What Are The Chances?, Paige Farley Hackel & Ruth McCourt coincidence/oddity Options

[paranoia]

http://inmemoriamonline.net/Profiles/Folde...ige-(AA11).html

"They were best friends, close as sisters, and they were headed to California. Paige Farley- Hackel, and Ruth McCourt were going to fly from Boston together on United Airlines Flight 175, but when Ms. Farley- Hackel realized she could use frequent flyer miles, she got a ticket for American Airlines Flight 11 instead. Ms. McCourt, who was flying with her 4-year-old daughter, Juliana, and Ms. Farley-Hackel said goodbye in the early morning hours at Logan International Airport in Boston on Sept. 11, and boarded their planes.

The women had planned on meeting in Los Angeles and taking Juliana to Disneyland. Ms. Farley-Hackel's plane was hijacked and struck the north tower of the World Trade Center. Ms. McCourt's and Juliana's flight, hijacked as well, crashed into the south tower shortly thereafter."

and:

http://derek.gwinn.us/blog/2006/09/07/reme...-farley-hackel/

"Paige Farley-Hackel was on her way to Los Angeles on a multi-purpose trip. She was planning on being certified in the Debbie Ford Shadow Process, and to take a trip to Disneyland with her best friend, Ruth McCourt, and Ruth’s daughter, Juliana. Upon returning to Boston, she would have been shortly starting her own AM radio program, “Spiritually Speaking.” According to her husband, Alan Hackel, she had a two-year plan to either be featured on The Oprah Winfrey Show, or else be Oprah’s biggest rival.

Ms. McCourt and her 4-year-old daughter were on United flight 175, which also was hijacked and crashed into the south tower shortly thereafter. In a cruel twist of fate, Ms. McCourt’s brother, Ronald Clifford, was at the WTC for a meeting. He arrived in the WTC lobby just as the first plane hit, carrying Ms. Farley-Hackel. As he was helping an injured woman out of the building, he looked up just in time to see the plane carrying his sister and niece crash into the south tower."

i was so blown away by this triple coincedence that i had to share it (i searched the site and found no mention of it).

This post has been edited by paranoia: Feb 9 2012, 02:13 AM

[heliweli]

I remember that very well. Ruth McCourt and her brother were Irish. So it was a huge story here in Ireland!

[amazed!]

Sounds like pure propaganda to me. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbdown.gif)

[heliweli]

Interested in that last comment. The McCourts lived about twenty miles away from me. Didn't know them personally. But their parents were interviewed and that is one of the things i remember about 9/11. I am currently writing an essay for a thesis, and when you mentioned propaganda, I got interested as i'm writing on american foreign policy, propaganda and censorship and photography. I don't have a closed mind, and if you have any info on the above would definitely appreciate it.

[amazed!]

I suspect it is propaganda for several reasons.

1. It is very convenient, and poignant, and fit for public consumption. A tear jerker, for some.

2. The passenger lists submitted by the government are suspect. Also very convenient, and alot of people who were in fact employed in the Military Industrial Complex.

If those guys don't know how to do anything else, they do know how to practice propaganda.

Perhaps this case is just as presented, I simply have suspicions.

This post has been edited by amazed!: Apr 14 2007, 06:49 PM

[biggahthebettah]

I suspect it is propaganda for several reasons.

1. It is very convenient, and poignant, and fit for public consumption. A tear jerker, for some.

2. The passenger lists submitted by the government are suspect. Also very convenient, and alot of people who were in fact employed in the Military Industrial Complex.

If those guys don't know how to do anything else, they do know how to practice propaganda.

Perhaps this case is just as presented, I simply have suspicions.

I'm with you, amazed. Why didn't they take it a step further and tell how the guy looks up and sees his sister waving down at him and blowing a kiss just before it crashes?

I don't buy it. If I'm wrong, then all of my condolences.

[heliweli]

I heard all that 5 or so years ago.Believed everything then. Funny thing is, if it was propaganda, they were the very people that caused me to google 9/11 one day, and now I of course don't believe a word of the official story.

[Logicman]

I suspect it is propaganda for several reasons.

1. It is very convenient, and poignant, and fit for public consumption. A tear jerker, for some.

2. The passenger lists submitted by the government are suspect. Also very convenient, and alot of people who were in fact employed in the Military Industrial Complex.

If those guys don't know how to do anything else, they do know how to practice propaganda.

Perhaps this case is just as presented, I simply have suspicions.

Could you please link me to the passenger list submitted by the government? I've had no luck on this one so far...

Thanks!

[trvl4freedom]

Could you please link me to the passenger list submitted by the government? I've had no luck on this one so far...

Thanks!

It would be better to seek out the passenger manifests from United and American. They will definitely have it on record (of course, it may be difficult to get them to release it to you).

The reason being that, despite the obvious security need to match passenger names to tickets, boarding passes and their ID, airlines do not have proof of payment unless the actual passenger manifest matches all the ticket stubs/receipts they collect. Therefore, both these items are reconciled, recorded and saved.

Airlines sell tickets through various channels and ticket agents and gate agents are tasked with making sure proof of every bit of revenue is accounted for before they dispatch a flight. Before the widespread use of e-ticketing, in some cases, the only proof of payment was that ticket stub and it was like cash -- if a passenger lost that page and showed up with just an itinerary or their seat assignment stubs/boarding passes, they would be denied boarding. (Both United and American are members of The Airline Reporting Corporation which helps to reconcile payments and/or disputes between airlines and their sales channels, such as travel agencies.)

Because those agents would have no way of knowing that those flights were going to be hijacked and we are going to assume they are not agents of some grander conspiracy, it is safe to assume they treated those flights like any other routine flight of the day and followed standard company/accounting policy and matched all ticket receipts to the passenger manifest. Therefore, the airline manifest list will probably be more accurate than any other list.

[KILL YOUR TV!]

It would be better to seek out the passenger manifests from United and American. They will definitely have it on record ....

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html


(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

[tnemelckram]

I spent some time at 911research.

The are behind date on the Pentagon. Its almost as if their analysis stops with the summer 2006 release of the FDR data by the NTSB. Based on the evidence available then they sort of hold their nose and conclude that AA77 did strike the Pentagon; a principal reason for their reservations is the lack of the FDR data that the government claimed supported its story. They also don't care much for the government eyewitnesses but conclude that you have to go with them because they are the only ones at hand. They seem to lean toward remote piloting as the most likely dirt in the story.

Since then the Pilots analysis of the FDR data has destroyed its veracity and the notion that it supports the OCT. CIT has developed eyewitnesses whose testimony is at odds with the government witnesses and more certain and compelling. The site should include these developments and revisit its original somewhat reluctant conclusion.


There's a lot of good information and analysis there and it's easy to find because the site is well organized and easy to get around.

Although their 2006 Pentagon conclusions are no longer viable, I still like the way they think. It turns out that at least their reservations were well grounded. And they still seem to be spot on with regard to the WTC.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Jan 30 2009, 08:33 PM

[amazed!]

Logicman

Even if I said "yeah OK, the passenger lists are no problem as represented", there is so much OTHER stuff about the events of the day that demonstrate fraud, that it overwhelms your silly ass passenger list thing.

One must be able to look at the BIG picture. Step back, look at the forest rather than any individual tree.