply missed it, I apologise unreservedly. Can you point me to some posts where you 'actually challenge the mainstream view' on here?
Ah, I see the problem. I've come to this site from a different perspective than you. Some background: many years ago I encountered the Chem-trail CT via WITWATS, and sad to say I was duped. I also fell for the original Zeitgeist, despite knowing that the opening section on comparative theology was fundamentally flawed. Fortunately I discovered the ContrailScience site, and after about two weeks of reading virtually everything on that site, following the links etc., I saw that I had been misled. The same year I escaped the Zeitgeist notions. Then my nephews began to hit me with the exact same conspiracies, and I was able to rationally discuss the flaws in the information they'd been given.

So, I've developed an interest in investigating whatever theories my nephews and their mates bring to me. I don't come to this site to challenge the mainstream. However, I don't involve myself at all in threads that either don't interest me, or I've nothing to add. So far, I've only joined a thread that began with a mention of Isis/Osiris (because comparative theologies and mythologies are kind of my thing), this one (because I was expecting someone to claim no jet hit the Pentagon), and a couple of others. I didn't join the forum for any other reason than to keep informed - for example, like many others I came across some theories on Sandy Hook, but upon further reflection and investigation I see that they are simply that, theories.

My take on 9/11? A well planned attack by actors with considerable previous form, who had given firm warnings to the US on getting their troops out of Saudi, manage 75% of their aims. I believe that those attacks could have been prevented, that there was enough intelligence to prevent them. I suspect that this was ignored on purpose, in order to facilitate money-earning wars. That, I believe, is the extent of US involvement - that they allowed the attacks to happen.

So, to recap: I don't find contrails threatening, I don't believe in shape-shifting lizards governing the world, I don't believe in the Illuminati, or any occult organisation having the power to control decisions made by governments.

I do believe that banks have far too much power, that they should be regulated. I do believe that media ownership in the US (in particular, but also in Europe) has become insanely concentrated in the hands of a few corporations, which reduces the Fourth Estate to a spokesperson for power rather a means to keep it in check. The media and economics are the two areas I've been studying for the last 4 or 5 years, having moved on from somewhat from my previous fascination with the esoteric.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Ah, I see the problem. I've come to this site from a different perspective than you. Some background: many years ago I encountered the Chem-trail CT via WITWATS, and sad to say I was duped. I also fell for the original Zeitgeist, despite knowing that the opening section on comparative theology was fundamentally flawed. Fortunately I discovered the ContrailScience site, and after about two weeks of reading virtually everything on that site, following the links etc., I saw that I had been misled. The same year I escaped the Zeitgeist notions. Then my nephews began to hit me with the exact same conspiracies, and I was able to rationally discuss the flaws in the information they'd been given.
Thanks for the frank response. It is interesting because my take is virtually the reverse of your experience. I came at this from believing much of what the politicians and media fed us. I believed the 9/11 OS and the legitimacy of the invasions but then I found that they were to say the least 'unsafe'. Now I am not saying there is merit in all the conspiracy theories but I will test them, as I will test official versions. It seems sad that 'truth seeking', has become so ridiculed. Not surprising tho when you think about it.

I do subscribe to a theory on this, which I would value comment on and that is that 'debunkers' are so intransigent because they suffer from cognitive dissonance and are therefore often 'scared to admit' even the slightest doubt or flaw in their argument much along the lines of a religious zeal.
My take on 9/11? A well planned attack by actors with considerable previous form, who had given firm warnings to the US on getting their troops out of Saudi, manage 75% of their aims. I believe that those attacks could have been prevented, that there was enough intelligence to prevent them. I suspect that this was ignored on purpose, in order to facilitate money-earning wars. That, I believe, is the extent of US involvement - that they allowed the attacks to happen.
Many conspiracy theorists would go along with that. That extent of complicity in itself should be enough to cause public outrage and inquiries and heads to roll. Some think it went further. I think they at least 'made it easy for them'.

