It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was Flight 175 rescheduled?

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 05:51 AM
link   
I have a question somewhat similar to the one proposed by MissSmartyPants in Was Flight93 Supposed To Hit Bldg7 (but this one should be answerable). It is based on the notion, that it is peculiar that two so identical collapses with two so identical explanations took place after two so different periods of time.

The North tower was struck first, and collapsed second after 102 minutes.
The South tower was struck second, and collapsed first after 56 minutes.

There are of course a million possible explanations as to why one of the two identical buildings would weaken twice as fast as the other.

(For instance, even though the impacts were similar enough to produce the same hitherto unforeseen outcome, the impacts were just that; 'similar', not 'identical'.)

However, and here is what my question hinges upon, if one assumes that the collapses was disguised demolitions and part of a grand plan, would it then not make sense that the masterminds behind it a) had a tightly planned timeline for the day, and b) that they would want as few peculiarities as possible and thus would plan for approximately the same burn-period, and c) that they would want the hijackings to take place roughly at the same time, so that if one failed, the other would not be warned in time?

That would make sense to me.

And, now, finally, my question: Was flight 175 supposed to hit its target before flight 11 hit its; was flight 175 unexpectedly rescheduled, thus messing with the timeline?

I know that flight 175 was 14 minutes delayed, but so was flight 11. So that makes no difference. However, delays are measured against the allocated timeslot, and it does indeed happen that timeslots are reallocated in and by either the departure or the arrival airport, and it even happens that individual timeslots are traded amongst airlines (or at least it did) - the right timeslot can be quite valuable in this low margin industry.

If that is the case the 'real' delay would not figure in any statistics as it would not be considered a delay, but I would think that it would figure *somewhere*. Perhaps there are records of the previous flights on the route to which the departure time could be compared - and I just do not know how to go about finding those.


But would it not be interesting to find out that if not for a delay, the hijackings would have taken place at roughly the same time and that if not for that delay the burn times would have been much more similar?

To me that would very much points towards the conspiracist take on the events - and likewise, if it is established that there were no rescheduling, ity would point towards the official version.


I would quite like to find out - what say you, has this already been looked at, is there some great counterpoint that I have not thought of rendering the question meaningless, or do you have an idea about how to go about checking for 16 year old reschedulings?




posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: DupontDeux

My 2 cents on why the building hit second fell first.

I heard some pilots say that at the speed the plane was flying and the last second maneuvers required to hit the building as it did would of been humanly impossible, at that speed by the time the pilot thought to turn he would have already blew past the building....

So, known or unknown to the hijackers, at some point the control of the plane was taken over by computer and became a GPS guided missle, the only problem was that THEY never took into consideration that the other building might get in the way and the mined buildings dropped in the wrong order and yes building 7 was meant to be hit by the 3rd plane that never made it.

I've looked at the trajectory of the planes and this seems a possibility, what you think?



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: tayton

No plane would have been able to fly into building seven. It was completely surrounded by taller buildings. Unless the pilot flew it straight down and that too is impossible.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: tayton

The towers were the tallest things on that landscape. Way above the surrounding buildings. Aiming was all that was required no maneuvering.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   
They were aiming for symbols of America.
They hit 3 out of 4.
The only speculative part was the fourth.
Capitol: Easy to pick out from the air
or
White House: Harder to pick out but more meaningful



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
They were aiming for symbols of America.
They hit 3 out of 4.
The only speculative part was the fourth.
Capitol: Easy to pick out from the air
or
White House: Harder to pick out but more meaningful


How do you know what they were aiming for? You don't. So why speculate the fourth one didn't hit its target, too? They all hit their target. I don't believe that the White House or the Capitol were meant to be hit by Flight 93.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: tayton
a reply to: DupontDeux

My 2 cents on why the building hit second fell first.

I heard some pilots say that at the speed the plane was flying and the last second maneuvers required to hit the building as it did would of been humanly impossible, at that speed by the time the pilot thought to turn he would have already blew past the building....

So, known or unknown to the hijackers, at some point the control of the plane was taken over by computer and became a GPS guided missle, the only problem was that THEY never took into consideration that the other building might get in the way and the mined buildings dropped in the wrong order and yes building 7 was meant to be hit by the 3rd plane that never made it.

I've looked at the trajectory of the planes and this seems a possibility, what you think?


Looking at maps of the WTC complex I fully agree with Sillyolme - it would be virtually impossible for a plane to target and hit Building 7. I guess you could 'dive bomb' your way into it, but that is a beyond implausible plan.

I am not sure to which maneuvers the pilots was referring. I do not seem to recall any drastic last second turning - do I misremember?



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DupontDeux

Yeah. I kind of remember one kind of dropping down and make a little left, it's what the pilot was referring to



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: DupontDeux

Yeah. I kind of remember one kind of dropping down and make a little left, it's what the pilot was referring to



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join