Lockheed, Xontech, Boeing, BAE, Veridian, and Raytheon?


May just be a coincidence but I find it odd that all these companies gained from 9-11, and roughly 14/205 passengers are involved with US contracted companies.


Herbet Homer-FL175-Corp exec Raytheon
Stanley Hall-FL77-Director of program management Raytheon
Peter Gay-FL11-VP of some Raytheon sector
David Kovalcin-FL11-Raytheon mechanics engineer
Kenneth Waldie-FL11-Raytheon control engineer
Dong Lee-FL77-Boeing engineer
Ruben Orendo-FL77-Boeing engineer
Robert Penniger-FL77-BAE
Robert Ploger-FL77-Lockheed software
John Sammartino-FL77-Xontech tech man
Leonard Taylor-FL77-Xontech tech man
John Yamnicky-FL77-Veridian
Charles Edwards-FL11-manager of space prog. BAE
Edward Felt-FL93-Tech director BAE


One on 3 of the 4 hijacked planes.

All of these companies had major profits to make in the after 9-11 world. Maybe they had involvment/had to sacrifice? What do you think?

It could be possibly that there was a 'classified' element to the 'war games' proceeding that day and these guys were actually thought they respective companies were going to demo their remote control technology during a 'war game' hijack scenario.

How during the war game the powers that be ... made the exercise 'go live' ..... this would explain why none of the planes got off the hijack code .... because this new 'remote control' technology takes complete control of the plane including transponder and communications. The reason I believe this may have been the scenario is because it would be the perfect cover in case something went wrong. Just blame the new software or something and they already have players from the 'wargames' verified on the planes.

This is nearly the exact scenario that DID happen on 7/7 training exercises used just in case something goes wrong ..... the perfect cover.

Those companies also did a lot of business with the Pentagon that required them to meet various people in Washington and other areas on the East Coast. They also did a lot of business that was VERY loosely connected to planes. We used to have Raytheon come out to the airport every two or three years and give classes on how to use and maintain the Explosive Trace Detection machines. And how to operate some of the newer x-ray systems. They'd also test the operators to certify them. Boeing and Lockheed were responsible for renovating most of the airport checkpoints. All in the aviation industry, but absolutely nothing to do with planes.

I dont think many of them were from washington though, more like Massachusetts i will check for sure though and post back

It wasn't necessarily the Pentagon they were going to. There could have been any number of places they were going. Like I said, they went to airports all over the country doing technical work at them to help the FAA and security companies. Or they could have been coming back from a conference, or an airshow somewhere, or just about anything.

But 3 different planes in 2 different cities, I dont know it is only 14 people but I just find it odd. Maybe I'm overthinking

They always flew commercial when they traveled out to our airport. They don't have private jets that they can travel on. I'm sure that if we had access to manifests you could find other days when there were a bunch of people from various companies on flights all over. Generally when Raytheon would go out to airports they'd send out four or five groups, and they'd travel from whatever city they happened to be at at the time.

It is corporate policy at most Fortune 100 companies to specifically DISALLOW any "critical" personnel to ride on the same planes together in case something of this manner should happen. This would seem ESPECIALLY important given the listed personnel/resources involved.

For example... even a Fortune 150 like the Lear Corp. does NOT allow any two directors to fly the same plane ate the same time... just in case. Oddly, their CFO (i think, one of their c-level or VPs) is now at Raytheon.

This is just FYI.

It's not in case something like 9/11, but in case the plane crashes. And yes, it makes a lot of sense. Their company would be thrown into all kinds of confusion if they lost ONE high ranking officer, it would be huge if they lost two.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It's not in case something like 9/11, but in case the plane crashes. And yes, it makes a lot of sense. Their company would be thrown into all kinds of confusion if they lost ONE high ranking officer, it would be huge if they lost two.

thanks for repeating what I just said... Sorry, let me be more clear than necessary... the rule exists in case the plane is destroyed by ANYTHING. Do you really need to to a pretend correction for me?

for the last 15 years I have been subject to these regulations.

lets see , 14 out of what , about 400 total on 4 planes ... even less odd would be 14 out of 2890.. not odd at all .more waste of space

Okay, so if its a remote controlled plane, why would they be on the plane?

Just saying, your finding connections where you want there to be. If there were 5 watergate hotel attendents you would be saying that they obviously knew too much and were silenced.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Okay, so if its a remote controlled plane, why would they be on the plane?

Just saying, your finding connections where you want there to be. If there were 5 watergate hotel attendents you would be saying that they obviously knew too much and were silenced.

I dont know, did the 5 Watergate attendents work with remote controllable aircrafts?

In a previous job, six of us flew from Jacksonville, Florida to Seattle, Washington each Tuesday and back on Friday. I used to fly from Pittsburgh to Detroit on Thursday and back on Friday.

Air travel for business is quite common. If you really want to find something out, what you should do is to see if there were people who usually flew on those flights and didn't on 9-11.

Originally posted by Cygnific

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Okay, so if its a remote controlled plane, why would they be on the plane?

Just saying, your finding connections where you want there to be. If there were 5 watergate hotel attendents you would be saying that they obviously knew too much and were silenced.

I dont know, did the 5 Watergate attendents work with remote controllable aircrafts?

And what does remote controlled aircrafts have to do with them?

Think about it, if that was the big sinker, how would they be ON the remote controlled aircraft when it crashed?

Originally posted by WolfofWar

Originally posted by Cygnific

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Okay, so if its a remote controlled plane, why would they be on the plane?

Just saying, your finding connections where you want there to be. If there were 5 watergate hotel attendents you would be saying that they obviously knew too much and were silenced.

I dont know, did the 5 Watergate attendents work with remote controllable aircrafts?

And what does remote controlled aircrafts have to do with them?

Think about it, if that was the big sinker, how would they be ON the remote controlled aircraft when it crashed?

What does the Watergate attendents have to do with this then? You are trying to find a argument to not go with the RC aircrafts coincidence, and come up with some hotel attendents. This is about the employees that died where involved in RC aircaft control, there are rumors that the planes crashed on 9/11 where remote controlled. Why do you come up with the nothing to do with this story, attentendents of a hotel? And why?.... Maybe they where a big risk.

[edit on 25/5/2007 by Cygnific]