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

[Grieves]

http://9-11cc.org/911-families-for-new-investigation/
http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html
take a look.
Just a few.

 

[lotek]

micks comments was corrects as well

 

[Mick West]

http://9-11cc.org/911-families-for-new-investigation/
http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html
take a look.
Just a few.

The first link is all questions like:

1. As Commander-in-Chief on the morning of 9/11, why didn't you return immediately to Washington, D.C. or the National Military Command Center once you became aware that America was under attack? At specifically what time did you become aware that America was under attack? Who informed you of this fact?

?

These strike me simply as a series of questions designed to place blame on Bush for the 9/11 attacks, not actual questions of missing facts. They are all basically the same question.

If you could pick one of those questions to get an answer for, then which would you pick?

The second links seems most to to be survivor testimony.

I'm not saying there was no incompetence in the Bush administration, and I'm quite willing to accept that Bus and others would avoid answering questions about their competence. But that does not seem suspicious, or indicative of any conspiracy other than CYA.

 

[Jazzy]

Why was the investigation and its follow-up such a deliberate miscarriage?

This the most baffling question of all.

When I read it I was impressed with the terseness, thoroughness, and clarity of expression of the NIST Report. It covered everything I expected it to, economically, but as accurately as the circumstances allowed.

Either my 50 years experience in engineering and design has counted for nought, and you, Grieves and Oxymoron, are light years ahead of me in understanding, or quite the reverse.

I notice that you're quick to give it labels, but you're a little slow on re-appraisals of the explanations offered by NIST that I can recognize as sensible, or even existent.

Perhaps the two of you are so programmed that you don't notice your omission. Well, I do.

 

[Grieves]

Sorry if I seemed harsh. Valuation of a life based on most any criteria irks me, success perhaps most of all.

These strike me simply as a series of questions designed to place blame on Bush for the 9/11 attacks, not actual questions of missing facts. They are all basically the same question.

Nonsense. They all address the President as they're questions addressed to the President, but the questions cover a vast many subjects, some extremely blunt and basic, others extremely specific.

If you could pick one of those questions to get an answer for, then which would you pick?

That's really, really tough.

20. Please explain why no one in any level of our government has yet been held accountable for the countless failures leading up to and on 9/11?

that's a really damn good one.

32. Please explain your 14 month opposition to the creation of an independent commission to investigate 9/11 and your request to Senator Daschle to quash such an investigation.

That one's pretty damn good too.

37. Why was author, Bob Woodward, author of Bush at War permitted access to confidential PDBs while the Joint Inquiry, and subsequently, the Commission, was not?

how about this one?

This the most baffling question of all.

When I read it I was impressed with the terseness, thoroughness, and clarity of expression of the NIST Report. It covered everything I expected it to, economically, but as accurately as the circumstances allowed.

Either my 50 years experience in engineering and design has counted for nought, and you, Grieves and Oxymoron, are light years ahead of me in understanding, or quite the reverse.

I notice that you're quick to give it labels, but you're a little slow on re-appraisals of the explanations offered by NIST that I can recognize as sensible, or even existent.

Perhaps the two of you are so programmed that you don't notice your omission. Well, I do.

Perhaps you've forgotten that a crime was being investigated, and not just a structural collapse. Apply your extensive experience to a google search regarding the criminal investigation surrounding the events of 9/11.

 

[JonJson]

Why was the investigation and its follow-up such a deliberate miscarriage?

This is what is known as a loaded question. Answering the question is to admit that it was a miscarriage, ignoring the question makes it possible to now accuse them of ducking the question. It is the equivalent of asking Grieves, "When did you stop beating your wife?" Any answer he gives to the question can be twisted around to put him in a bad light.

Grieves can you think of a way to ask this question that doesn't carry the same loaded connotations?

 

[RolandD]

This is what is known as a loaded question. Answering the question is to admit that it was a miscarriage, ignoring the question makes it possible to now accuse them of ducking the question. It is the equivalent of asking Grieves, "When did you stop beating your wife?" Any answer he gives to the question can be twisted around to put him in a bad light.

Grieves can you think of a way to ask this question that doesn't carry the same loaded connotations?

That's exactly what I thought when I saw this question:

20. Please explain why no one in any level of our government has yet been held accountable for the countless failures leading up to and on 9/11?

