Flight 93 was headed for Building 7

Originally posted by underduck

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by underduck

 

Idk what they did with them, but if that is what actually happen, why is that so hard to believe? Some 3,000+ people were killed in the towers but a single plane full is unreasonable?

I understand what you are saying here but having some soilders kill innocent Americans is a lot different than "allowing" some lunatic highjackers to take planes and fly innocent Americans into a building.

What is so hard to believe about that? The armies of several nations have turned on their own people when ordered to. I recall something like that happening in America too, they had a civil war I think. Why do you think the 20th century American soldier is any different?

911review.org...

Here's a pretty interesting read concerning a possible ID swap over PA by two different planes.

The existence of UA 93-North is confirmed by the 9/11 Commission Report, Stacey Taylor and Bill Wright. The existence of UA 93-South is confirmed by radar data, personnel from Pittsburgh Airport and the ATC recordings. It is impossible to put all these sources under only one hat.

Okay, the attentive reader might say, I accept that there were two different UA 93's over Pennsylvania - but for what purpose? What was the underlying plan of this plane swap?

Before presenting a possible and, in my eyes, probable answer, I'd like to emphasize the general concept reflected by the twin UA 93: the change of an aircraft's identity while it is airborne. Many researchers are convinced that the original airliners of 9/11 were replaced by "drones", remote controlled objects which were then directed into their respective targets. Now we have also seriously to consider that planes were replaced by planes. UA 93 is the best example because it is a chameleon flight:

- there are two different take-off times for UA 93: the official one - 8:41 - and the real one - 8:28 (BTS database).

- FAA notified NORAD at 9:16 that UA 93 was hijacked, but UA 93 checked in with Cleveland Center normally at about 9:20 and stopped communication not earlier than 9:28. So which plane was reported hijacked at 9:16?

- Cleveland Center noticed screams and hijacker voices coming from a plane, but the controller thought they originated from Delta 1989, not from UA 93.

- UA 93 was reported to make a landing at Cleveland Airport at 10:45 and was later "renamed" as Delta 1989.

reply to post by jlm912


Really....?

Should get your eyes checked......

From time aircraft was hijacked (F on map) till it crashed was on SOUTHEAST heading

Only near end when hijackwers were fighting with passengers did it deviate from that

Here is map again - study it

let it go, all of you. - it is obvious that at some level a mass conspiracy to defraud the world with this false flag act of terror - how many reichstags will there be? what is next, that is what you should be contemplating.

reply to post by thedman


Okay, so I'm studying the image, which was remade and labeled by some joe-blows that I don't know have any verifiable accuracy.

So, I'm forced to look past the dumbed down, unsourced connect-the-dots. And I see a definitive turn E-NE over PA which set a path followed for the same, if not longer, distance as the following definitive turn SE.

Originally posted by Monkeygod333
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

 

Agreed. WTC 7 was rigged to come down. Now whether that's the way it was built (to be detonated in case of a threat) is one suggestion or rigged to come down, with this intent is the other..

It's been theorized that, that van?.....on the George Washington bridge that morning?....filled with bombs?.....but later dismissed as confusing reporting.....?




Well, it's been suggested that that van was targeted for WTC 7 only, Manhattan was in a lock-down and the van couldn't reach it's destination.

It's been speculated, the patsies driving the van knew nothing about the plan to use two planes as well. So, when they found out their mission had been foiled, they left the van on the bridge (JUST like it was first reported) and they fled.
I thought that theory really had a ring of reality to it.


As far as Flight 93?
It was shot down. We all know that.


As far as all the planes?
I truly feeling these planes were remotely controlled and there were no passengers on them. Therefore the hijackers are all a myth.

Interesting thread though. Thanks! Helps to keep this 10 year anger, alive!

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by jlm912

 

Really....?

Should get your eyes checked......

From time aircraft was hijacked (F on map) till it crashed was on SOUTHEAST heading

Only near end when hijackwers were fighting with passengers did it deviate from that

Here is map again - study it

Really?
You're on the "Let's Roll" and "Mom, this is Mark Bingham.....you do believe me, right" team?


Somehow I think everyone by now knows these flights, the entire story.... is nothing like what was reported.
It just fascinates me to see how hoodwinked people really remain.

(no offense)

reply to post by jlm912


Now really gone off deep end .....

Delta 1989 had left Boston - Logan for Los Angles

Controllers had made connection at this time that the 2 planes which hit WTC originated from Boston

All flights out of Boston were now suspect - Delta 1989 and United 93 had crossed paths at this time
near Cleveland. It was here that controllers heard the cries of help from United 93 and confused it with Delta
1989.

en.wikipedia.org...

The claim that United 93 was replaced by a drone is also false

United 93 was spotted near Johnstown PA (just north of Shanksville) by a private plane on request from FAA.
Were able to recognize the United Airlines livery

.PITTSBURGH -- A pilot of a single-engine Piper might have been the last person to see United Flight 93 before it crashed in Somerset County on Sept. 11.

