United Flight 93 was supposed to hit World Trade Center 7

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I know that Afghanistan and Iraq are very convenient garbage dumps that the administration can use to get rid of special ops people in the military who could make inconvenient witnesses in the future. It would be very easy to send a guy to Baghdad and have him become an unfortunate victim of a sniper attack in the city. (We've all seen the videos.)

The first name that came to my mind while reading this paragraph was Nick Berg. Remember that Moussawi (sp?) suppossedly met him on a bus or something and used Nick's laptop to send and recieve e-mails. Maybe Nick knew too much?

As far as WTC 7 getting hit by a plane. Could that be possible? I mean WTC 7 was 49 (?) stories. The towers were 110. That's 60 more stories worth of target. I think it would be very difficult to hit WTC7 with a plane. Maybe not though.

Edit: Just read 2-pac's post about clearing a way for WTC 7. It's certainly plausible.

[edit on 1/24/2007 by Griff]

The Berg case is a very chilling one. The way the story was presented at first portrayed a hard working journalist who wanted to interview the terrorists so that their story could be told from their side in the press. Very laudible. A balanced free press is what America is all about. (Isn't it?) But those no good Muslim terrorist ingrates in their usual craven and dastardly way kidnap that journalist and murder him for the sake of a cheap and grisly propaganda moment slagging the Jews. (Berg being Jewish.)

Time passes.

After a while it starts to come out that balancing press accounts of the terrorists wasn't why Berg went to Karachi, Pakistan. (Karachi being the home of the Al Quaeda riddled Pakistani ISI Whose director was lunching in Washington on 911 morning with state department and CIA biggies, having previously arranged to wire Mohammed Atta $100,000 for some reason, I wonder what.) It is rumoured that Berg went all the way to Karachi to investigate possible connections between the CIA and Al Quaeda. If that rumour is true, his expedition to Karachi presented a golden opportunity to addresss several issues with one murder.

What Berg was doing basically was the equivalent of going to Sammy Gravano, prior to his being flipped by the police and saying to Sammy (at Sammy's social club) "Look Sammy, I'm an investigative reporter, who suspects that John Gotti and certain persons in the Mayor's office are in cahoots for mayhem and profit. You're associated with Gotti, maybe you could help me out with some of the details?" The inevitable consequences followed.

If the above scenario is accurate, Berg would definitely qualify for inclusion in a 911 dead list. There are others on the other side of the law, much closer to the action who must be spending a lot of time watching their backs. I wonder how many of them have been picked off already.

Apologies for a couple of errors in the previous post. I was thinking of Daniel Pearl, not Nick Berg. Berg's story is an odd one too but I'm not as familiar with it. Also the head of Pakistan's ISI met with George Tenet and possibly with some state department officials in the days before 911, not sure what he was doing on the actual day.

The general thrust of the post remains, however, no excuses for mistakes in detail.

Originally posted by 2PacSade

Answer:

They didn't care about having to explain the third impact! The towers had to fall for flight 93 to have a clear pathway to WTC 7 from the south! It was too short to be hit from anything less than a vertical dive unless a path was created. The felling of the towers would accomplish this. They took a chance on the flight being scuttled before the mission was accomplished and lost. The building still had to obviously be destroyed with all the evidence inside waiting to be discovered, so they just blew it up anyway. And this is why WTC 7 sticks out like a sore thumb when compared to the tower collapses which had a cover story.


2PacSade-

BINGO!!!!

This is what I do believe! It was to cover up any possible "Bush" involvement in ENRON!! Take out the other 2 towers and then come in for the kill - take out WTC7!! No more evidence on bush! He almost looked like he was relieved about something when he gave his speech after the "attacks". Hence the reason OBL hasn't been found or no confirmation of his arrest has been offered. BECAUSE HE ASSISTED - so #1. He has been hidden OR #2. He has been assasinated so he never talks!!

WTC 7 wasnt quite as tall as 1 or 2. Would there have been an approach possible for an airliner to hit that particular building?

reply to post by atsrules

United Flight 93 was supposed to hit World Trade Center 7

This is a theory that's been around for a while but really doesn't get that much attention... well, at least as much as some of the others.

This one doesn't come out of nowhere because if one believes that all of the planes had predetermined targets and that WTC 1 & 2 were rigged to implode, then the collapse of WTC 7 demands another impact to come before that building goes down as well. From there, the ending is obvious because there's just a limited number of options in the air.

The whole 9.11 event is impossible to set aside... but as it stands right now, it's a lot like JFK.

Take a couple of magic bullets and call your doctor in the morning, lol.

I would say no to this theory. Not only was WTC 7 not high enough to be approached. since there were even taller buildings in the area the planes would have been likely to hit before reaching 7, but WTC 7 really wasn't a recognizable target. It was not a landmark, not symbolic of anything. Unlike the WTC 1 and 2, as well as numerous landmarks in DC.

The slight deviation in flight path doesn't really say anything. The over all flight path was leaning strongly towards D.C., where either the Capitol or White House were its likely targets. The slight turn was more likely due to the attempted retaking of the plane by the passengers. Witness reports said the plane was flying erratically during its last moments.