So, to recap: I don't find contrails threatening, I don't believe in shape-shifting lizards governing the world, I don't believe in the Illuminati, or any occult organisation having the power to control decisions made by governments.
I don't see how you can be so sure about the Illuminatti/occult angle as there seems as much evidence for that as Banksters and politicians fleecing the public... maybe even as much evidence as OJ Simpson being guilty :)
I do believe that banks have far too much power, that they should be regulated. I do believe that media ownership in the US (in particular, but also in Europe) has become insanely concentrated in the hands of a few corporations, which reduces the Fourth Estate to a spokesperson for power rather a means to keep it in check. The media and economics are the two areas I've been studying for the last 4 or 5 years, having moved on from somewhat from my previous fascination with the esoteric.
I think it good that you have stated your concerns. I think it important that we all understand each other.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Not as much as I was. Bring back Lee? LOL.
Not quite sure what you mean by that but I do think it unfair that Lee be banned. Lets be honest, he is no more of an 'ass' than anyone else on here, he just has strong views at the end of the day. And yes just to be absolutely clear, I include myself. No one is obliged to respond are they.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Not quite sure what you mean by that but I do think it unfair that Lee be banned. Lets be honest, he is no more of an 'ass' than anyone else on here, he just has strong views at the end of the day. And yes just to be absolutely clear, I include myself. No one is obliged to respond are they.
Lee is banned for a month because he previously got a lifetime ban, then he snuck back in as unregistered, and then then I let him back asking him to be "polite and on topic please. No snark."

He can come back in a month, same deal.
 
Last edited:

F4Jock

Senior Member.
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.
There is an excellent article by one Steve Vogel in the Washington Post circa May 27th. 2007 that factually addresses how the Pentagon got it's shape. Google it.
 

Alhazred The Sane

Senior Member.
Thanks for the frank response. It is interesting because my take is virtually the reverse of your experience. I came at this from believing much of what the politicians and media fed us. I believed the 9/11 OS and the legitimacy of the invasions but then I found that they were to say the least 'unsafe'. Now I am not saying there is merit in all the conspiracy theories but I will test them, as I will test official versions. It seems sad that 'truth seeking', has become so ridiculed. Not surprising tho when you think about it.
I found it hard to believe the official story on 9/11. Within a day of the event I thought that the planes couldn't have made those towers fall. I'd been up them so many times, every time a friend or relative visited NYC during the 5+ years I lived in Manhattan. It seemed inconceivable that they could collapse like that. And I believed that for quite some time. It wasn't until an architect friend of mine, a Finn, walked me through the structure (on paper), and showed me how those buildings were made, and how a collapse from above would inevitably lead to a pancake effect, ... then I stopped thinking about explosives inside the building. Which would have had to be timed to match the aircraft hitting the buildings.

I do subscribe to a theory on this, which I would value comment on and that is that 'debunkers' are so intransigent because they suffer from cognitive dissonance and are therefore often 'scared to admit' even the slightest doubt or flaw in their argument much along the lines of a religious zeal.
Hmmm. I don't think that's so for the main debunkers here, ie Mick. From what I've read over the course of many threads, most of which I'm not involved in, is the people who question the bunk demanding clarity. I've seen examples of cognitive dissonance, and if you were to really look at all the posts in this thread by Grieves I think you'll find it there. I will say that I see a very few arguing against theories or ideas without fully understanding what they're arguing against.

Many conspiracy theorists would go along with that. That extent of complicity in itself should be enough to cause public outrage and inquiries and heads to roll. Some think it went further. I think they at least 'made it easy for them'.
Exactly. And this is where I've found the likes of Alex Jones, et al, to have fucked things up. By insisting that the destruction of the WTC was an inside job they've managed to move the goal posts. How much intel did they government have, and how might they have better protected citizens should have been the question right from the start. FFS, the French intelligence agency knew it was about to happen!