 

[JRBids]

Yes I was going to comment on that. The other thing is comments such as:


My Brother In Law was on his way to DC that morning. He has been appointed to deputy Sec of the Interior and his hearing before Congress was the next day.



I am not much of a 9/11 buff but when I saw this list my first thought was that it looks like a list of my friends and neighbors.


Coming from typical 'Debunkers', sounds more like a press release from the Pentagon.

How does this sound: My neighbor, who I remember from BEFORE he was born, when his pregnant mother used to come to our house, who had just gotten married months before, was at Cantor Fitzgerald that day. He didn't even work there, he only went there on Monday mornings to do some work related activity. He was killed. Sound like a press release from the f*cking pentagon, oxymoron?

 

[JRBids]

Actually, I suggested one of the possible reasons why a group of conspirators might arrange the deaths of these individuals and then include their names on the passenger lists would be because they are 'those who posed a potential threat/irritant to the operation', as in people who might have gotten in the way/blown the whistle/tried to stop it. How in the world you got 'the people on this list are all terrorists' out of whats been said in this thread so far is beyond me.

My goodness, you can't POSSIBLY believe that the conspiracy was so coordinated, so tightly controlled, that the conspirators actually cherry picked the PASSENGERS of the flight?!

It makes me hope you're some paid shill, as I don't want to believe your average American has such a thick wall of nonsensical prejudice and predetermined bias built up against 'CT'ers, as you label them.

How can we NOT have a predetermined bias when CTers display such irrationality as you just did?

And seriously. . . you think there are paid shills? @@

 

[Cairenn]

BTW, you can verify part of my story. Google Craig Manson from Sacramento . He is my BIL

 

[JRBids]

The point to me is that they haven't gotten answers to a good 70% of the questions they asked, from a Government and security organizations who performed the most piss-poor investigation, when measured against the scale of the crime, perhaps in the history of all Mankind, seemingly out of deliberate intent. There was certainly nothing preventing them from investing the adequate time and resources. A choice was made along the line. That has always been one of the most highly suspicious aspects of the events following 9/11, to me and to everyone who questions the official account: Why was the investigation and its follow-up such a deliberate miscarriage?

Every single person who lost a family member or friend in 9/11 has not gotten answers to 70% of their questions? How do you come by this statistic. Are you saying every one of them has questions? What are some of them?

 

[Grieves]

This is what is known as a loaded question. Answering the question is to admit that it was a miscarriage, ignoring the question makes it possible to now accuse them of ducking the question. It is the equivalent of asking Grieves, "When did you stop beating your wife?" Any answer he gives to the question can be twisted around to put him in a bad light.

Not true in the slightest. My personal response would be 'I don't have a wife.', making the question irrelevant. The response of a married person, hopefully truthful, would be 'I don't, have never, and never would beat my wife.' Loaded questions aren't insurmountable obstacles.

Grieves can you think of a way to ask this question that doesn't carry the same loaded connotations?

How's this?
"The amount of time, effort, and resources which went into the investigation of the criminal conduct leading up to, during, and after the events of 9/11 are inordinately low given the scale of the events, especially when measured against high-profile investigations of far less significant National matters. Some investigations were ended prematurely, and records were destroyed. Efforts to form independent inquiries and investigations have been bluntly blocked and delayed. Why does the investigation of the criminal conduct, especially in regards to financing of the terrorists and the unusual stock-market activity, appear to be enforcedly inadequate?"

Every single person who lost a family member or friend in 9/11 has not gotten answers to 70% of their questions? How do you come by this statistic. Are you saying every one of them has questions? What are some of them?

Click the link. I can't begin to imagine the questions families of the victims might have. Some of them did, however, submit a list of their questions, garnishing an answer at least by forming a group called the 'family steering committee'. Some of the questions I listed above are questions they asked. 70% of their questions weren't answered/actually asked.

My goodness, you can't POSSIBLY believe that the conspiracy was so coordinated, so tightly controlled, that the conspirators actually cherry picked the PASSENGERS of the flight?!

How ludicrously unimaginable, that a fabricated/altered passenger list be produced and publicized. What mind-boggling technologies and unthinkable influence it would require.

