Flight 93 was headed for Building 7

page: 1
53
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+36 more 
posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
With the thread about 'why bring down building 7' being overtaken by silly arguments, I would like to start a new thread to explain why building 7 came down the way it did, and how there is a strong case that flight 93 was headed for WTC7.

There are a many threads with footage of all different angles showing how building 7 came down, whilst people can debate the timing of the collapse (when it first started giving way), one thing that really stands out is how it neatly collapsed, once the main structure visibly gave way, the building comes down in just under 7 seconds. It collapsed into it's own footrpint close to free fall speed and it came down almost vertically- even somebody with no engineering or physics knowledge should see the nature of the collapse is very odd. If one part of the structure gave way, you could imagine some kind of toppling effect or some of the building to collapse- not all at once as it appears.

This is where the theory comes that argues WTC7 was in fact intended to be struck by flight 93. When you start looking into the timelines, it can be quite a strong argument.

Here is an excellent article on how flight 93 may have been headed for WTC7-

willyloman.wordpress.com...

I'll break down the main arguments from the article.

Firstly, let's look at the timelines of the events- you have to understand the timeline to see how flawed the official account is-

Flight 11 is hijacked just 13 minutes into its departure, 8:13am.

Flight 175 takes off at 8:14am.

Flight 93 takes off at 8:42am.

Flight 175 is hijacked at 8:42am.

Flight 11 crashes at 8:46am.

Flight 175 crashes into WTC2 at 9:03am.

Now this is where it gets suspicous because both WTC1 and WTC2 have been hit, flight 93 took off at 8:42 yet ony gets hijacked at 9:28am- a whole 46 minutes before the hijackers make their move. Both towers have been hit and 25 minutes later, flight 93 is hijacked.

At 9:35 flight 93 turns around after travelling west and then heads back east. The official story claims it was heading to Washington DC, yet from the official account's crash site in Shanksville, the plane could easily have been heading back to New York city.

The first tower collapses at 9:58am and at 10:03am, flight 93 crashes, the official story tells of the passengers revolting against the hijackers and bringing it down.



Flight 93 had turned around at 9:35, it crashed at 10:03am, if it was heading to New York City, then it still had 40-50 minutes worth of travel. It was about 40% of the way within half an hour (just looking at the flight path, from the point of turning to head back east and crashing in relation to location of WTC7).

So if you imagine the plane is heading to WTC7, it has approx 45 minutes of travel left at 10:03am, the north tower collapses at 10:28am, as this collapses, if flight 93 was headed for WTC7, it still had about twenty minutes to reach it's destination.



Norad used to pride itself on it proven track record of intercept speed. Up until that day it was something close to 7 minutes, I believe, from the time a “problem” occurs on a flight. Many flights are routinely intercepted all year long and 2001 was no exception to that rule.

The only day that didn’t occur was Sept. 11th 2001. But the “hijackers” wouldn’t have known this (unless of course…) and they would have had to anticipate that after two planes had struck the towers after being hijacked, they would have armed company up there tailing them in a matter of minutes.

In fact, why did they wait at all? They near D.C. when they took off and the departure time was already delayed to start with. All they would have to have done was take over the plane once they got to cruising altitude, turn the plane south to D.C. and they would have struck there target just minutes after the towers were hit. But for some reason, the “hijackers” waited over 35 minutes before they took over the plane.



So think about this, we have a timeline where flight 93 is hijacked and then the hijackers wait over 45 minutes to take over the plane, you have an airforce that can respond to a hijacked plane in 7 minutes, yet they waited 45 minutes to hijack flight 93- both towers had already been hit, surely hijackers would have hijacked the plane as early as possible and heading south straight away if they were heading to Washington DC.

As the article explains, the theory is that the 'hijacker's' plan was in fact to wait for both towers to have collapsed, thus leaving space to hit WTC7.

