United Flight 93 was supposed to hit World Trade Center 7

United Flight 93 was supposed to hit World Trade Center 7

First I will show that the Flight Path of United Flight 93 was directed towards New York City during the final minutes before it's destruction in Shanksville.
Second, I will show that the flight path was directed to NYC because it was meant to hit WTC7.
Thirdly, I will show that WTC7 indeed was demolished due to it's collapse which observably fell at free fall which only occur's during controlled demolitions.
Fourth, I will show how the government is pushing propaganda to keep the public swayed toward the government's story via movies and having silverstein clarify his words.
Then you will finally come to the conclusion that United 93 was meant for WTC7, and thus the reason for why WTC7 was strapped with explosives ready to be detonated.



Below is a picture of the flightpath of the hijacked planes on September 11th, 2001. Here is a link to the original from BBC's website. news.bbc.co.uk... ic/in_depth/americas/2001/day_of_terror/the_four_hijacks/flight_11.stm


Here's the kicker. If you take the slope of the path that United Flight 93 is taking during it's final minutes before crashing in Shanksville, you will observe that the slope of the line is directed to no other than New York City. The slope of the flight path of United Flight 93 can be observed in the picture to be almost straight and visibly sloped toward NYC.


But why was United Flight 93 heading toward the NYC area you ask? World Trade Center 7 was the only other World Trade Center building to fall on 9/11. It fell in the same style as building #1 & #2, which fell in "free fall." If one were to say that debri from #1 hit WTC7 then why did another building fall because of the debri caused by #2. I believe United Flight 93 was headed to collide into WTC7. That would explain why WTC7 was wired with explosives, why Silverstein even said the words "pull it", why he is covering it up in the year 2006 with a unbelievable lie, that he meant the firefighters when he said the words pull " IT ". Anyway when Silverstein says " You know we've had such terrible loss of live, maybe the best thing to do is pull it.", I believe what he really meant at the time was that he was speaking to the commander in charge of 9/11. Silverstein ask'ed the commander of 9/11 that it would be a good idea to pull WTC7 even after no plane's ended up hitting it. If it was exposed that WTC7 was strapped with bomb's it would blow the whole official story lid off. It would raise questions asking if wtc1 and wtc2 were also strapped with demolition bombs. That is why they Silverstein was suggesting to pull WTC7, to cover up the fact that it had bomb's. What better way then to destroy the evidence, I mean United Flight 93 didn't reach it's target, something happened that caused that flight to crash instead of reach WTC7. It could have been that the pilot's got control of the plane, it could be anything, but that doesn't matter because using my the slope I have made we KNOW for a fact that it was headed toward NYC.

Below is the link to a video on Youtube.com called "WTC 7 Free fall", the video show's that WTC7 fell at free fall speed.
www.youtube.com...
If WTC7 fell at free fall, that mean's it was demolitioned, there is no other force that could do that to a building, not even jetfuel. The government wanted this to look like a professional job, something that impressive terrorist's could carry out and it would make the threat three time's more than the present. However something went wrong, it wasn't the ultimate terrorist attack because United Flight 93 failed to achieve it's objective. www.youtube.com...


Now for government propaganda to cover up they're sloppy job on 9/11.
1. Silverstein was asked to clear up why he said "pull it" when referring to World Trade Center 7.
- His response.

"citing a comment by the property owner that he had decided to “pull it.” The property owner was referring to pulling a contingent of firefighters out of the building in order to save lives because it appeared unstable."

killtown.blogspot.com...
- He's lieing because he's a property owner, he knows exactly what "pull it" means. And it does NOT mean pulling the firefighters out. He would of said pull out the fireman.
- Silverstein saying best thing to do is "Pull it!":www.youtube.com...
- We'll the term "pull it" is used when speaking of demolitions. The fact that this man is the owner of the WTC show's he know's all about buildings, even the fact that they get demolished. In fact he make's his wealth demolitioning old buildings, and building new one's in it's place. Guess what, he made a fortune of the 9/11 attacks.
- Recently, in 2006, Silverstein released to the public that what he meant when he said "pull it" was that he wanted the "fire chief commander" to tell the firefighter's to get out of the building. Why would he try to clear up what he said to the public in 2006? Is it because he was caught spilling his guts and didn't mean to pull it because that would imply that there were demolition activities involved.
- It is very important to understand why WTC7 was pulled. If the public found out that WTC7 had bomb's strapped to it. It would be easily believable that wtc1 and wtc2 were also strapped to explosives and would make the controlled demolition theory valid to many Americans. However they're plan was to use airplanes to disguise the fact that it was a controlled demolition. So why did WTC7 fall the same way as 1 & 2? Because a plane was meant to hit it and thus it would be remotely detonated just like the other two. However the plane failed to reach WTC7 and so the executioners of the plan "pulled" WTC7 anyway to hide the fact that it was strapped for detonation.