And seriously. . . you think there are paid shills? @@

What, is the paid shill a mythic creature now, which only exists in the paranoia-addled mind of the 'CT'er? Go onto IMDB and read the reviews of a really, really shitty new movie.

 

[Cairenn]

It's a MOVIE, not real life. Star Wars is a MOVIE.

 

[Mick West]

How ludicrously unimaginable, that a fabricated/altered passenger list be produced and publicized. What mind-boggling technologies and unthinkable influence it would require.

What are you suggesting here, that there was a fake passenger list of people in the defense industries? What happened to the people on the list and their families? Why was there a fake list? It makes zero sense.

 

[Grieves]

It's a MOVIE, not real life. Star Wars is a MOVIE.

I don't know what this comment has to do with anything Cairenn.

What are you suggesting here, that there was a fake passenger list of people in the defense industries? What happened to the people on the list and their families? Why was there a fake list? It makes zero sense.

I've suggested nothing of the sort. In fact, I rather clearly stated pretty early in the thread that I've not even personally confirmed this list as being factual, let alone made any personal assumptions about it's meaning. I was simply agreeing that the list was oddly coincidental to the point of seeming vaguely suspicious, and pointing out why to the people who seemed to suggest thinking it suspicious was ridiculous.
What I have done is provided a fictional scenario, and only upon request. If you insist that I flesh it out, that's fine.

Say you're a high ranking member of a conspiratorial organization plotting the attacks of 9/11. Plausible deniability is a specialty, and though a few key mercenaries and figures are privy to specific details, most involved aren't even remotely aware of their involvement. For the most part the ship is tight, but there are a few people within certain companies and organizations being exploited who pose a threat to the operation's secrecy. If these people just vanish, there will be too many questions. If these people are killed separately, there will be too many questions. if these people live however, they are in a position to potentially expose you for what you've done when it's over. So you vanish them. Call them away on a business trip abroad or an emergency meeting in early September, nab them somewhere en-route, have them killed. Carry through with your plan to fly Boeings into three buildings, see too it that the names of the people you had to vanish appear in the sparse passenger lists, get away with a few more murders and ensure the security of your operation.

Again, I repeat, this is a fictional scenario provided on request, NOT what I specifically believe to have happened.

 

[Pete Tar]

Wouldn't the victims families have memories of them leaving for the flight that morning? Ask the relatives if they were 'disappeared' sometime before the flight.

 

[Cairenn]

This is a fictional idea that any movie maker or book editor would shoot down in a second, for it's unbelievability. You have to abduct a set of folks, kill them then make sure that their families think that they are catching a plane on the morning of 9/11. How many had a wife or a friend drop them off at the airport? Now you have to have an equal number of look alikes, with identification. Some of these folks may have been frequent flyers, and ticket agents might well recognize them.

And then there is the fact that Barbra Olsen called her husband after the flight was hijacked

cell phone call from passenger Barbara Olson to her husband, US Solicitor General Ted Olson. Ted Olson related to Newsweek:
Barbara was calm and collected as she told him how hijackers had used boxcutters and knifes to take control of the plane and had herded the passengers and crew to the back. "Ted, what can I do?" she asked him. "What can I tell the pilot?" Then, inexplicably, she got cut off.

I suggest that you look at Occam's Razor

OCCAM'S RAZOR
: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

Isaac Newton, "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes

 

[Grieves]

"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

key word there. He's talking about natural phenomena, not complex crimes.

or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

So, when building 7 fell to bits in a fashion that looked, to laymen and experts alike, like a demolition, choosing not to investigate even the possibility of explosives and instead taking six years to come to a shaky conclusion of an entirely unprecedented wholesale collapse of a steel building due to fire alone was an example of Occam's Razor at work?

 

[Cairenn]

The more elaborate a crime gets, the more folks involved and the more chance that someone will leak something.

In building 7, you would have to explain when the explosives were planted, why no one noticed them, how the support columns were partially cut, and why no one noticed that.

It seems that most experts don't think it look like was imploded and I, as a laymen, when I look at comparisons, can see obvious differences.

The collapse was not due to JUST fire, wreckage had landed on it. Buildings are not designed for parts of other buildings to fall on them. That is why implosion is so useful, it reduces the chances of debris landing on other nearby buildings.

