Having read the thread so far... a few things bother me.
We never hear how they get the DNA samples to identify the passengers. It's a minor point, but it nags. And we can all conjecture about this -
I've just never come across any report that says how the sample material was found. The DNA identification, IIRC, came a long time after the event.
Did someone go around to all the victims' houses and get samples nice and early, or did they all have lousy housekeeping and no-one cleaned the
bathroom for months? I don't know. It just doesn't sit right.
And Cameron Fox just kills me. One tactic I've noticed is that people sometimes post so many links to overwhelm the opposition they don't read what
they're posting, and they don't think others will either. in this link he posted
to support the
idea that bodies were witnessed, when you read it, it doesn't support the idea at all...
...a piece of bogus and planted evidence making it look like one of Flight 77's passengers died at the Pentagon when, in fact, the person
probably never was there at all.
Capt. Jim Ingledue, shift safety officer of the Virginia Beach Fire Dept, said Monday he found amidst the rubble at the Pentagon, two days after 9/11,
the perfectly clean and unblemished California ID card of Suzanne Calley, 42, one of the alleged victims killed aboard Flight 77.
"I remember thinking it was highly unusual and strange to find a perfectly intact ID card amidst all that devastation," said Capt. Ingledue, a
Pentagon first responder who arrived two days after 9/11 and spent a total of seven days in search and rescue.
And do these people actually exist?
Calley is survived by her husband, Frank, who lives in St. Martin, California, but he was unavailable for comment after numerous messages were
left on his answering machine.
I wonder where that answering machine actually is?
What happened to the passengers? Who knows? Being forced to supply a theory when there isn't enough evidence is a scammer's trick. But the
initial hole in the Pentagon wall was tiny - only about 16 feet in diameter - and there was no corresponding holes for the engines, which would have
caused damage being extremely massive.
The lawn in front of the Pentagon was immaculate. The hijacker couldn't fly. Identity cards turn up, suspiciously, in the aftermath - just like the
passport someone handed in to a policeman at the WTC. I can't buy the official theory. It just doesn't stand up.
Posting things like "maybe the controls of a 757 are more forgiving than those of a Cessna" inclines me to think that the OP isn't asking the
question in any serious, open-minded sense of inquiry. Not one reputable airline pilot has come out with anything as outrageous as that. Many have
said that the manoevres were impossible, perhaps for the airframe, but beyond all doubt for Hanjour. Pulling a 270-degree, 5g
crashing into a low-rise building requires serious flying skills, and to suggest it doesn't is disingenuous.
I'm quite happy to say I don't know what happened. The official story doesn't make sense, that's for sure: and there's enough evidence around to
point the finger at factions within the government. I'm grateful to the poster who put up
, which I hadn't come across before:
The extremely skillful maneuvering of the three aircraft at near mach speeds, each unerringly hitting their targets, was superb. As one Air Force
officer -- a veteran of over 100 sorties over North Vietnam -- explained, "Those birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in
the left seat, or they were being maneuvered by remote control."
Another pilot warned that "we had better consider whether electro-magnetic pulse or radio frequency weapons were used from a command and control
platform hovering over the Eastern Seaboard... I'm talkin' AWACS."
Which would explain the mystery aircraft high in the sky over NYC which TPTB definitely didn't want attention paid to.
I was pretty skeptical, initially, of the Pentagon flyover theory myself... but there are plenty of witnesses who do support it, Craig Ranke has done
a stellar job of getting his butt down there, digging them up and getting their testimony: and it actually makes sense
Yes, by all means crash planes into buildings that are coming down anyway. The people there are collateral damage, and you can't control the scene.
But the Pentagon - that's a scene you can
control, and while some are expendable, there are definitely people - and items - there that you
don't want to lose. Why take a massive risk when you can have a plane fly over, and do the rest with entirely controllable shaped charges?
Why else have a guy who can't even fly a Cessna pull a high-g turn taking the airframe right to its limits (if not beyond) simply so that he could
hit the correct side of the building - the relatively empty one? Why wouldn't he just go into a steep dive?
As for the initial question - I'm going with most of them being fictional or military personnel who just "disappear". After all, as other posters
have pointed out, the initial passenger list got changed without explanation. Why? Another loose end that's never been followed up.