Local pilot Bill Wright (pictured, left) told Team 4 investigator Paul Van Osdol that he thinks that he witnessed a struggle for control of the plane.

Wright was flying over Youngwood, Westmoreland County, and was getting ready to land in Latrobe under order from air traffic control.

Then, an air-traffic controller asked him and his passenger to look out the window.

Wright was flying a Piper Arrow when he spotted a jet crossing behind him -- about three miles away. It was close enough for him and his photographer to see the United Airlines colors.

Wright was flying over Youngwood for about 20 minutes before Flight 93 crashed in Stonycreek Township.

Wright said that he knew that there was a problem when air traffic controllers asked him to give them Flight 93's altitude.

Wright thinks there's only one reason air traffic controllers in Cleveland would have been asking him about the altitude. He said that it was probably because the terrorists had cut off all radio transmissions to air traffic controllers.

"We figured there was a hijacking in progress, and we were seeing it happening, but that's all we knew," Wright said.

Wright got another clue when he and his passenger saw the path that the plane was taking.

"(It) went behind us. (We) lost sight for a while and when it came back (the passenger) said, 'It's turning toward us. Now it's turning away. Now turning back toward us.' So it was rocking its wings.

"It would bank hard left, bank hard right and then back to hard left. We saw it bank three or four times before we got away from it."

Wright said that may have been when several passengers were fighting back against the terrorists.

"The story of the plane being taken over, that fits," Wright said.

Within moments controllers ordered Wright to land immediately.

"That's one of the first things that went through my mind when they told us to get as far away from it as fast as we could -- that either they were expecting it to blow up or they were going to shoot it down, but that's pure speculation," Wright said.

Witness accounts have the plane flying over Johnstown, Pa., before crashing in Stonycreek Township.

Wright said that he wishes that he could have done something about Flight 93, but there wasn't much more he could do in a single-engine Piper.

when is it that jewish people or as velikovsky called himself a hebrew/russian pun intended celebrating new year 1 of many think it was september dancing jews on your mind anybody

reply to post by thedman


I didn't write it. I said it was an interesting read. It didn't claim it was absolutely Delta 1989. Delta 1989 was definitely confused with UA93 in several reports when it landed in Cleveland.

You obviously didn't read it.

* Wright got the landing order when he was over Youngwood. He was asked to look for the airplane at his 10 o'clock position thereafter, i.e. while he was continuing flying north. This is clear evidence that the plane he was asked to look for was north of Pittsburgh, not south of Pittsburgh.

* I have already mentioned that the airliner spotted by Wright was in PrimaryRadar status. Furthermore, it was flying at 7000 ft. When UA 93-South was approaching the Piper line, it was already in NoRadar status, i.e. flying under 4000 ft. Therefore it's not possible that Wright was talking about this plane. UA 93-North, however, switched the transponder on AFTER passing the Piper line. This fits with Wright's account perfectly:

The Piper was over Youngwood when it received the general FAA grounding order at 9:45. (On WTAE TV, Wright says that he was over Youngwood "20 minutes" before the UA 93 crash.) It continued to go north with a speed of about 150 mph (its normal cruising speed), until it met the airliner somewhere near Vandergrift at about 9:54. Shortly after this encounter, UA 93-North switched the transponder back on when it was at 6400 ft.

All these data prove that Wright encountered UA 93-North.

Funny how the image you provided put the flight path south of Pittsburgh when the plane the Wright encountered would have had to have been north of that path.

Originally posted by thedman
United 93 was spotted near Johnstown PA (just north of Shanksville) by a private plane on request from FAA.

"Near" Johnstown, huh?

Wright was flying over Youngwood, Westmoreland County, and was getting ready to land in Latrobe under order from air traffic control

Youngwood is ~30 miles S-SW of Johnstown, and ~10 miles S-SW of Latrobe's airport.

If UA 93 was flying 3 miles within Wright, who was over Youngwood, PA, then that puts it at approximately the same distance from Johnstown.

Within seconds, the Command Center received a visual report from another aircraft, andinformed headquarters that the aircraft was 20 miles northwest of Johnstown. United 93 was spotted by another aircraft, and, at 10:01, the Command Center advised FAA headquarters that one of the aircraft had seen United 93 "waving his wings."

That's from the 9/11 Commission Report, p30. Funny, as well. They put it 20 miles northwest of Johnstown. Wright was, as I've explained, seeing a flight ~30 miles southwest of Johnstown. Odd how they don't name him specifically as one of the aircraft to spot it, huh? Might it be because of the blatant discrepancy...? Nah, They must have been talking about some other pilot

I should just study that joe-blow's rendition of the flight path and keep my inquisitive mind shut, right?

I like this theory. It does make a certain amount of sense.

Originally posted by Alfie1
b) the hi-jackers dialed in the VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) frequency for the VOR aid at Reagan National Airport. They wanted navigational assistance to get to Washington.

And oddly enough, the FAA approved of the flight change request... at 9:56... after they'd acknowledged the plane was hijacked... hmmm....

9:55 A.M. The pilot hijacker, presumably Jarrah, dialed into the flight computer the navigational code for Reagan National Airport, in order to fly the aircraft toward Washington, D.C.