Stop and think about what you are saying someone did. And ask your self if your plot makes any sense at ALL. It makes as much sense as the anti BP folks that claim a man killed by a shark, off of Australia was 'killed by BP', or that someone that died before the spill happened, was going to whistle blow on the spill so he was killed.

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

So, when building 7 fell to bits in a fashion that looked, to laymen and experts alike, like a demolition, choosing not to investigate even the possibility of explosives and instead taking six years to come to a shaky conclusion of an entirely unprecedented wholesale collapse of a steel building due to fire alone was an example of Occam's Razor at work?

The whole WTC Building 7 nonsense has been thoroughly debunked in another thread. Let's stick with your [ideas] about the passenger list of Flight 77, as I find too many lunacies in one thread minds my brain itch. Cheers.

 

[JRBids]

Click the link. I can't begin to imagine the questions families of the victims might have. Some of them did, however, submit a list of their questions, garnishing an answer at least by forming a group called the 'family steering committee'. Some of the questions I listed above are questions they asked. 70% of their questions weren't answered/actually asked.

This is the first I've heard of this one:" 5. U.S. Navy Captain Deborah Loewer, the Director of the White House Situation Room, informed you of the first airliner hitting Tower One of the World Trade Center before you entered the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida. Please explain the reason why you decided to continue with the scheduled classroom visit, fifteen minutes after learning the first hijacked airliner had hit the World Trade Center."

There are no citations for any of these questions, many of which do display the unimaginable grief of these families and their inability to function without placing the blame on someone who is not a dead terrorist.

How ludicrously unimaginable, that a fabricated/altered passenger list be produced and publicized. What mind-boggling technologies and unthinkable influence it would require.

Just shows the ridiculous lengths the typical CT mind goes to. Yes it is ludicrous. What happened to all the people listed in the passenger list? Obviously (well maybe not to you) they are dead, so how did the conspirators get them on the plane? Was it the "come get your award" scam mentioned earlier, or have they been sold to the same white slave ring that the Sandy Hook children who were not killed were sold to?

What, is the paid shill a mythic creature now, which only exists in the paranoia-addled mind of the 'CT'er? Go onto IMDB and read the reviews of a really, really shitty new movie.

Most CTs confuse life with the movies. It's a real shame. It shows the extent to which they confuse fantasy with reality. As for whatever really shitty new movie, I assume it has to do with paid shills. I'm SURE writers have never gotten their ideas from the internet. Next thing we know they'll make a movie about chemtrail pilots and someone will point to that to prove it's real. See how silly your "proof" sounds now?

 

[JRBids]

What are you suggesting here, that there was a fake passenger list of people in the defense industries? What happened to the people on the list and their families? Why was there a fake list? It makes zero sense.

I've suggested nothing of the sort. In fact, I rather clearly stated pretty early in the thread that I've not even personally confirmed this list as being factual, let alone made any personal assumptions about it's meaning.

You've suggested nothing of the sort, but the list is so odd to you that you have not confirmed it as being factual? That makes no sense. Try again?

I was simply agreeing that the list was oddly coincidental to the point of seeming vaguely suspicious, and pointing out why to the people who seemed to suggest thinking it suspicious was ridiculous.

Agreeing with who?

What I have done is provided a fictional scenario, and only upon request. If you insist that I flesh it out, that's fine.

Say you're a high ranking member of a conspiratorial organization plotting the attacks of 9/11. Plausible deniability is a specialty, and though a few key mercenaries and figures are privy to specific details, most involved aren't even remotely aware of their involvement. For the most part the ship is tight, but there are a few people within certain companies and organizations being exploited who pose a threat to the operation's secrecy. If these people just vanish, there will be too many questions. If these people are killed separately, there will be too many questions. if these people live however, they are in a position to potentially expose you for what you've done when it's over. So you vanish them. Call them away on a business trip abroad or an emergency meeting in early September, nab them somewhere en-route, have them killed. Carry through with your plan to fly Boeings into three buildings, see too it that the names of the people you had to vanish appear in the sparse passenger lists, get away with a few more murders and ensure the security of your operation.

Again, I repeat, this is a fictional scenario provided on request, NOT what I specifically believe to have happened.

Maybe the next really shitty movie to come out can be written by you?

 

[JRBids]

This is a fictional idea that any movie maker or book editor would shoot down in a second, for it's unbelievability. You have to abduct a set of folks, kill them then make sure that their families think that they are catching a plane on the morning of 9/11.

