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.

 

Why not strike the White House first?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   
I understand that to successfully hijack & fly planes into the WTC towers would be quite a slap in the face to the USA. . . But many innocent people from dozens of foreign countries were also killed, and the cowardly act united our nation for a short period of time as it's never been in decades. . .

Did it really terrorize the common man & woman to the point of surrender? Did the terrorists actually think this would be our response to such an act?

Don't you think that if everything we've been told is true that the US government & military were much more embarrassed by Pentagon airspace being breached & struck with a visible & less than super-sonic commercial airliner?

Don't you think the “ terrorists “, would also consider this a much greater triumph that the striking the twin towers?

If the answer to this last question is YES, then;

Why not hit the White House first???

Wouldn't this have been the most humiliating slap in the face? To see the President of the United States house on fire & destroyed from a hijacked commercial airliner broadcast all over the world? ( Jihad? )

Don't get me wrong-

I'm not making light of any of this, just asking questions. I'm not satisfied. . .

I think the terrorists were led to believe part of the plan was to strike the White House and this would eventually happen. . .

But I also think that they were betrayed & Flight 93 was taken out BEFORE this could happen. . .

If I was Osama, I would have spent my suprise on destroying the White House first. . .

Any thoughts?

2PacSade-




posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   
I agree 100%.

Hitting the White House would have made the ultimate statement.

And it was well known where the president was that day, why not him?

If I was Osoma I would have fired(lead)his mastermind.

He should have sent one plane into the White house, one plane into one of the towers, and the other two at Bush.

One plane hitting a tower would have brought both of them down since a falling tower is capable of making a large building fall(7).



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   
That is a very good question...
My only theory is that a strike on the president, resulting in major tragedy for the capitol would of been met with a nuclear retaliation immediately..


maybe?


Then again ,this would of played into Osama's hands even more.. can you imagine the amount of finatics that would of come out of the woodworks should we of nuked Kabul?

The whitehouse is only across the river from the pentagon... even then they could of surely made it being they managed to strike the pentagon with time to spare.

Just another concept of that day that doesnt add up.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by earth2
I agree 100%.

Hitting the White House would have made the ultimate statement.

And it was well known where the president was that day, why not him?

If I was Osoma I would have fired(lead)his mastermind.

He should have sent one plane into the White house, one plane into one of the towers, and the other two at Bush.

One plane hitting a tower would have brought both of them down since a falling tower is capable of making a large building fall(7).


Yes you are correct.

One plane hits one t6ower, engulfs it in flames & weakens the steel to total collapse. This tower showers the second with tons of debris, and starts fires causing it's demise. Then this tower finishes off WTC 7 later on in the day. . .

2PacSade-


[edit on 30-7-2007 by 2PacSade]



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
That is a very good question...
My only theory is that a strike on the president, resulting in major tragedy for the capitol would of been met with a nuclear retaliation immediately..


maybe?


Then again ,this would of played into Osama's hands even more.. can you imagine the amount of finatics that would of come out of the woodworks should we of nuked Kabul?

The whitehouse is only across the river from the pentagon... even then they could of surely made it being they managed to strike the pentagon with time to spare.

Just another concept of that day that doesnt add up.


You are right it doesn't add up, but I don't think for an instant that we would have responded with nukes.

That taboo will unfortunately be exploited the next time by someone probably in control of ONE nuke, and not a country with tens of thousands of them. . .

2PacSade-



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 06:07 AM
link   
While hitting the White House would have been a slap at the whole US
one has to consider Bin Laden's ideology - he was aiming at what he
considered the power centers of what drove the United States. In
accordance with jihad ideology about confronting the enemy he picked
4 targets - World Trade Center (Tower of Jews , Money), Pentagon
(Tower of War, Military power), US Capitol (Tower of Law, Democracy)
Check Lawrence Wright "LOOMING TOWERS" about raise of jihadism
The targets choosen were some of the biggest buildings in the world,
easy to recognize from the air and with no obstructions around to hinder
the aircraft approach. The White House is rather small, surrounded by
trees with other buildings around it.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 06:12 AM
link   
9/11 was an inside job. Therefore, it was planned to take place outside the White House in order to preserve it for the time being and the impact of the jet liners plowing the Twin Towers and Pentagon was the next best thing.
Good drama, i'd say.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 06:27 AM
link   
...think about it, you would not want to blow up your own house now would you...

Cheney says to Bush: Yo Bush, let's get the WH rather than the 2 towers...say what do you think?

...Something like that?



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
While hitting the White House would have been a slap at the whole US
one has to consider Bin Laden's ideology - he was aiming at what he
considered the power centers of what drove the United States.


While I like your thinking, I don't either....

If you still think that OBL did this then you are wrong my friend..open those eyes and ears and read between the lines - if you squint you can read the detail...