I don't see how you can be so sure about the Illuminatti/occult angle as there seems as much evidence for that as Banksters and politicians fleecing the public... maybe even as much evidence as OJ Simpson being guilty :)
No, there isn't. There is an unending ever-increasing tsunami of evidence of how the financial sector, corporations, and bought politicians are fleecing the public. There is fuck all evidence that any of it can be attributed to occult/Illuminati angles. Maybe it makes people feel better that there's some hidden motive. Other than raw, primal greed. Helped along by whatever idiots gave corporations the same rights as citizens, but none of the responsibilities.

Like I said, we probably have much the same concerns. But we worry about them differently.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
...
I do subscribe to a theory on this, which I would value comment on and that is that 'debunkers' are so intransigent because they suffer from cognitive dissonance and are therefore often 'scared to admit' even the slightest doubt or flaw in their argument much along the lines of a religious zeal.
....
I think this is not true as generalisation, though of course anyone from any side is susceptible to biases.
Many debunkers started out with a hunger for the weird, and willingness to prove the conspiratal view, but have over the years of honest investigation and gradual familiarisation with rules of proof and science found how weak the cases for such things are.
So they can't be 'scared to think the unthinkable', as they were looking for it in the first place.
And many are still looking, and will aggressively debunk because the abundance of crap waters down the possibility of the real thing being taken seriously.
There is a danger that they become habituated to that response and miss the one genuine case because they've been exposed to so much rubbish, which is why a good debunker will take every case at face value and honestly ask - for this to be real what has to be true? - and proceed from there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
Mick West Flat Earth Theory Debunked by Short Flights (QF27 & QF28) From Australia to South America Flat Earth 276
Mick West Debunked: Giant Bird In Flight On Mars Caught In NASA Billion Pixel View UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 31
JFDee Debunked: Zig Zag Flight Paths on Flightradar24 Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
derrick06 Debunked: United Nations creates a "NWO" website Conspiracy Theories 2
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 4
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 0
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 10
Trailblazer Debunked: Trees being cut down "because they block 5G" (tree replacement in Belgium) 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 44
deirdre Debunked: Exemption from military service doc proves Jews had foreknowledge of WW2 (fake leaflet) General Discussion 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Obama called Michelle "Michael" in a speech. (Referring to Michael Mullen Jr) Quotes Debunked 0
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 26
Rory Debunked: Study shows link between menstrual cycle and the moon Health and Quackery 30
novatron Debunked: California Wildfires Match the Exactly Path of the Proposed Rail System Wildfires 3
Rory Debunked: "You must love yourself before you love another" - fake Buddha quote Quotes Debunked 7
W Debunked: Qanon claims there have been 51k sealed indictments filed this year. Current Events 11
K Debunked: Audio of David Rockefeller "leaked" speech in 1991 [Audio Simulation] General Discussion 2
tadaaa Debunked: Fake photos-Novichok attack Russian 'agents' (side by side gates) General Discussion 34
Mick West Debunked: XYO Device Replacing GPS, Saving $2 Million a Day General Discussion 23
Mick West Debunked: "Tip Top" as a QAnon Clue from Trump [He's said it before] Conspiracy Theories 3
Whitebeard Debunked: Nibiru FOUND? Mysterious gigantic rogue planet spotted lurking outside our solar system Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West Debunked: "There Exists a Shadowy Government" — Daniel Inouye Quotes Debunked 0
Mick West Debunked: Delta Lambda Compression General Discussion 16
MisterB Debunked: Isle of Man from Blackpool at water level proves flat earth [refraction] Flat Earth 19
JFDee Debunked: Wernher von Braun confirmed that rockets can't leave earth Conspiracy Theories 23
Mick West Debunked: Missing $21 Trillion / $6.5 Trillion / $2.3 Trillion - Journal Vouchers Conspiracy Theories 33
MikeG Debunked: Obamacare Article 54 (Satire FB Page) General Discussion 2
Mick West Debunked: "Deadly Ultraviolet UV-C and UV-B Penetration to Earth’s Surface:" [Stray Light] Contrails and Chemtrails 30
Astro Debunked: Apollo Lunar Module Hatch Too Small for Spacesuit Science and Pseudoscience 0
Mick West Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Mick West Debunked: Thermite Slag on WTC beams [Oxy Cutting Slag] 9/11 2
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top