WTC7 in laymen's terms

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
So why did the guy who planned 911 say it was targeted at Washington?

Osama?

You mean the same guy that the FBI doesn't want for connections to 9/11.

The same guy the US is no longer looking for?

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
So why did the guy who planned 911 say it was targeted at Washington?

Osama?

You mean the same guy that the FBI doesn't want for connections to 9/11.

The same guy the US is no longer looking for?

No, I never mentioned UBL.

Again why did the individual who planned 911 say, specifically that flight 93 was targeted at Washington?

(typos , sorry)


[edit on 31-3-2007 by Stateofgrace]

[edit on 31-3-2007 by Stateofgrace]

[edit on 31-3-2007 by Stateofgrace]

[edit on 31-3-2007 by Stateofgrace]

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
No, I never mentioned UBL.

Again why did the individual who planned 911 say, specifically that flight 93 was targeted at Washington?

I'm sorry I must have missed something. Who would that have been?

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
No, I never mentioned UBL.

Again why did the individual who planned 911 say, specifically that flight 93 was targeted at Washington?

I'm sorry I must have missed something. Who would that have been?

So let me get this correct you have this theory that Flight 93 was headings towards WTC 7 and you have not got a clue who actually planned 911?

Maybe you should seriously research this event and seriously look at testimony that has been entered into a US court of Law, before going any further.

Just a suggestion.

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Maybe you should seriously research this event and seriously look at testimony that has been entered into a US court of Law, before going any further.

Just a suggestion.

I'm not opposed to looking at any evidence that you would like for me to examine.

A website link would be useful.

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Maybe you should seriously research this event and seriously look at testimony that has been entered into a US court of Law, before going any further.

Just a suggestion.

I'm not opposed to looking at any evidence that you would like for me to examine.

A website link would be useful.

Of course.

www.rcfp.org...

Please read fully every single statement that is here, as I have and we will chat later, ok.

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
www.rcfp.org...

Please read fully every single statement that is here, as I have and we will chat later, ok.

There is a mountain of information here.

Flight 93 and it's destination are the topic of our discussion. Since you are familiar with the information presented and I am not, please direct me towards the document that discusses the destination of flight 93.

I took a look at the flight data recorder transcript. All I see here is a bunch of guys talking about ditching the plane in the name of Allah. (i.e. Allah is the greatest, pull it down, pull it down, Allah is the greatest, etc)

www.rcfp.org...

That doesn't make any sense. Every plane had a destination, why would the pilots of flight 93 have no destination other than the ground? Why even bother taking off?

Have you listened to the flight data recordings of the other 3 planes so that you have a baseline with which to compare it to?


[edit on 1-4-2007 by In nothing we trust]

Just to help you keep on track-- Weren't you looking for Who planned the 9/11 attacks, in order to determine where the plane was intended to crash?

That link is pretty comprehensive..wouldn't you say?

Originally posted by GwionX
Just to help you keep on track-- Weren't you looking for Who planned the 9/11 attacks, in order to determine where the plane was intended to crash?

Yes, thank you.

Where and Who?

Some people are so stubborn minded in their opinions. Let's pretend this is the first day you heard about the whole thing.

You know two things.
WTC7 came down like the other towers, except it came down hours later at around 5 or 6 pm.
On the day of the attack 3 supposed planes hit their target's with incredible precision.

So we know these guys were pro's, and we know they don't make mistakes.

The whole Allah thing on Flight 93 that you suggest, honestly, that could have been made on the fly by the powers that be. They've already forged numerous videos that suggest bin laden was running the whole thing. We found out it was a complete fraud because one of the tapes didn't even look like Bin Laden! The media is lieing.

Which leads us to believe that why they don't include WTC7 in the Official report is because they don't want people to know about it. It's a part of their plan that didn't go through as followed.

As for heading towards Washington, Are you serious!>!?!>!? do you think they want any of their payed off Republicans and Democrats to die ? that's a bad investment my friend, to kill someone you've already paid off.

As for the pentagon, they reinforced that same section that was hit weeks earlier which also ring's a flag in your brain that they were planning this.

They didn't care about the World Trade Centers, they reinforced the Pentagon, Rumsfeld was all the way on the other side of the impact zone.

It's so easy to see that these guy's are lieing scumbags, forget what people wrote, forget what officials say, look at the facts, and realize it was a inside job.

Regarding building 7, tell me, does this look familar in anyway?

www.howstuffworks.com...

From seeing videos of the collapse of WTC7, I think there is a good chance that explosives were used. It's interesting that the above link to "how implosions work" specifies the work of the Controlled Demolition Group Ltd. I think I'm correct in saying that not only was this company used to raze the Oklahoma building and then bury the rubble in the desert before a full inquiry would have established if Timothy McVeigh was the sole culprit, but it was also the company given the job of clearing up the mess at Ground Zero. I believe that before the Ground Zero clear-up contract was awarded, a spokesman for the company said something like "The towers came down like one of our demolitions". He never repeated this after his firm got the lucrative contract.

