Was Flight93 Supposed To Hit Bldg7?

Funny how that call went through.
Funny how building 7 went down.
Funny how a passport on the plane survived but the black box didn't. Neither did the towers.

Funny how very few people questioned what they were told.

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
There's no harm in a few what if's now is there? Especially if I'm wrong...right?

No harm, at all.

The federal government never proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt and they've had 16 years. They left themselves open to what-ifs, conspiracy theories, suspicion, and speculation. If someone has an issue with that, their beef is with the federal government who didn't prove its case.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
There's no harm in a few what if's now is there? Especially if I'm wrong...right?

No harm, at all.

The federal government never proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt and they've had 16 years. They left themselves open to what-ifs, conspiracy theories, suspicion, and speculation. If someone has an issue with that, their beef is with the federal government who didn't prove its case.

Hell, it's taken that long to tell Little Bush what "My Pet Goat" was about.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

Did this exact thread about a year ago

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: MissSmartypants

I'm a real conspiracy theorist because I believe in the official story:

Well, taking note of your alien themed avatar here's another conspiracy theory for you...9/11 was supposedly to take the focus off of the information disclosed in Stephen Greers 4 hour disclosure project testimony by various whistleblowers. Don't know about that one.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
There's no harm in a few what if's now is there? Especially if I'm wrong...right?

No harm, at all.

The federal government never proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt and they've had 16 years. They left themselves open to what-ifs, conspiracy theories, suspicion, and speculation. If someone has an issue with that, their beef is with the federal government who didn't prove its case.

And they've completely ignored many truthers concerns.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
There's no harm in a few what if's now is there? Especially if I'm wrong...right?

No harm, at all.

The federal government never proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt and they've had 16 years. They left themselves open to what-ifs, conspiracy theories, suspicion, and speculation. If someone has an issue with that, their beef is with the federal government who didn't prove its case.

Precisely.

In a standard trial, if 9/11 were the case at hand, I am nearly 100% certain that in a randomly selected group of autonomous jurors, at least one would claim what you have stated: there is reasonable doubt regarding the "official" story and conclusions.

That's all it takes.


Yet many are lambasted and borderline threatened for even questioning it...

Yea, I used to do the same when I was young, when confronted about something I was guilty of.

But hey, the lies, deception, and murder of innocent lives are justified because "reasons."

Well, if the whole thing was planned, then 93 maybe was scripted. The Let's Roll™ scenario might have been a psyop from the beginning, not ad-libed.

It makes sense in light of the advent of Jessica Lynch-type school plays.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
Well, if the whole thing was planned, then 93 maybe was scripted. The Let's Roll™ scenario might have been a psyop from the beginning, not ad-libed.

It makes sense in light of the advent of Jessica Lynch-type school plays.

I'm glad you brought up Jessica Lynch.
Quite a few of our new lurkers probably have never heard of her
Every bit as sketchy as the events of 9/11

originally posted by: FlyingFox
Well, if the whole thing was planned, then 93 maybe was scripted. The Let's Roll™ scenario might have been a psyop from the beginning, not ad-libed.

It makes sense in light of the advent of Jessica Lynch-type school plays.

You seem to be trying to agree with me so I'll just leave it at that and not point out the flaws in your post.
Your welcome.

originally posted by: CreationBro

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
There's no harm in a few what if's now is there? Especially if I'm wrong...right?

No harm, at all.

The federal government never proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt and they've had 16 years. They left themselves open to what-ifs, conspiracy theories, suspicion, and speculation. If someone has an issue with that, their beef is with the federal government who didn't prove its case.

Precisely.

In a standard trial, if 9/11 were the case at hand, I am nearly 100% certain that in a randomly selected group of autonomous jurors, at least one would claim what you have stated: there is reasonable doubt regarding the "official" story and conclusions.

That's all it takes.


Yet many are lambasted and borderline threatened for even questioning it...

Yea, I used to do the same when I was young, when confronted about something I was guilty of.

But hey, the lies, deception, and murder of innocent lives are justified because "reasons."

And of course they've made sure that Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones are who the American people think of whenever the subject of questioning the official line comes up.

a reply to: CreationBro

In a standard trial, if 9/11 were the case at hand, I am nearly 100% certain that in a randomly selected group of autonomous jurors, at least one would claim what you have stated: there is reasonable doubt regarding the "official" story and conclusions.