2. Government propaganda via Hollywood
- World Trade Center (2006)

- United 93 (2006)

- Why choose the name United 93 before the other 3 more interesting flight paths.
- Peculiar that in the year 2006 Silverstein makes a comment to cover up what he said on 9/11
- Peculiar that in the year 2006 Not one but two movies are feed to American public reinforcing governments "Official story about 9/11"
- Peculiar that this covering up took place in 2006, in a year where more and more individuals don't believe the "Official story"
- Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 - 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks.
calltodecision.com...


[edit on 1/18/2007 by atsrules]

I think you are probably right about the destination of flight 93. There must have been a plane designated for that building. I just posted another thread "devil in the details" that picks up on a couple of other unexplained details of that day.

Looks more like they were heading southeast towards Washington D.C. Otherwise, the hijackers would have made a smooth up northeast like Flight 77. Not going downwards.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Looks more like they were heading southeast towards Washington D.C. Otherwise, the hijackers would have made a smooth up northeast like Flight 77. Not going downwards.

Exactly, I too thought WTC7 was the target of Flight 93 when I first started researching 9/11, but after seeing these flight paths a while ago I quickly dropped that theory. Good research by you but I'm all but certain if it was meant to crash anywhere it was someplace in DC.

Originally posted by atsrules

First I will show that the Flight Path of United Flight 93 was directed towards New York City during the final minutes before it's destruction in Shanksville.
Second, I will show that the flight path was directed to NYC because it was meant to hit WTC7.
Then you will finally come to the conclusion that United 93 was meant for WTC7, and thus the reason for why WTC7 was strapped with explosives ready to be detonated.

Nice try, but sorry, that doesn't prove anything.

If I were to you the same logic I could prove:

If Flight 11 was shot down before it made it's southbound turn I could prove that it's intended target was somewhere up in Canada.

Flight 175 had done passed NYC and if it would have been shot down before it's final turn I could prove that it's intended target was Washington DC.

If Flight 77 had been shot down before it's final turn I could prove that it's intended target was, let's say, oh...Cincinnati maybe?

The point is, there is no way to tell from the graphic where Flight 93 was heading, so we are left with mere speculation. There is no proof of anything.

If WTC 7 was allready rigged with explosives what need would there be to fly a jet airliner into it anyway?

maybe to make it look like the hijacked planed caused the collapse

The point is, there is no way to tell from the graphic where Flight 93 was heading, so we are left with mere speculation. There is no proof of anything.

If WTC 7 was allready rigged with explosives what need would there be to fly a jet airliner into it anyway?

Here's the proof. Flight 93 never got shot down over Shanksville. It was reported landing in Cleveland which is in the direction of the original flight path of Flight 93.

Youtube video saying that Flight 93 was reported by a local new's station in Cleveland as landing in Cleveland because of a bomb threat on 9/11
www.youtube.com...

Here's a link to a website that say's the same thing about Flight 93
wcpo.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">web.archive.org... 09040132/wcpo.com...

Here's an article about it on rense.com

www.rense.com...


Here's my theory about why the media and government are telling the public that Flight 93 took that flight path and got shot down over Shanksville.
They did it because they wanted the public to believe that It was headed for the Capital building in Washington which is a likely terrorist target. However Flight 93 was supposed to make a u turn and head back towards NYC that day to impact WTC7 so it could look like a plane brought it down, rather then the explosives set in the building. The fact that it landed in Flight 93 and was sent to a secret bunker shows us that even after Flight 93 landed in shanksville and it's override by the government's command plan failed, they murdered the passenger's in Cleveland and then blew it up over Shanksville to hide the fact that it wasn't hijacked by terroirsts, yet the government tell's is it was. There's the direct lie. They landed in Cleveland, but government say's shot over Shanksville. We've got em now!