With the towers standing, a plane could not hit WTC7, but after both had collapsed, if flight 93 was in fact heading for New York, there would have been about twenty minutes after the second tower collapsing and then WTC7 being struck. They would have destroyed all the evidence with WTC7.

Flight 93 was speculated to have been heading to Washington DC, but that was the conclusion of the 9/11 comission, the diagram of the flight path shows it heading east, and arguably more in line with heading to New York than Washington DC.



Why would they risk all that time in the air, coming back from Ohio? They must have known they would be shot down… if they were terrorists with box cutters that is.

However, if “the terrorists” knew that multiple national security drills would be taking place that day and that NORAD rules had been changed in June of 2001 that kept NORAD commanders from giving the “intercept and engage” order, perhaps they would have known they had more time.

Perhaps, in that case, they would have known they had just enough time to circle around on a long exposed “hijacked” flight just long enough for both towers to “collapse” just as they made it back to downtown Manhattan.

And that is exactly why they waited so long. They were waiting for a clear path to Building 7.



Flight 93 almost certainly never crashed like the official story wants us to believe.



Flight 93 was shot down. Period. The debris field 6 miles from the crash site proves it beyond any reasonable doubt. Also there were several eye witnesses at the scene who testified to hearing loud “booms” and THEN looking up to see Flight 93 still in the air and struggling to stay in the air


Flight 93 was shot down because the debris was up to 6 miles apart, the crash site itself was nothing remotely like a plane had crashed.

In fact, the plane had actually made a course change to head to New York, although the official story claims this was because the passengers had tried to take back the plane and it crashed not long after.

What more likely happened is that despite people like Cheney trying to keep fighter jets from intercepting, a fighter pilot had acted regardless and shot down the plane, therefore denying the true flight path of flight 93.

WTC7, already rigged to blow not long after both towers had collapsed, as a sick finale to the day's events, was sitting with no plane to hit it as it had been shot down.

This is why the building was 'pulled', they couldn't go back on the plan, hence building 7's collapsed was delayed until much later in the day, in an effort to make the 'collapse through fire' more plausible. This explains why it looks like a controlled demolition, and is the true smoking gun of 9/11.
edit on 16-5-2012 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-5-2012 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


Wow! Is there any conspiracy or part of a conspiracy that you DON'T believe? Cheyney ordering fighters not intercept, debris 6 miles apart, 7 minutes to intercept any plane, etc. etc. etc. Why don't you turn some of that hyper-critical insight on to those little tid bits?



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


I agree with your idea that the flight was headed to WTC7. The BBC obviously thought it had already happened. The building has obvious charges going off all through it right before it went down. Do to this fact, they had to still bring it down, so that no one found the bombs...

Flight 93 did not crash at Shanksville though... It made a 20 ft hole?? lol ok.


Maybe the earth swallowed it?


EDIT***

Oh never mind. Should have read the whole thread...

I agree with everything in the OP.
edit on 5/16/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I'm going with Ace Baker's theory of, there was no planes.



I think there were no planes at wtc and no plane hit that field. They just used explosives to make it seem like something crashed in the field.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


I agree with your idea that the flight was headed to WTC7. The BBC obviously thought it had already happened. The building has obvious charges going off all through it right before it went down. Do to this fact, they had to still bring it down, so that no one found the bombs...

Flight 93 did not crash at Shanksville though... It made a 20 ft hole?? lol ok.


Maybe the earth swallowed it?


Re-read my thread, I said it did not crash, it was shot down.





The crash site is not consistent with a plane crash- debris spead over miles, small hole on the floor etc. It was shot down.

EDIT- noted you read it all now haha

edit on 16-5-2012 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
What's funny about this is all the contradictory statements within one conspiracy theory. So the plane was shot down because it was heading for WTC 7 but since it got shot down, they just blew it up?

I don't know who this theory is trying to implicate, but it doesn't make sense without evidence to suggest who was part of what side.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I believe you are correct, the intention was to have building 7 suffer the same fate as the twin towers.
The building was already rigged, in my opinion the crack in the centre of the building confirms it. I believe something had gone wrong because the theory of a single beam and resultant fire caused an entire building to collapse is absurd.