Actually, you put them on the plane then crash the plane into the Pentagon. Oh wait, there was no plane.

 

[JRBids]

The more elaborate a crime gets, the more folks involved and the more chance that someone will leak something.

In building 7, you would have to explain when the explosives were planted, why no one noticed them, how the support columns were partially cut, and why no one noticed that.

It seems that most experts don't think it look like was imploded and I, as a laymen, when I look at comparisons, can see obvious differences.

The collapse was not due to JUST fire, wreckage had landed on it. Buildings are not designed for parts of other buildings to fall on them. That is why implosion is so useful, it reduces the chances of debris landing on other nearby buildings.

Have the troofers ever told us whether the Twin Towers were intentionally destroyed in order to cover up Building 7, or was it the other way around? Building 7 demolished in order to draw attention away from WTC 1 and 2. They truly do give me a headache.

 

[JonJson]

Not true in the slightest. My personal response would be 'I don't have a wife.', making the question irrelevant. The response of a married person, hopefully truthful, would be 'I don't, have never, and never would beat my wife.' Loaded questions aren't insurmountable obstacles.



How's this?
"The amount of time, effort, and resources which went into the investigation of the criminal conduct leading up to, during, and after the events of 9/11 are inordinately low given the scale of the events, especially when measured against high-profile investigations of far less significant National matters. Some investigations were ended prematurely, and records were destroyed. Efforts to form independent inquiries and investigations have been bluntly blocked and delayed. Why does the investigation of the criminal conduct, especially in regards to financing of the terrorists and the unusual stock-market activity, appear to be enforcedly inadequate?"

It is always the follow up questions that are invited in responding to loaded questions that lead to the problems. It quickly becomes a distraction and leaves some people questioning your sincerity and thinking that you are hiding something. Some people will only remember the question and the allegations and not the answer to the question. Your follow up question would of course be, "So are you saying it was your girlfriend and not your wife?" Please don't answer this one. I find loaded questions annoying and a waste of time even when I am asking the questions.
Nicely done on the rewording of the question. You get an A in Journalism 101 for the day.

 

[JRBids]

http://9-11cc.org/911-families-for-new-investigation/
http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html
take a look.
Just a few.

There's no more than 200 people listed there. Over 3000 people died. Because the list you posted includes cousins of the dead, I have to think everyone who died had AT LEAST 4 family members. So out of AT LEAST 12,000 relatives (and I think that's a REALLY LOW estimate) only +-200 have questions, and you're calling that a lot?

 

[Mick West]

Again, I repeat, this is a fictional scenario provided on request, NOT what I specifically believe to have happened.

Do you believe that the composition of the passenger list was deliberate or coincidental?

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

"5. U.S. Navy Captain Deborah Loewer, the Director of the White House Situation Room, informed you of the first airliner hitting Tower One of the World Trade Center before you entered the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida. Please explain the reason why you decided to continue with the scheduled classroom visit, fifteen minutes after learning the first hijacked airliner had hit the World Trade Center."

That's news to me, also. Wasn't there footage doing the rounds on the internet that showed Bush reading some story (about goats?) to a class when he was interrupted with the news. He then remains seated, looking fraught it has to be said, before continuing to read the book. I'm 100% certain I watched that particular clip.

 

[Mick West]

"5. U.S. Navy Captain Deborah Loewer, the Director of the White House Situation Room, informed you of the first airliner hitting Tower One of the World Trade Center before you entered the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida. Please explain the reason why you decided to continue with the scheduled classroom visit, fifteen minutes after learning the first hijacked airliner had hit the World Trade Center."

That's news to me, also. Wasn't there footage doing the rounds on the internet that showed Bush reading some story (about goats?) to a class when he was interrupted with the news. He then remains seated, looking fraught it has to be said, before continuing to read the book. I'm 100% certain I watched that particular clip.

That was the second plane hitting. He'd be told something about the first plane, but says he did not know it was hijacked, and thought it was an accident.

Detailed timeline:
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=bush

Bush's take:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sh-explains-blank-face-told-9-11-attacks.html

 

[Grieves]

Agreeing with who?

Oxy.

You've suggested nothing of the sort, but the list is so odd to you that you have not confirmed it as being factual? That makes no sense. Try again?

