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 one more plane?

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by pccat

WTC7 was no where near as prominent a target as WTC 1 and 2.. didnt stick up as much.. too risky to try to hit it.. the Pentagon or the Capitol would be easier,


If they could hit the Pentagon at ground level they could hit WTC7.






[edit on 18-8-2009 by In nothing we trust]




posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey
The shot I remember is in another part of the doco, in an interview the guy called Robert Baer (CIA, covert operations), who appears in this clip at about 3.27. The very first part of the clip is someone else confirming the above...

Rewey



Thanks for the clip. I'll take a look at it when I get home.

However, does it explain why the conspirators *didn't* plant WMD in Iraq, the same way they supposedly planted all this manufactured evidence everywhere, or at least, does it explain how our admitting we found no WMD in Iraq and the subsequent egg on our face somehow furthers the master plan driving all this?

Without looking, I'll wager it does not. Do I win my bet?



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Without looking, I'll wager it does not. Do I win my bet?


Hmmm... it's been quite some time since I watched it, but I think it was from 2004, so might have been filmed before the search for WMD was widely accepted as a failure.

Not saying your ideas are misguided, but they may not be covered in THIS doco, due to the year it was put together...

Still, a worthwhile doco to watch the full thing...

Rewey



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I was hoping some other truthers might offer their opinions as well on this topic...

If the whole 9/11 event WAS a huge conspiracy with radio-controlled planes, buildings wired with thousands of pounds of nano-thermite, cruise missiles and the like, WHY would the powers that be hinge the whole success of the operation on the idea that they could sell "Plane hits one building, burning wreckage flies over and hits second building - both buildings fall down..." to the public?

Wouldn't it have been SO much easier and more credible just to pinch one more plane to crash into WTC7, or simply bring it down weeks later like they did with other buildings in the area, without people raising so much as a peep about conspiracy theories?

Even though the collapse may LOOK like controlled demolition (with pre-wired explosives), it just doesn't seem to make SENSE in this case...

Rewey



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by In nothing we trust
 





If they could hit the Pentagon at ground level they could hit WTC7.


WTC7 was ringed by other buildings, unlike WTC Towers which extended
for hundreds of feet over the surrounding skyline

The old WTC7 was 47 floors (new one is 52)

Map of area

wirednewyork.com...

World Financial Center buildings to the west

One World Financial Center (1986), height 577 ft (176 m), 40 stories

Two World Financial Center (1987), height 645 ft (197 m), 44 stories

Three World Financial Center (1985), height 739 ft (225 m), 51 stories

Four World Financial Center (1986) height 500 ft (152 m), 34 stories ("North Tower")

Right next door is Verizon Telephone building

Verizon Building is a 32-story at 140 West Street

Not to mention the Towers which until collapsed blocked off all access to the south

To the North were other buildings - right across street is 30 West Broadway

East is 90 Church St

Besides you tin foilers have always said that the hijackers couldn't fly !

Somewhat inconsistent....



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by In nothing we trust
 





If they could hit the Pentagon at ground level they could hit WTC7.


WTC7 was ringed by other buildings, unlike WTC Towers which extended
for hundreds of feet over the surrounding skyline

The old WTC7 was 47 floors (new one is 52)

Map of area

wirednewyork.com...

World Financial Center buildings to the west

One World Financial Center (1986), height 577 ft (176 m), 40 stories

Two World Financial Center (1987), height 645 ft (197 m), 44 stories

Three World Financial Center (1985), height 739 ft (225 m), 51 stories

Four World Financial Center (1986) height 500 ft (152 m), 34 stories ("North Tower")

Right next door is Verizon Telephone building

Verizon Building is a 32-story at 140 West Street

Not to mention the Towers which until collapsed blocked off all access to the south

To the North were other buildings - right across street is 30 West Broadway

East is 90 Church St

Besides you tin foilers have always said that the hijackers couldn't fly !

Somewhat inconsistent....


Regardless of who was flying what, it is possible that WTC 7 could have been hit from the north.

Clearly you can see that it would have been possible from these pictures?





My argument stands.

If they could have hit the bottom 4 stories of the pentagon they could have hit the top 4 stories of WTC 7. It probably would have proved to be an easier target than the pentagon to hit.





[edit on 21-8-2009 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by In nothing we trust
 


The terrorist were trying to make a symbolic attack, not a strategic one. WTC 7 is not very symbolic, face it, before 9/11 most Americans probably didn't even know there was a WTC 7. The Pentagon is one of the largest buildings on Earth. Hell of a target, pretty much the side of a barn.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey
After all, many people claim that the buildings were stacked with explosives, and brought down in a controlled demolition which was MEANT to look like a terrorist attack with hijacked planes. But that's what doesn't add up... Given the inordinate lengths they went to, why not simply hijack ONE more plane to hit WTC7?


Given that the United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down, it probably was meant to hit WTC7. There was claim that it was meant for the whitehouse, yet that probably is a red herring claim. The mystery of where the hull went remains. That hull surely was meant for WTC7 to give WTC7 that final reason to burn. Without the hull, WTC7 came down anyways yet with obvious questions of why and impossibilities.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 





Given that the United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down, it probably was meant to hit WTC7. There was claim that it was meant for the whitehouse, yet that probably is a red herring claim. The mystery of where the hull went remains. That hull surely was meant for WTC7 to give WTC7 that final reason to burn. Without the hull, WTC7 came down anyways yet with obvious questions of why and impossibilities.