Then again, there is no way that a boeing crashed at shanksvill and left nothing but a hole. It's impossible.

I have a feeling one wake-up pilot had the chance to separate the war games from the real life scenario and shot down one of the planes.

Either that or they had some simple little issue like an oil pump failure and had to move to plan B; dumping plane scraps and parts from carglo planes and a missile or two.




 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Think about it like this boncho.

Bombs were placed in all three towers.

They needed bombs knowing that planes would never get the job done.

Then they needed planes knowing that Americans would never believe terrorists had that much time to run around placing bombs everywhere.

Then they lose their cover, ie flight 93. Remember rummy slipping up and saying that the plane was shot down?

The bombs however are obviously already on site.

Now what??

Wait till my FBI goes in there and hope you can control all of them?

Or

Blow it?
edit on 5/16/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


I think the slip of the tongue from Rumsfeld was no slip of the tongue at all. I think he is reading directly from a script.

The reason he would be made to say that is to cover-up the sloppy job they did at making it seem like the plane crashed.

Basically, its a cover story to a cover story... If you don't buy the plane crash then you buy it being shot down - neither of which actually happened.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Monkeygod333
 



I have a feeling one wake-up pilot had the chance to separate the war games from the real life scenario and shot down one of the planes.
Either that or they had some simple little issue like an oil pump failure and had to move to plan B; dumping plane scraps and parts from carglo planes and a missile or two.

Wow, you'll believe all that, plus that WTC7 was rigged with explosives, but for some reason you won't believe someone would hijack a plane.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by boncho
 


Think about it like this boncho.

Bombs were placed in all three towers.

They needed bombs knowing that planes would never get the job done.

Then they needed planes knowing that Americans would never believe terrorists had that much time to run around placing bombs everywhere.

Then they lose their cover, ie flight 93. Remember rummy slipping up and saying that the plane was shot down?

The bombs however are obviously already on site.

Now what??

Wait till my FBI goes in there and hope you can control all of them?

Or

Blow it?
edit on 5/16/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)


I still feel like I'm missing something here. How did they lose their cover?



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


I think the slip of the tongue from Rumsfeld was no slip of the tongue at all. I think he is reading directly from a script.

The reason he would be made to say that is to cover-up the sloppy job they did at making it seem like the plane crashed.

Basically, its a cover story to a cover story... If you don't buy the plane crash then you buy it being shot down - neither of which actually happened.



Could be...

Really could be.

I don't stick to the small details though. Planes no planes missiles no missiles...

All I know is it wasn't who they said it was,
There was prior knowledge shown by many people in our government,
There were bombs in the towers,

I was an Inside job. Maybe without planes, but that seems overly hard, when you can just use remotecontrolled planes instead, and guide them easily to their targets. We had the capability to do such since the 60's...

Of course it could have been holograms, with maybe a mix of microwave brain changing signals to make most people believe what they are told easier. I remember them repeating and repeating all day long the exact same things, so my mind was surely programmed by this, and makes it really hard for me to believe no planes were present.


I do have a very odd memory though.

At one point the towers turned into Grey rectangles with no features, no windows, no radio antenna... It looked like google city or whatever it is called.

And then it switched back, after 2 seconds. I think someone purposefully pushed the FX to off, so that we could see the base "green" screen background.

This was LIVE tv, and it was either CBS or ABC or NBC... I'm thinking it was ABC, that we were watching in class.

I looked around the classroom frantically searching for anyone who noticed what I did, but they were all zombified, and no ones eyes showed any sign that they saw anything weird. To this day it makes me angry that no one I know or have talked to has ever noticed this. Also no one has the Video of it either. This was maybe between the plane hits... I bet it got edited though...