Sorry, when you read the list, did you rush off to verify each name? Yeah, me neither. That makes my personal feelings about the oddness of the list nonsensical, but your personal feelings that there's nothing strange about it whatsoever reasonable beyond refute?

Most CTs confuse life with the movies. It's a real shame. It shows the extent to which they confuse fantasy with reality. As for whatever really shitty new movie, I assume it has to do with paid shills. I'm SURE writers have never gotten their ideas from the internet. Next thing we know they'll make a movie about chemtrail pilots and someone will point to that to prove it's real. See how silly your "proof" sounds now?

You've completely missed my point. If you read the community reviews of any unquestionably shitty new movie release with a decent budget behind it, you're going to find some articulately composed and poignantly written critiques that are positively glowing, suggesting this particular film shits peppermint flavored rainbows. Those are what are called paid shills, relatively talented writers good at appealing to emotions who are hired to promote products and ideas in online community settings. If you don't believe they exist, you're an idiot... and I don't think you're an idiot. I wasn't accusing anyone here of being a paid shill. Someone else made a joke about being one, and I in turn half-jestingly suggested I wished he was one, as at least then I could understand his position. I don't know what you're on about here, and didn't provide/attempt to provide 'proof' of anything. There were just a lot of obviously unanswerable questions being asked about the specific details of whatever plot would have produced such a suspicious seeming passenger list, and why. Given the thread was demanding suppositions and imagined scenarios in order to point them out as suppositions and imagined scenarios, I figured I'd cook you up something decent to waste your time criticizing.

Do you believe that the composition of the passenger list was deliberate or coincidental?

I believe it could well be deliberate, but honestly couldn't say with any certainty.

There's no more than 200 people listed there. Over 3000 people died. Because the list you posted includes cousins of the dead, I have to think everyone who died had AT LEAST 4 family members. So out of AT LEAST 12,000 relatives (and I think that's a REALLY LOW estimate) only +-200 have questions, and you're calling that a lot?

I'm calling that enough. And rest assured, its +200, by leaps and bounds. That's the number of people who signed that particular petition. Membership of the Family Steering Committee was greater than that, I believe. For every family member of a victim who's willing to stand up too and question their government, potentially putting their social standing/career at risk, how many out there might there be of a similar mind who can't take such actions, whether held back physically, financially or emotionally?

That's news to me, also. Wasn't there footage doing the rounds on the internet that showed Bush reading some story (about goats?) to a class when he was interrupted with the news. He then remains seated, looking fraught it has to be said, before continuing to read the book. I'm 100% certain I watched that particular clip.

Another excellent question was as to why, given the time-frames, Air-Force One wasn't under fighter escort while America was under aerial attack, or why presidential press releases were being issued in the company of children, when there was supposedly no way of confirming the president was not at risk.

 

[Jazzy]

I believe it could well be deliberate, but honestly couldn't say with any certainty.

I don't believe it could, because alternatives to hijacking were too likely to be exposed, and too many people would have had to have been rather busy mixing pureed human beings into various environments. The alternative scenario would never have worked out the way reality did.

I'm calling that enough. And rest assured, its +200, by leaps and bounds. That's the number of people who signed that particular petition. Membership of the Family Steering Committee was greater than that, I believe. For every family member of a victim who's willing to stand up too and question their government, potentially putting their social standing/career at risk, how many out there might there be of a similar mind who can't take such actions, whether held back physically, financially or emotionally?

The specific proportion are probably prone to the same delusions as you?

Another excellent question was as to why, given the time-frames, Air-Force One wasn't under fighter escort while America was under aerial attack, or why presidential press releases were being issued in the company of children, when there was supposedly no way of confirming the president was not at risk.

That's more like the tattiness of real life. Would you have expected some perfect scenario? Then, I would have been very suspicious...

 

[Cairenn]

If I remember right, when Air Force One left FL, it did have a fighter escort.

I sort of ended up 'hostage' to the news that week, since I had knee surgery right about an hour after the last plane crashed. I was n't able to drive so I was stuck with the news and without cable, I was really stuck with the news.