[edit on 20-1-2007 by Logitechismykeyboard]

I definitely think there is something to this. It explains why mysterious fires appeared in WTC7. The failure of the plane and its fuel to arrive and set the building on fire made it necessary, as an improvisation, to commit arson in the building in order to continue to operate within the established paradigm decided upon for the collapses. It would be interesting to examine in detail how the story developed that it was headed for the Capitol Building or the White House. That information is out there but it'
s an aspect of things I haven't gone into in detail myself.

nice work. It might just be possible in what you say, but whatever the reason WTC7 HAD to come down no matter what. There was a lot of dirt in that building, but not the dust, it was cover up, lies, deceipt, corruption, type dirt. Does everyone know that ENRON was being investigated and ALL the files (....oooops no backups..!!!) were sitting in a FRAUD INVESTIGATION room along with a heap of other major investigations. The ENRON lawyers were caught shredding the deadly paperwork and the remaining files were stored in WTC7.... guess what, the demolition did a better job that the shredder. You'll find BUSH is linked to ENRON in a big way....would have been easy to find going through those files.... but don't worry Georgie Boy ....your day in court is coming. There is a very old saying from the bible... and the TRUTH shall set you free..... but Goerge W, it doesnt apply to you....the TRUTH will get you FRIED

My thanks to Prof Steven Jones from BYU for showing the imense reasearch work into WTC7. SCIENTIFIC FACT OVER-RULES OFFICIAL BULLCRAP

When you talk about the reasons WTC7 had to come down, you put me in mind of the astonishing way in which the events of that day served so many people's interests, domestic and foreign. The whole thing is almost a work of art. Even a little beetle like Larry Silverstein got his otherwise expensive asbestos problem taken care of while receiving a huge chunk of change into the bargain.

One of the hardest things to put up with in this whole scam is the refusal of otherwise bright people with no axe to grind to see the fraud for what it is. I can understand some engineer or fire chief who has been intimidated keeping quiet about what he knows, but I know intelligent people who simply refuse to believe anything but the official story, lame and mendacious as it is. I sent one person a video that contained numerous eye witness accounts of explosions within the buildings, yet this person, zombie-like, refuses to accept anything but the official story. It really staggers me. As the poet said, "What a thing is man!"

Seems very plausible, in fact seems very likely, good thread.

Why is the poster of this thread got banned member in red under his name? If he is banned how did he post this?

[edit on 21-1-2007 by golddragnet]

Originally posted by Classified Info

If WTC 7 was allready rigged with explosives what need would there be to fly a jet airliner into it anyway?

Because the masterminds of 9/11 did their homework. They new that bringing down the WTC's with explosives alone, Americans, and the entire world would scream "INSIDE JOB!". So they needed to make it look more like a "primitive terrorist attack". Something that "a normal terrorist" would do, "Kamikazi" style, so that they can point the fingers at someone else. The only problem was, WTC 1 and 2 were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, and they also figured that a 757 wouldn't quite be enough to take down WTC7. So they rigged them all with explosives to finish the job.

B.T.W a 707 and a 767 are very simular in impact force.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Anyway, the masterminds of 9/11 knew that a jet alone will not be enough to bring down the towers, so they rigged them with explosives. Since flight 93 was a mission failed, they STILL wanted to get rid of the WTC7 building, so they just went ahead and pulled it.

Silverstien was in on the whole operation from the start. He knew about 9/11 ahead of time. But the only problem was, he thought a jet was going to hit WTC7. So when he was interviewed and said "pull it", he had made up that whole excuse on the spot, before he was rebriefed by the masterminds of 9/11 about their new "plan B" since Flight 93 was a SNAFU. He figured he could just say they demolished the building on the spot because there was so much damage, then later, the masterminds were mad at Silverstien for saying that, so they forced him to lie, and change his story so that it wouldn't look like an inside job.

A very complicated thing happened on 9/11.

1: The plan was to fly 3 jets into WTC1,2,7 and finish them off with explosives, because the jets are NOT enough to bring them down alone. Silverstien was prepared for this plan.

2: On 9/11 flight 93 crashed early, which destroyed the original plan. But they blow up WTC7 anyway.

3: Silverstien wasn't sure what to tell the public on his interview, because obviously, they didn't plan for flight 93 to miss its target. So he made the excuse that they "pulled" WTC7 because of damage, and the fact that so many had already died in WTC 1 and 2, that they didn't want to risk having WTC7 collapse with people in it, so they controlled the collapse making sure it couldn't hurt anyone later.

4: The masterminds of 9/11 forced Silverstien to change his story. So that it could still fit in to the "big picture" of being a "terrorist attack", and not an inside job.

People say "The American government couldn't pull an inside job like this without making a mistake, and letting everyone know". Well they are correct. 9/11 is full of mistakes, waiting for people with balls to notice them.