While WTC7 may have been forcibly imploded (although firechiefs said that they didn't bother to stop the fire, preferring to evacuate it than let it crumble) it does not follow that the 4th plane (Flight 93) was supposed to hit it.
The flight route (as shown in pictures above) shows the plane was headed to Washington DC. I firmly believe it never reached its target because it was shot down. I vividly recall watching the BBC News live and phoning my sister at work to tell her what was going on. The BBC said words to the effect of "A fourth plane is thought to have been hijacked. It has gone off its flight plan and is apparently heading to Washington DC."
Shortly after that came the announcement that "USAF jets have been scrambled". (Later official reports claimed that no airforce jets were dispatched, but - as reported in the Daily Mirror - a pilot called his wife later to say "I had to do something terrible today").
A few minutes later, I called my sister to tell her what the BBC was reporting. I wish someone had a video of this, because the authorities have totally buried this information. The BBC reported that "The fourth plane has crashed in Pennsylvania, after apparently being shot down by the USAF".
This incredible announcement was never repeated (perhaps because the BBC had no credible witness or the authorities had silenced the corporation) but various witnesses on the ground have said they saw fighter planes shadowing Flight 93, and what looked like a missile causing a fire in the wing shortly before the crash. (If the plane had been hit by a missile, the terrorist pilots would certainly be praying to Allah, like it says in the blackbox transcripts, as it crashed).
The way that the passengers on Flight 93 were portrayed as heroes always struck me as a convenient way of covering up that it was in fact the USAF that killed them, although they were obviously going to be killed eventually.

Going back to the scene in NYC, I would assume that the FBI/CIA wanted the WTC7 to be destroyed because they were using it as headquarters for this whole black operation. They had perhaps expected the twin towers (which had already been bombed, as well as hit by airliners) to fall directly on to WTC7, so that it wouldn't look so odd when it too was blown up. The fact that most people have never seen the WTC7 fall down all by itself is a reflection on how well it was covered up by the govt/media etc.

There was no physical evidence of a blast, the patterning of the window debris at WTC7 just doesn't fit the profile of a blast, plus no one heard an explosion, you need a pretty good conspiracy to make everyone simultaneously deaf.

Finally, the ring leaders of the plan admitted that the White House was the final target, and based on the map that's exactly where that plane looked to be heading.

Finally - WTC7 just wasn't that big, it would be much more difficult to hit and have a much lower political significance than numerous other landmarks in NYC such as the Empire State Building and the Statue of Liberty.

There are also photos of the damage prior to the collapse, and you can see the fires in the building, none of this makes any sense, the evidence lacks any substance.

reply to post by Retseh


excellent!
and for further review of the evidence.. (anyone)
this will take you to the correct page..

www.debunking911.com...

Both towers 1 and 2 collapsed near the point of impact for the planes. Anyone can watch the video and verify this.

For your theory to be correct, then, the pilot of flight 93 would have had to impact tower 7 at or near the base since the collapse appears to come from at or near the bottom of the building.

Although I try to keep an open mind on these things, I don't believe that your theory would make much sense.

How would the pilot crash into the bottom of the building?

I think that one of the reasons the 9/11 conspiracy theorists focus on WTC7 is precisely because no one else does.

Conspiracy theories and pseudo science are thus allowed to run wild without any type of reality check.

Whenever I see that phrase "if they make people believe about WTC7, then they can make you believe anything", I am reminded of the fact that the people who believe 9/11 to be some huge government plot involving oil really DON'T want people to focus on WTC7, because any credible examination would make their assertions look just as fanciful as those relating to the main attacks on the twin towers.

As I say ad nauseam - a bunch of terrorists fly 2 planes loaded with fuel into 2 buildings which then set on fire and collapse, who would have believed it possible?

Originally posted by Retseh
I think that one of the reasons the 9/11 conspiracy theorists focus on WTC7 is precisely because no one else does.

Conspiracy theories and pseudo science are thus allowed to run wild without any type of reality check.

Whenever I see that phrase "if they make people believe about WTC7, then they can make you believe anything", I am reminded of the fact that the people who believe 9/11 to be some huge government plot involving oil really DON'T want people to focus on WTC7, because any credible examination would make their assertions look just as fanciful as those relating to the main attacks on the twin towers.

As I say ad nauseam - a bunch of terrorists fly 2 planes loaded with fuel into 2 buildings which then set on fire and collapse, who would have believed it possible?

Really? I figured they focused on WTC 7 because it wasn't hit by a plane, didn't have fuel in, and it still managed to collapse in the same manner as the other 2 buildings by falling all at once and on it's own footprint while only having a few office fires. Meanwhile you have the owner saying "go ahead and pull it", and the debunkers try to pretend he was talking about removing firefighters from the building, as if to suggest he would be the one to make that command.

Things always break at their weakest point when pressure is applied. And that goes for buildings falling down, or when someone is telling lies.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by badmedia]