Now back to your comment about paid movie reviewers. That did happen at ONE time, but if you are paid or compensated in any way, YOU MUST disclose this.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm

The revised Guides also add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that "material connections" (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers – connections that consumers would not expect – must be disclosed. These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other "word-of-mouth" marketers. The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization. And a paid endorsement – like any other advertisement – is deceptive if it makes false or misleading claims.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=104257&page=1#.UVx0XPJPdcU


I have found that when folks resort to accusing someone of being a 'paid shill'. it is because they realize that they have been debunked.

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

If I remember right, when Air Force One left FL, it did have a fighter escort.

I sort of ended up 'hostage' to the news that week, since I had knee surgery right about an hour after the last plane crashed. I was n't able to drive so I was stuck with the news and without cable, I was really stuck with the news.

Now back to your comment about paid movie reviewers. That did happen at ONE time, but if you are paid or compensated in any way, YOU MUST disclose this.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm

The revised Guides also add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that "material connections" (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers – connections that consumers would not expect – must be disclosed. These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other "word-of-mouth" marketers. The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization. And a paid endorsement – like any other advertisement – is deceptive if it makes false or misleading claims.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=104257&page=1#.UVx0XPJPdcU


I have found that when folks resort to accusing someone of being a 'paid shill'. it is because they realize that they have been debunked.

As a regular on IMDB, I'd like to point out that bad movies get bad reviews. Also, in order to review a movie you HAVE to submit your credit card details - there's no way around that. You can post in the forum without doing that, but no review gets up without the user submitting their credit card info, and then waiting until someone checks it to make sure it's legit. I'm not sure exactly when that became the norm, but it was in force before I arrived in Finland, so at least before July 2010.

 

[JRBids]

Sorry, when you read the list, did you rush off to verify each name? Yeah, me neither. That makes my personal feelings about the oddness of the list nonsensical, but your personal feelings that there's nothing strange about it whatsoever reasonable beyond refute?

Then you are suggesting that some of the people on the passenger list are still alive?
Did you personally poll all the 9/11 people unsatisfied with the investigation, who were on that list you posted to see if they really were?

 

[Grieves]

Then you are suggesting that some of the people on the passenger list are still alive?

All I've said, and all I'm saying, is that that many relatively high-profile military/security/defense people all on the same plane, even if it was a plane bound for Washington, seems an unlikely coincidence to the point of being somewhat conspicuous. I've no real idea of what that might mean, but the suspicious nature of the events of 9/11 in general, and the solid evidence that there was some sort of larger-scale conspiracy involved than just UBL and two-dozen cronies or so, even if it didn't extend to radical factions within the US govt. itself, (the bets placed against American Airlines on the stock-market shortly prior to the attacks is a good example), makes strange coincidences within evidence not just conspicuous in my mind, but suspect.

Did you personally poll all the 9/11 people unsatisfied with the investigation, who were on that list you posted to see if they really were?

No, but that list of 'the 9/11 people' included their names, occupations, statements and sometimes even contact information. I have no reason to doubt it, especially considering the site has been around for some time, so if the list were faked I'm sure that would have been pointed out in this thread by now. The first name,William Rodriguez, is an interesting figure, apparently having helped a commendable number of people to safety. He's adamant about having experienced a sub-level explosion moments prior to the impact of the plane.

"..I contacted NIST previously four times without a response. Finally, this week I asked them before they came up with their conclusion that jet fuel brought down the towers, if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces and didn't have any answers."

So what? He's just another confused and disoriented witness, who's testimony is worthy of no consideration? Or is he some opportunistic attention-whore? Or maybe, just maybe, he was worth hearing out/having his experiences investigated?

 

[SR1419]

All I've said, and all I'm saying, is that that many relatively high-profile military/security/defense people all on the same plane, even if it was a plane bound for Washington,... (the bets placed against American Airlines on the stock-market shortly prior to the attacks is a good example),

Actually, the plane was leaving from DC bound for LA.

But are they "high profile"?

I count 4 engineers, one "electronics technician", one scientist, a software developer, a retired pilot, 2 lawyers (one being on TV), 3 corporate types...

A lot of them are former military...but again is that unusual for mid-week, business traveler from DC?

What was the make-up of the same flight a week earlier?

