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.

 

9/11 Questions: Why didn't they hit the White House?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   
This is just a question that was burning in my mind.

I was reflecting on the tragedy that occured today, and reading some threads. I don't know if any of you have already speculated about this, but why didn't the terrorists hit the White House? I mean, really. They killed 125 people at the Pentagon. A tragic loss, no doubt. But, why didn't they hit the White House? They had an opportunity to. The moments after the 9/11 attack were a state of mass confusion. They easily could have hit the White House, which, one would think, would be the primary terrorist target.

This just leads me to believe even more that there were many conspiracies behind 9/11.




posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   
It's believed that Flight 93 was heading towards DC, and targetting either the White House or Capital Building.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   
well if you're going to think that way, the question has to be asked, why didn't they fly into a nuclear plant and really hit us hard?? The terrorists had 4 planes, at least one could have targetted a nuclear facility, there's a few on the east coast.

They aimed at symbolic targets for Americans and I do believe in Flight 93 hadn't gone down, the white house or capitol building would have been next.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Believe it or not, a nuclear plant makes an awful target. That's the only wall in the world that will withstand the impact of a 757/767 sized plane.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I agree that the nuclear plants would have made bad targets. Not only are they built to survive almost every type of conceivable attack, they're hardly symbols of freedom which were the apparant targets. On the other hand, fully fueled commercial jetliner's were not in the group of 'conceivable attacks' before 2001.

It makes sense to me that the last flight was headed for Washington DC but even if it hadn't crashed it would have been shot down before getting there.


CX

posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 04:40 AM
link   
How does a nuclear power plant make a lousy target? Thats a question, not a dig at the comments saying it is'nt a great target.

Take the Chernobyl incident, that was ultimately caused by an expolsion was'nt it when other safety measures failed i believe? Could then a big enough deliberate explosion, say an aircraft collision not cause a similar effect and subsequently a simialar catastrophic event?

Calv.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Its a good question, with no real answer.

I too believe Flight 93 was heading in that direction, but why was the White House not the FIRST target.

In this I mean, the White House represents 'The power of the United States', wouldn't this be the prime target in an assault against the people?

They caught everybody with their guard down on 9/11, which would have allowed them the extra prep. time to go after the White House first, and the remaining targets later.

This could definitely sway towards an 'Inside Job' CT, with the powers that be not wanting to go to the absolute extreme.

With the Pentagon, one could see this as a target of reason. The Pentagon had just completed ( I think it was completed ) an upgrade in the same area of the attack. Thus leaving it accessible as an acceptable loss, in which the severity of the attack would still hail importance.

I'm not making light of any of the losses that occurred that day, just imposing the idea of it being an acceptable loss in the eyes of the conspirators, providing they were behind the attacks.

Not that I buy into all the CT's involving 9/11, but I do believe there is more to the story that John Q Public will never know.

The White House, IMO, would have made the most impact on the American public if it had been attacked.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 06:06 AM
link   
...because the point was to hit NYC and the Twin Towers, bringing down that city and at the same time confining the criminal deed to one spot- a spot that is world known and for the purpose of shock it was the best place to do it. Sure, there is word that another plane was headed to the White House....We'll never know...
Judging by how Bush stayed at the school where he was at the time...it was known that other attacks were not going to happen and that Bush in his school setting that day was perfectly safe.

IF it was terrorists who perpetrated this act, NYC was good enough.

IF it was the government who perpetrated this act, of course, they knew Bush was safe and so was everyone else.

The heart of business in NYC was hit for all the world to see. No need to carry it further.

And how convenient, i might add, for the one who became known as "The war time president"



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainIraq

I don't know if any of you have already speculated about this, but why didn't the terrorists hit the White House?

[...]


You do know that there is a bunker complex underground somewhere in the proximity of the White House, don't you??

i seem to recall that during the civil war there was a tunnel system from the White House to Lafayette Park, across the street, and into some hotel bordering the Park.
(you'll have to look/search that stuff up)

But my own CT thinking, is that the modern bunker attached to the WH is in the opposite direction
(i.e. south) and sprawling around & under the Washington Monument itself.
Of course this is sensitive & secret and there's no way to prove or document this CT speculation....
[other than maybe researching the engineering & construction of the DC subway system]

Now, if the Washington Monument is the 'ground Zero' of the underground bunker that the WH evacuates to in times of extreme danger, and if the 9-11 Zealots were privy to that info, then the WH itself would not be the primary target

If i recall correctly there was some reported 'chatter' which was interpeted to have been "White Palace" during that leadup to the 9-11 sequence of attacks.
Some have suggested that White-Palace was the term for the White-House among the Zealots in the commandeered aircraft...
I put forward back in 2001 that the mumbo-jumble & mistranslation at the time of the 9-11 confusion, along with the Authorities trying to spin information, that the 'chatter' about the "White Palace" target actually was about the 'White Phallus'
which is an apt description/metaphor of the Washington Monuments spire.

so, imho, neither the White House nor the Capitol Building was the intended target
of the delayed flight #93...the underground bunker of the WH, which has/had a exit or connection with the Washington Monument was the target never hit.
(btw-> remember when defensive Patriot missiles were deployed all around the Monument grounds after the initial 9-11 attacks? presumably to shield the WH?
...think about it some, was protection for the WH, Capitol...or the WH Bunker beneath the Monument itself???)