But, um. The "official story" wasn't the crime. The crime was the airplanes that got crashed into stuff. The evidence against those accused seems pretty strong.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

One - Flight 93 was on a SE heading toward DC following hijacking near Cleveland. Hijackers had dialed in the VOR
navigation beacon at Reagan National , Kinda strange if want to hit WTC 7 then going in wrong direction

Two -WTC 7 is that is ringed by numerous buildings of over 40 50 stories (WTC 7 was 47 story, 610 feet)

South approach has WTC towers in way, West the World Financial Centers (3 buildings 40-51 floors )

200 Liberty Street, formerly One World Financial Center, height 577 feet (176 m), 40 stories

225 Liberty Street, formerly Two World Financial Center, (1987), height 645 feet (197 m), 44 stories

200 Vesey Street, formerly Three World Financial Center, (also known as American Express Tower) (1985), height 739 feet (225 m), 51 stories

East - 1 Liberty Plaza 54 floors , 743 ft and Millenium Hilton, 55 story

Makes any approach difficult if not impossible

Map of area

911research.wtc7.net...

Three - following collapse of towers area was covered in dust and smoke, reducing visibility to near zero

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CreationBro

In a standard trial, if 9/11 were the case at hand, I am nearly 100% certain that in a randomly selected group of autonomous jurors, at least one would claim what you have stated: there is reasonable doubt regarding the "official" story and conclusions.

But, um. The "official story" wasn't the crime. The crime was the airplanes that got crashed into stuff. The evidence against those accused seems pretty strong.

Not really.

The federal government wouldn't even be able to prove the identities of the 19 hijackers beyond a reasonable doubt in a U.S. criminal court: Link

It's a stretch to say the evidence against the accused is pretty strong when prosecutors would not even be able to say, beyond a reasonable doubt, who the accused even are.

Also, 'official story' is just a convenient catch-all term for the federal government's case. Or, that how I am using it, here, anyway.

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
And what if once Flight 93 had crashed "they" were unable to stop the explosives in bldg 7 from detonating?
Any thoughts?

They managed to stop the explosives in 1 & 2 from detonating for around an hour despite those explosives being hit by airliners and engulfed in the resulting jet fuel fireball. I'd have thought it would be fairly trivial for them to stop the explosives in 7 going off

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

Any thoughts?

Yes.

1-You obviously believe anything you read as long as it sounds like s conspiracy

2- you have done zero research and zero fact checking.

You've obviously contributed nothing of value.

Actually they hit the nail right on its head with those 2 points after one reads your OP.

Just some simple thought about the claim or suggestion, was flight 93 meant to hit Building 7?

Could a plane find and fly into it with all the other taller building surrounding it?

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

Any thoughts?

Yes.

1-You obviously believe anything you read as long as it sounds like s conspiracy

2- you have done zero research and zero fact checking.

You've obviously contributed nothing of value.

Actually they hit the nail right on its head with those 2 points after one reads your OP.

Just some simple thought about the claim or suggestion, was flight 93 meant to hit Building 7?

Could a plane find and fly into it with all the other taller building surrounding it?

They didn't need the plane to actually hit the building. They only needed it to be in the vicinity for it to serve as an explanation for the buildings demolition.

Well, the OEM command center in the WTC 7 did say there concerns and reports of a third plane.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

They didn't need the plane to actually hit the building. They only needed it to be in the vicinity for it to serve as an explanation for the buildings demolition.

That was a joke right?

I was trying to point out the lack if thinking further so that such claims can make some sense.

Now you even use even more irrational thinking to try and explain something and yet the first thing you post is this

First off to "anyone"(wink wink) reading this... while I am a poor misguided conspiracy theorist I am not nor have I ever been a Truther. I am rather a what if'er.

Sorry, you have expressed the same method of thinking that truthers do.

They absorb anything that claims conspiracy no matter how ludicrous it is and parrot it over and over without actually thinking how and what would be involved for certain things to be facts.


Seriously, a plane only has to be in the vicinity so the government can say a plane hit the building when in fact they demolished it?

The hologram plane theory has more logic than this.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The hijackers ended up dead at the crash sites as proven by DNA evidence. Kind of a moot point on the convicting part. You might have a case if they were alive to prosecute.

But as mentioned, you have DNA evidence. Evidence they conspired to hijack, bank/financial/computer/phone records they purchased tickets, evidence they boarded the jets, the hijackers voices on tape and radio, and recovered personal items.