So maybe there were no planes, but I feel like a lot of people saw planes, so it's whatever.
edit on 5/16/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


Its an interesting theory. I dont know if I buy the logic as to why it went down. Perhaps the passengers really did take it down before it could hit building #7. Perhaps it was a pilot who took matters into his own hands. Perhaps it was a Air Force pilot who ignored orders for the greater good.

I will say that it does make sense the Flight 93 was headed towards Building 7 though. The way it came down is unmistakeable. Those charges had to be placed there ahead of time and they had to "pull it".

Very interesting indeed.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


the cover was the plane.

The plane was shot down by an Air Force guy (in my view)

He wasn't supposed to do that, in my book...

Therefore there is no cover for the building blowing up so easy.

No building not hit by a plane ever has collapsed, besides wtc7...

Still hungover buddy, or what?

On a side note, I had a wtc7 commercial on my facebook, that was HD. It said things "like we will never forget, i lost my son that day."

It showed a video of WTC7 that was angled, insted of head on. It was closer to the building than all the other videos I keep finding. It was VERY high quality. It showed about 5 seconds at the end of the collapse. There were flashes going off all through it.

It's not the faked video either.

It's higher quality than every other video out there. Must have been a news camera that got it.

Anybody know about this comercial? I may have even seen it on TV or something too.
edit on 5/16/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Dustytoad


The plane was shot down by an Air Force guy (in my view)

 


You reached that conclusion how?

None of these theories makes sense without actual inside information. And that information seems to be non-existent.

What you have instead is hundreds of people grasping at straws to come up with explanations that are all based on whim and presumption.




Still hungover buddy, or what?


Always.


edit on 16-5-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


How do you believe the no plane dis-info?



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


How do you believe the no plane dis-info?


To be fair, the video posted with the no plane theory looks like one of those information videos they play in school to "keep kids off drugs"




posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


well atleast your honest.

Boncho, it doesn't matter what happened to the plane (flight 93)

All that matters is it never made it to an intended target.

If it was the Cover for wtc7 blowing up, they lost their cover.

That's what you asked me, and I answered you.

Ok?


The reason I think it was shot down is rumsfeld saying it did.
Mix that with an article I read (looking for it) that had an airforce guy saying it was shot down, and even gave the base they flew out of.
edit on 5/16/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Monkeygod333
 



I have a feeling one wake-up pilot had the chance to separate the war games from the real life scenario and shot down one of the planes.
Either that or they had some simple little issue like an oil pump failure and had to move to plan B; dumping plane scraps and parts from carglo planes and a missile or two.

Wow, you'll believe all that, plus that WTC7 was rigged with explosives, but for some reason you won't believe someone would hijack a plane.


I dont think the issue is believing that someone would hijack a plane. It is that a building could be pulverized to dust because of a plane or in building 7's case some isolated fires.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by underduck

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Monkeygod333
 



I have a feeling one wake-up pilot had the chance to separate the war games from the real life scenario and shot down one of the planes.
Either that or they had some simple little issue like an oil pump failure and had to move to plan B; dumping plane scraps and parts from carglo planes and a missile or two.

Wow, you'll believe all that, plus that WTC7 was rigged with explosives, but for some reason you won't believe someone would hijack a plane.


I dont think the issue is believing that someone would hijack a plane. It is that a building could be pulverized to dust because of a plane or in building 7's case some isolated fires.


exactly...

I'm a skeptic of you believers of the official story lol.

It makes no sense with the amount of energy that physics shows should be there.

Potential energy, must turn into kinetic energy. Using conservation of momentum/energy you will see that concrete dust in these amounts takes up all of the energy and then some, so that the buildings couldn't have fallen, or if they fell that would use up most of the energy, and then you wouldn't have fine concrete dust.

Bombs being planted made up this difference, and now energy is conserved, so now we are within the laws of physics, but without bombs the towers become free energy devices, and we all know what skeptics think about those

I am not going to show any equations/calculations.

I went through a lot of trouble in 2005 for doing that. Don't want to get hacked and MAC address banned, and IP address banned from the whole internet.
edit on 5/16/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
53
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join