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by CX
How does a nuclear power plant make a lousy target? Thats a question, not a dig at the comments saying it is'nt a great target.

Take the Chernobyl incident, that was ultimately caused by an expolsion was'nt it when other safety measures failed i believe? Could then a big enough deliberate explosion, say an aircraft collision not cause a similar effect and subsequently a simialar catastrophic event?

Calv.


Because as I said in my earlier post, a nuclear powerplant is designed to withstand the impact of a 757/767 sized plane, or even bigger, without it penetrating through the walls. Those walls are somewhere on the order of 10-12 FEET or more of reinforced concrete.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
...because the point was to hit NYC and the Twin Towers, bringing down that city and at the same time confining the criminal deed to one spot- a spot that is world known and for the purpose of shock it was the best place to do it.


Not sure how a terrorist is going to think, but I still think that Washington would have had more 'purpose of shock'.

Being from a far away land
I think of Washington as where it all happens, laws/ deals/foreign policies/etc, made all the time.

It would also represent the Heart of America in my mind. Others may feel different



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   
To think that they would have shot down a plane if it was heading to the white house ads to the bad logic of the pentagon official story. If they would have shot that one down why in the heck would they not have been able to shoot down a plane heading towards the pentagon the nerve center of americas armed forces I mean common sense. Your telling me the people at the pentagon are that clueless that they didnt see an f-ing plane coming at them.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I don't think the point of attacking the White House would be to kill the president. To the terrorists, that would probably be a bonus. They want to strike fear into us. Now, not to disrespect the people lost in 9/11, as they were all tragic losses. But which one would make you fear the terrorists more: Them hitting a couple of big buildings; or them hitting the White House itself, the very symbol of our strength and independance. It would show us even more how vulnerable we are, even if the pres. did not get killed.

Just take a moment and think about how drastically different 9/11 would have been looked on if they had hit the White House



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Hm. Sidestepping the power plant question, if 9/11 was an inside job; they should have hit capitol hill. Preferably with 2 planes - 1 for the Senate and one for the House of Representatives. Take out the legislative branch, even temporarily; and the President would "need" to step into a dictator type roll. You know, somebody has to keep the goernment running while FEMA dawdles around setting up temporary housing for our legislative branch to do business in.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:42 AM
link   
The terrorists planned to take control of more than 4 airplanes.

The mass grounding saved many lives. Who knows where these additional aircraft may have been targeted?

But yeah, I agree Flight 93 was intended to hit a high-profile target in D.C. before it was brought down.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by CX
Take the Chernobyl incident, that was ultimately caused by an expolsion was'nt it when other safety measures failed i believe? Could then a big enough deliberate explosion, say an aircraft collision not cause a similar effect and subsequently a simialar catastrophic event?


An explosion? No. A catestrophic failure of safetly and control mechanisms in the reactor which lead to a meltdown? Yes.

Anyway, aside from the reasons as to why a nuclear power facility would make a lousy target that were pointed out by Zaphod, in the long term it really wouldn't be that bad. For example, did you know that in the areas most affected by the radiation from the Chernobyl disaster are now flourishing nature preserves? In fact, some of the local animal and plant population went mostly unscathed through the incident. These areas are now abandoned by humans, despite the fact that people could once again live normal lives there.

Honestly, though, a light/medium plane would be a better mechanism of terror at any power facility than a jumbo jet would. How? Well, firstly, the plant itself would not need to be the target. Just the relay and transformer stations surrounding the plant. Sure, the jumbo jet would level the station entirely, but would the ends justify the means for the terrorist?

Jumbo jets are monitored significantly more than the general aviation aircraft are. So, the course diversion would be noticed nearly immediately, fighters would scramble, and the chances of success just went way down. Now, a GA aircraft could easily go unmonitored and be used to crash into a transformer station. No fighters scrambled or anything until it's too late. Do that 20 times throughout the nation at the right places and you could black out most of the country. Kind of scary, isn't it?

Anyway, as for why not to target the White House? That is one of the suspected targets of Flight 93, wasn't it? If they had made it to DC they very well could have hit the White House.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Was Cheney in the whitehouse? If so then the rumours that he ran the show on the US side tell me that he didn't want to die in a ball of flames. That's my best guess.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
well if you're going to think that way, the question has to be asked, why didn't they fly into a nuclear plant and really hit us hard??

You have answered your own question, as quoted below--simply because all the attacks were aimed at American/US symbolic targets:

Originally posted by worldwatcher
They aimed at symbolic targets for Americans and I do believe in Flight 93 hadn't gone down, the white house or capitol building would have been next.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Was Cheney in the whitehouse? If so then the rumours that he ran the show on the US side tell me that he didn't want to die in a ball of flames. That's my best guess.

Um, no.
In cases of national emergencies, the President is taken to Air Force One and the Vice President is ushered to a land site/location. In other words, one in the air and one on the ground. It was not because Cheney did not want to die in a "ball of flames." It was due to simple protocol.

[edit on 16-9-2006 by Seekerof]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join