 

[Grieves]

I count 4 engineers,

One working for Boeing's defense branch, one working for a defense contractor specializing in flight control systems and airborne electronic warfare, and two working for Boeing satellite systems.

one "electronics technician",

who went on later to work for a contractor for the Department of defense,

one scientist,

involved in secretive military operations details of which even his direct family was not privy too, a family who had no idea why he was traveling that day

a software developer,

working for Lockheed Martin, a defense contractor for whom the war on terror equates to Christmas every morning,

a retired pilot,

who was now also working for a Defense Contractor,

2 lawyers (one being on TV)

at least one of which worked for the JAG corps, the legal arm of the US navy,

3 corporate types...

Did you count the senior executive of the defense department, working for the fiscal economics division of the pentagon, amongst those 'corporate types'?
When leaving out the specifics of their careers it does indeed hardly seem suspicious. The fact that all of their careers are in some way or another connected to the events of that day however is rather unlikely, isn't it?

 

[SR1419]

When leaving out the specifics of their careers it does indeed hardly seem suspicious. The fact that all of their careers are in some way or another connected to the events of that day however is rather unlikely, isn't it?

But you said "high profile"...?? really? Is a software developer "high profile"? Satellite engineer? electronics technician- high profile? really?

So, how does working for Boeing satellite systems connect to 9/11? Simply because they were Boeing planes?? really??

One scientist with top secret clearance?? Another connection to a terrorist attacks? really?

How do the lawyers connect to 9/11??

An accountant for the pentagon...simply because they hit the pentagon? really?


Again- why is the fact that they were on the plane...and thus killed...add credence to it being an inside job? That seems counter intuitive.

Again, can you suggest who you would expect to be on mid-week plane from the nation's security, defense and intelligence hub?

 

[Grieves]

But you said "high profile"...?? really? Is a software developer "high profile"? Satellite engineer? electronics technician- high profile? really?

I said 'relatively' high profile. Software developers for defense contractors and satellite engineers for Boeing are rather more high profile than a traveling salesman \ plumbing service consultant \ soccer-mom in the context of our discussion.

Again, can you suggest who you would expect to be on mid-week plane from the nation's security, defense and intelligence hub?

Washington's state fruit is the apple. I wouldn't expect an inordinate number of apple pickers. Washington's official dance is the square-dance. I wouldn't expect an inordinate number of square-dancers. Washington has an abundance of evergreen forests, and jobs involving the lumber trade rank 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 6th out of DC's most popular jobs, but I wouldn't expect an inordinate number of lumberjacks. Defense-related occupations don't even place on the list of Washington's 100 most common occupations, and yet seven occupants of that plane were employees of defense contractors/firms, and about a dozen had careers involving national defense in general. That's a good 20% of all the passengers on-board with jobs relating to national defense, on the day of the greatest national defense failure perhaps in the history of the nation, on one of the planes used to carry out that attack. That seems an inordinately high percentage of similarly employed people. If you want to prove there's nothing suspicious about that 20% figure, then prove that there were a similar number of passengers in various careers involving food/catering, or careers involving insurance, or careers involving sales in general, or careers involving medicine. They don't even have to be specific to a certain branch of that field, regardless of the prevalence of employees of Defense Contractors amongst those with careers relating to national defense, or that of Boeing employees. Then I'll admit that perhaps it isn't so suspicious to have so many similarly employed people on the same doomed plane.

Again- why is the fact that they were on the plane...and thus killed...add credence to it being an inside job? That seems counter intuitive.

How-so? Are you assuming, as was done previously in the thread, that my suspicion is directed toward the listed people and not the list itself?

 

[Mick West]

Washington's state fruit is the apple. I wouldn't expect an inordinate number of apple pickers. Washington's official dance is the square-dance. I wouldn't expect an inordinate number of square-dancers. Washington has an abundance of evergreen forests, and jobs involving the lumber trade rank 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 6th out of DC's most popular jobs, but I wouldn't expect an inordinate number of lumberjacks. Defense-related occupations don't even place on the list of Washington's 100 most common occupations, and yet seven occupants of that plane were employees of defense contractors/firms, and about a dozen had careers involving national defense in general. That's a good 20% of all the passengers on-board with jobs relating to national defense, on the day of the greatest national defense failure perhaps in the history of the nation, on one of the planes used to carry out that attack. That seems an inordinately high percentage of similarly employed people.

I think you are confusing Washington state, with Washington DC.