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
While hitting the White House would have been a slap at the whole US
one has to consider Bin Laden's ideology - he was aiming at what he
considered the power centers of what drove the United States. In
accordance with jihad ideology about confronting the enemy he picked
4 targets - World Trade Center (Tower of Jews , Money), Pentagon
(Tower of War, Military power), US Capitol (Tower of Law, Democracy)
Check Lawrence Wright "LOOMING TOWERS" about raise of jihadism
The targets choosen were some of the biggest buildings in the world,
easy to recognize from the air and with no obstructions around to hinder
the aircraft approach. The White House is rather small, surrounded by
trees with other buildings around it.


Actually no, It's just as recognizable as the other targets. There's a big arrow that would have bee easily followed from the north. Also there's a big 555 foot obelisk just to the south called The Washington Monument.



Aim the plane right in front of it to the north & you're all set.

The White House ( Tower of the Great Satan! )

You're telling me this wouldn't be at the forefront of targets in the " Jihad manual "??? I think Lawrence Wright may have missed this one. . .

The White House wasn't hit because it wasn't allowed to be hit.

2PacSade-



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 08:04 AM
link   
After seeing the loose change videos online it is just scary to think that our government could just do this to itself, I didn't even want to trust anything I heard on TV anymore after watching it, but now I am more leanient.(s/p?) Jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt steel which they found at ground zero, the tower that was hit first burned longer but fell second.

The plane that crashed in P.A was merely just a hole in the ground with some pieces of metal around it, the FBI coming to collect video footage from stores and hotels that caught footage of the pentagon crash just minutes after it happened.

My mind tells me that the government wouldn't have done this, I want to believe that someone else did, I mean a war is being based off of it, i want to believe so bad but... this just keeps me thinking what if this whole war ordeal has been a lie, simply to take out saddam for trying to kill his dad which bush said and just extracting oil from the middleeast.... the whole CIA leak was about there was not weapons of mass destruction, bush should be the one on trial, Osama doesn't like the U.S... most of the world wishes we were dead,

Osama even denied that he attacked the world trade center, of course you would expect them to deny it because they didnt want to go to war right? The white house would have been the prime target and I don't see why he wouldnt have struck their first...who would of thought an enemy that doesn't even have an airforce would just come over take over planes with box cutters!! I mean come on, were people only brave on the PA flight if i knew i was going to get taken over I would try and kick some ass i mean.. box cutters.... sorry I got on a rant and went off topic but its just... the lie is so perfect... the lie being 9/11



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   
The government helped Osama fight the Russians. I think it's the policies of America and what it stands for. I think Osama (if it was indeed planned by one man) wanted the power structure to remain intact to affect the policy making, or else, all would be for naught.

The WTCs were a symbol of our Globalism. That which Osama despises most. It wasn't our government as a whole, just those policy-makers that abandon him after training and supplying him and his "freedom fighters". I think he was grateful for the weapons and training. It was the reasons we left that anger him the most. Thus, the strike at one of the glaring symbols of our capitalism.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Flt 93 was on-route to the whitehouse but was shot down.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   
ferretman2:

How do you know that? It was shot down in PA. It could have been going anywhere. More than likely it was .ed to Washington, but to say that it was .ed to the White House? I'd like to see if you could go a. and pick the lotto numbers for me this weekend.

I think it was an assumption and publicly stated, more or less to rally the troops and public support, that it was .ed to the White House. I don't recall hearing any transcripts from the terrorists saying, "We've highjacked the plane ... we're crashing into the White House."



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I dont think so. The WTC was seen as more of "the center of the world" than the white house. The White House symbolizes one countra, but WTC symbolizes the entire western world.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Flt 93 was on-route to the whitehouse but was shot down.


This very well could have been the plan. I'm just wondering why it wasn't struck first? Spend the element of suprise on that target.

2PacSade-



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   
The white house not being hit screams conspiracy to me. We were told by the government that Osama hit the towers because of its "symbolism" of the Western World. If you were upset with a country, and desired to throw the nation into hysteria, one plane to the white house would have done 1000 times more than the towers. The chaos of government leaders and staff dying, people unsure who is in control, who is to give orders. The towers held civilians, though many died, did not make the country collapse. Attacking the white house or other government meeting places could have.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Why not just crash on any American town.
These so called Terrorists hate everything to do with America so why not?
Or were they that bothered about the sybolism of it all,did they realise the towers would fall or was that just luck,because if the towers didnt didnt fall would we really be in the state that were in now?
I dont think so,but it adds to the dramatic effect on the news.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
It's a good question, and the answer is a no-brainer. If you don't hit the towers, all of that demolition would have gone to waste.

Peace



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Two sides to the argument: One, leaders don't kill each other, it's a gentlemens agreement not to do so. Further, the Bush family are very close to the Bin Laden family. On the other hand I remember a hypothetical show on British TV and it had contestants trying to be a cabinet on a disaster day. One train exploded under the Thames and this plane came in (they should have shot it down but muddled until it was too late), and guess where it went? Our Houses of Parliament. It would have been OK though, there would have been no MPs in it.

[edit on 31-7-2007 by redled]




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join