Was Flight 93 targeted for WTC 7?

Browsing the 'net tonite i came across a page by Barry Chamish ( first time i've encountered him ),
who stated that Flt 93 was to take out Larry Silversteins building 7...

This makes sense to me....all the other planes hit their targets (assumption, of course ),
and WTC 7 was definitely prepped ala the same collapse scenario as the Towers.

So, it might have played out like this:
- Flt 93 took off 41 minutes behind schedule....the passengers figured out what was going to happen, and stormed the cockpit,
resulting in the crash...
-OR-
- Some one got nervous about Flt 93 being late, and took it out as a precaution so that the passengers couldn't retake the plane.

The delay in WTC 7 collapse was due to them figuring out what to do, since their diversion (Flt 93) was gone.

i haven't browsed all of the ATS 9/11 posts, so don't know if this has been covered...many good posts amongst all the threads i have looked at, tho.

Other miscellaneous questions.....
Does the 757/767 cockpit cabin door open into the cabin or out into the galley?

Any fueling/maintenance records for the planes used on 9-11 that showed they were at the airports?
The BTS discrepancy thing.....

That's an interesting idea. I've always been under the impression thath Flight 93 was heading towards Washington, but then I wouldn't know how credible that information is, or whether or not the original flight plan was tampered with. So it's an interesting idea.

WTC 7 seems like an awfully small target to hit, especially considering it's proximity to the WTC towers themselves. At 570 feet in height, it was less than half as high as the towers. A really big truck bomb would be a more logical way to go. Especially considering the idea behind the 1993 WTC bombing was to make the one tower fall into the other one. (Only the bomb wasn't nearly big enough)

Yes, a target in Washington seems most likely.

Yeah, on second thought the building wouldn't be very deep if a plane slammed it. WTC7 was a damned big building in its own right, but a plane wouldn't have been absorbed by it in the same way as the WTC Towers. A lot of collateral damage would probably result, and maybe even an actual natural collapse of some whole upper floors.

I dunno if anyone read the transcript of Flight 93... it was posted here by AgentSmith : www.abovetopsecret.com...'

If this is correct and is exactly from the blackbox recording... Id say they went for the easiest target and now WTC7 and obviosly the WTC's were the biggest and easiest targets.

It was invented to convey the slogan to the farce: "Let's roll!"

That's about all there is to it. Oh, and as to your original point, if a plane had indeed struck WTC7, the pilots would've had to be much more than just "lucky".

[edit on 20-4-2006 by Lumos]

I think this theory makes a lot more sense than WTC7 collapsing from fire (and a little bit of 'stress')

WTC7 was planned to come down after a plane strike, and in the end they brought it down anyway... yeah, I can go for that idea.

This reminds me - I read on a previous ATS thread that is possible WTC7 actually contained the homing device that the WTC1 and WTC2 planes zeroed in on.

Yeah, it was the big moral booster that really put the fire under all the nationalistic zealotism that came with 9/11. I think they were suggesting hitting another target in Washington for good reason, too.

I'm expecting something to hit Congress eventually. That's how it's always been done throughout history. Whether it's overt and by force as with the Romans, or with clever propoganda, as the Nazis burned the Reichstag and blamed Communists, Congress is just dead weight when those who count really start trying to run the show.



Well, WTC7's collapse wasn't really big news, so I doubt they were even really that concerned with explaining that to the masses of people here. To this day I doubt that most people know about WTC7's collapse.

they didnt " have to do anything " , accepting for a second the premise that the plane [ flight 93 ] was headed for NYC with the intent of targeting Wtc 7 -- its failure to appear would not " CAUSE A PANIC " - as you claim

you are simply massaghaing the facts -- and attributing motives and actions to your " plotters " simply to make facts fit your pre concieved notion of what " must have happened "

the explosives that conspiracists claim were in WTC had escaped scruitiny -- of the entire WTC workforce , and the emergency services . - why not just abandon them ?? -- they hadnt been found yet -- no reason to assume they would be ..

you credit the plotters who YOU CLAIM organised 9/11 with either in human cunning and logistical finese OR mindnumbing stupidity -- and inability to react and adapt .

all depending on the exact nature of the event you are trying to bend into the frame work of your conspiracy " explaination "

Zorch didn't say a PANIC he said someone got nervous



Yeah he is coming up with an interesting theory - nothing more. He is not stating it 'must have happened'



Assuming that explosives brought down WTC7 this must have been part of the plan.

If WTC7 was the 'command centre' for this little operation perhaps it was imperative to pull it in order to conceal evidence.

Perhaps there were other things to hide in the building.

Perhaps Larry just wanted his insurance money!



Hmm.. I'm on the fence here.

Inhuman (dare I say lizard like?) cunning certainly can be attributed to the masterminds behind the tragic events of 9/11

And the puppet/frontman/patsy G W Bush definitely displays mindnumbing stupidity



Are you referring to Flight 93, September 11 or all conspiracy theories?