If Flight 93 was shot down

Why was no debris found outside the crash area - only pieces found
were small paper and foil insulation downwind from crash scene ?

Why did the Flight recorders not record a missile hit either by the voice
recorder or on the flight data recorder which shows that all systems
were functioning normally until impact ?



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Hmmm... I thought there'd be more people giving their opinion on this one.

I feel like the answer to this question might redefine my thoughts on the extent of the 'truth' regarding 9/11.

I can't for the life of me accept that ANYONE with the brains and power to orchestrate a 'false flag' event like 9/11 would SERIOUSLY wire a building with explosives, only to press the button and detonate it WITHOUT the building even being hit by a plane.

It was going to be hard enough convincing people that planes brought WTC 1 & 2 down... Asking them to believe that a small piece of debris brought down a THIRD building??? No chance...

I'll repost the question from the OP - Is it realistic to assume they were sitting around thinking, "Right - we've secretly wired 3 buildings for detonation, with thousand of pounds of explosives, but we'll only use 2 planes to take them down. We'll hit the bigger 2, and a piece of wreckage will fly across the street and into WTC7, sparking an unstoppable inferno which will weaken the... blah, blah, blah..."

Flight 93 is irrelevant here - even if it WAS headed to WTC7 (which is generally regarded as untrue), and for SOME REASON it crashed on the way, WHY would they just detonate the building anyway??? It would be asking people to believe that there was EFFECT without the CAUSE...

If no-one has got a realistic answer here, I think it might kind of point to there being NO explosives/controlled demolition involved... It would be FAR MORE PLAUSIBLE that they just pull it down with the other damaged building weeks later... no questions asked...

Rewey



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
That is just it... too many questions left behind.

It's like we are asked to believe that the minimal 2 plane deal is the cause of all the effects around WTC.

There was no plane in WTC7, so how could it burn like the other two?

Someone comes up with the idea the debris cause diesel to leak out evenly throughout the basement of WTC7 and that burned and brought down WTC7, yet there is only filmage of two main fires in WTC7. How did people possibly walk in in out of WTC7 if there was a basement fire so heavy?

You don't have to believe flight 93 was meant for WTC7, yet there is obvious questions that could be answered if WTC7 was hit by flight 93. That is the point.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 




Someone comes up with the idea the debris cause diesel to leak out evenly throughout the basement of WTC7 and that burned and brought down WTC7, yet there is only filmage of two main fires in WTC7. How did people possibly walk in in out of WTC7 if there was a basement fire so heavy?


Here is footage of WTC 7

Notice the heavy smoke pushing out of numerouse floors on South face
which took the debris impact from WTC 1

Also can see fires breaking out on North face (black stone exterior) in several of the videos

The fires at WTC7 were on the upper floors, not the basement

NIST determinated that fires caused column on 13th floor to fail pulling
that part of the building down and initiating global structural collapse

www.911myths.com...



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 


Building was unfinished which means had lot of openings to feed oxygen
to fires. High winds fanned flames



The Fire Brigade said that the fire began on the building’s roof and spread to the lower floors, fed by high winds. Toxic fumes and a lack of working sprinklers were said to have hampered efforts to extinguish the fire.[16]


Large amount of construction debris in building - aka wood scrap
gave heavy fuel load to burn



An amateur video that was uploaded on the Internet showed the fire starting after a shell from the fireworks landed on the roof of the uncompleted construction.[16] One CNN report noted that "the top of the building was exploding". Another observed that the fire spread quickly and that the tower was completely engulfed in flames within less than 13 minutes. "It was obvious that there was a lot of debris on site, [which] ignited very quickly".[17]


Building construction was different - Mandarin had CONCRETE structural
core, WTC 7 was STEEL. Steel exposed to fire begins to soften and
lose it strength. It starts to deform or creep effecting the structure.



Its nicknames include the Termite's Nest or the Boot because of its radical design. The building, along with the CCTV Headquarters Building, was built using far less steel than conventional skyscrapers,[citation needed] and designed to withstand major earthquakes.[citation needed] The radical structure gives the towers their form.[3] In all, 140,000 tonnes of steel was used in its construction.[4]



Stop comparing apples to oranges.....



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Stop comparing apples to oranges.....


Actually, that probably should be directed back to you on how you started to debate apples and oranges in your last reply. Anybody can do that in order to prove a point. However, as I stated my point, and it seemed clear it wasn't one to be proven.

You have one possibility. Others have other possibilities. There are too many possibilities. Even with the one you chosen as the answer, there are still questions.

If you don't like the topic of the thread, then move on. No sense to argue 'apples and oranges' in a thread that suggests possibilities.

[edit on 27-8-2009 by dzonatas]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

The terrorist were trying to make a symbolic attack, not a strategic one.


Ya think?

More bizarre symbology from the 9/11 pentagon attack
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 30-8-2009 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
-And if this was all a false flag operation to instigate a war in Iraq, why on EARTH did they frame Bin Laden and that toilet of a country of Afghanistan, instead of Saddam Hussein?


Why on Earth did they say that Saddam gave support to Bin Laden when the intelligence community knew all too well that Saddam detested religious fundamentalists such as Bin Laden?



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Despite numerous indications that this thread is wavering off topic, can I take it that no reasonable answers to my original question/post means that the WTC7 building WASN'T brought down by controlled demolition (even though it may LOOK like it)?

Rewey



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join