9:56 A.M. Hemdon Command Center informed FAA headquarters they lost track of Flight 93 over the Pittsburgh area.

Source

At 9:56 a.m., the destination code for the plane in FAA computers was changed from "SFO," the code for San Francisco, to "DCA," the code for Reagan National Airport in Washington. That indicates an air traffic controller probably changed the destination. Typically, that is done only when it is requested by the pilots.

St. Petersburg Times, 9/12/01

Accomplice in a flight control tower?

reply to post by Human_Alien


The Official Story parroters are totally like the mainstream Christians, they actually CANNOT see an outcome beyond the scriptures , at least the WAY they have been told to read them.

They are so far gone it reminds us of the fact they will not be repaired, but are part of the delusion here...they want to drag the rest of us IN too.

It sure is funny to watch the attempts they make to convince us of a much simpler world, one where we KNOW who the "bad guys" are.

And they actually can see building 7 falling down perfectly with flashes all around, because of gas lines...they do NOT want to admit this plane could have been heading for 7, cause in the Hollywood mind they have, it makes no sense, EVEN THOUGH 2 planes just went that way, not long before...

I'm going to disagree with the OP based upon a dream I had.
In my dream the flight I was on was rigged with high explosives and was headed for the congressional building. Also, there weren't any "terrorists". It was being controlled remotely. In the dream I was on the plane as a passenger, and believe I may have been sharing the body of someone who had figured out what was going on. He / I then managed to get word to the military what was happening and told them that the plane had to be shot down. Which then occurred to a rather unpleasant end and me waking up sweating.

Is that 911? Flight 93? I can't say, but I can say that is a dream I had 4 months prior to the event. And I freaked out double that tragic day when I saw it happening.

Originally posted by pirhanna
I'm going to disagree with the OP based upon a dream I had.
In my dream the flight I was on was rigged with high explosives and was headed for the congressional building. Also, there weren't any "terrorists". It was being controlled remotely. In the dream I was on the plane as a passenger, and believe I may have been sharing the body of someone who had figured out what was going on. He / I then managed to get word to the military what was happening and told them that the plane had to be shot down. Which then occurred to a rather unpleasant end and me waking up sweating.

Is that 911? Flight 93? I can't say, but I can say that is a dream I had 4 months prior to the event. And I freaked out double that tragic day when I saw it happening.

Your dream fits with my intuitive feel.

I can't possibly know,

But I strongly feel these planes were remotely controlled.

Does no one read? Remember the french refusing our upgraded transponders?

We tried to sell them on the idea that if a hijacker got a plane, then atleast you had a built in control system that could override such an act. The refused, saying that is exactly how the planes would be hijacked most easily.

Anyone remember the supposed CIA guys talking about how they designed these plans for targets in NYC, and DC, so that we would know how to defend against it? Apparently made the plans in the late 70's or early 80's...

Operation Northwoods? Remote controlled planes (was it 737's?) supposed to be hijacked to start a war with cuba... Kennedy nixed that, although he seemed non opposed to finding a way to attack cuba, but he did seem to want to do it honestly, without fake remote controlled airplanes.



You guys do realize that something of this magnitude could have fake radar data.
did I not read that the actual airplanes went out to sea, before being re-routed?
who can prove the "same" planes hit targets, that were the ones apparently hijacked?

I've seen lots of witnesses claiming grey military non windowed planes hitting the towers, not passenger jets...



THIS whole post is mostly questions, not answers... To be clear...

reply to post by Wonderer2012


I don't think it was supposed to hit 7, but I think it was supposed to hit a target by 9:30-9:45. Many suspect the white house or the capital. It would all fit rather nicely with the timing of the rest of the events if it had reached its target. The south tower went down on schedule and was on the ground by 10:00, all the other planes had made it in, so I think it was decided very shortly after the collapse they'd bring down flight 93 because it was never going to make its schedule, so they aborted the operation for this plane and had it self destruct by detonating its payload.

reply to post by Insolubrious


Don't see what would have been a "schedule" problem. UA 93 went down at 10.03 127 miles from Washington. It could easily have arrived in Washington and crashed into the Capitol before the North WTC Tower fell at 10.28.

the official story of 9.11 is completely bogus...

that said, look at the skyline of NYC as it appeard on 9.11...please tell me which angle the plane was supposed to come in and slam into building 7? Also, don't forget that by the time flight 93 reached Manhattan, under your premise, both towers are on fire and producing substantial smoke cover over the island.



The only way in would be from the north. A south entrance would've been impossible because there were two 1000+ feet tall twin towers blocking the path. The west side from the Hudson is blocked by the World Financial Center. And the east side was blocked by the 800 foot tall Woolworth building.

So they are going to fly a third jet into lower Manhattan to crash into a 47 story building blocked on 3 sides by buildings taller than it to knock down a building already rigged with explosives? Just to make it less suspicious? How many people do you think actually knew what building 7 was prior to 9.11?

The whole problem with your theory is it is completely unnecessary.