Also, let me add, that it is a FACT that all firemen were extracted from WTC7 at 11:00am. WTC7 didn't collapse untill 5:20pm.

[edit on 21-1-2007 by 1150111]

I agree with a lot of what has been said on this thread and have expanded into other areas in the thread "Devil in the details". One of the things which I could bring up in the Devil thread but I mention here because this thread is so good is that I am waiting for the appearance of a "dead list". There have to be a lot of people in the know, whether employed by the Controlled Demolition company, employed by the Cleveland airport or in a slew of government agencies that could have been involved on the periphery of this mess that know too much.

I know that Afghanistan and Iraq are very convenient garbage dumps that the administration can use to get rid of special ops people in the military who could make inconvenient witnesses in the future. It would be very easy to send a guy to Baghdad and have him become an unfortunate victim of a sniper attack in the city. (We've all seen the videos.)

Is anyone aware of any reports of this sort of thing. I heard that a police officer at the Oklahoma City bombing died under very suspicious circumstances and I believe a 911 activist student was murdered somewhere. Steven Jones has been forced out of his job and some other academics involved in the 911 truth movement have come under attack, but sooner or later I think the baddies are going to start knocking off a few of their junior assistants.

this is the most outlandish , out of nowhere and weird one of them all.

I admit my previous post strays from the topic of the thread and is probably out of place here. If that is irritating anyone, I apologize.

Anything is possible I guess atsrules, and no thoughts should be discounted especially when all the questions have not been sufficiently answered. . .

When I started reading this thread, and what was being posted I was tempted to deem it silly & walk away because right off the bat I thought of something that didn't fit this scenario. BUT- Then I actually thought of a good answer to my own skepticism. I do subscribe to the theory that something other than debris & fires brought down WTC 7, so it would be a great cover.

Here's my thought:

Why wait so long between the first two impacts and this possible scenario that a third impact was planned? Wouldn't it be very hard to explain how the late flight got into NYC airspace with fighter jets scrambled & present there? Wouldn't there be a greater chance of the passengers & crew on flight 93 becoming aware of the intentions & doing something about it? According to your own theory this is how it was foiled. . . I can only think of one plausible reason to do this.

Answer:

They didn't care about having to explain the third impact! The towers had to fall for flight 93 to have a clear pathway to WTC 7 from the south! It was too short to be hit from anything less than a vertical dive unless a path was created. The felling of the towers would accomplish this. They took a chance on the flight being scuttled before the mission was accomplished and lost. The building still had to obviously be destroyed with all the evidence inside waiting to be discovered, so they just blew it up anyway. And this is why WTC 7 sticks out like a sore thumb when compared to the tower collapses which had a cover story.

Just my $0.02

( You can incorporate this into your theory free of charge if you like! )

It's an intriguing thought though! That's why I thought I'd help you out with a major concern I had with it.

But it's also a tough sell, along with any of the other theories & explanations because of the sheer lack of physical evidence that's available. This list would of course include the official story also. Keep digging & keep us posted if you find out anything else to back it up.

2PacSade-

One of the most interesting things in your post, aside from the main point you make about the reason for hitting WTC7 last is the bit about the authoritities not caring about explaining it's destruction. That is one of the enduring themes of W's administration and it's responses to just about everything. He's definitely a paid up member of the "the dog ate my homework" school of taking responsibility.

These people really don't care about getting their stories straight. They just keep massaging their lies and promoting their buffoons.

One of the things that made me most suspicious of an inside job early in my research into 911 was the fact that nobody was fired for anything in this whole debacle. Back in the 80's a German student with a few screws loose stole a light plane and flew it into (then) soviet airspace finally landing it in Red Square. The Russians arrested him, tossed him in the clink for a couple of years and then repatriated him to Germany. Oh, and one more thing. They fired the general in charge of protecting their airspace. This was just for being suckered by a prankster. They seem to take their airspace seriously over their, unlike the neoclowns in Washington.

But of course that's true only if you buy the official explanation for the day's events. If you believe the whole thing was a Bush administration prank that was part of an altogether different agenda, then there is no need to fire anybody, no need to hustle the president out of the Florida schoolhouse, no need for a thorough investigation of 911, no need for meddling F16 pilots buzzing around New York City screwing things up by saving lives that day.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

One of the things that made me most suspicious of an inside job early in my research into 911 was the fact that nobody was fired for anything in this whole debacle.

I believe the reason no one's been fired is because unfortunately everybody carried out their assignments on that dreadful day.

2PacSade-