A logical look at 9/11

This has been hammered but perhaps this is worth considering. Two planes are supposed to have collapsed the two towers, they fell in their own footprint, just as surely as if they had been subjected to a controlled demolition. But a third tower also collapsed into its own footprint just like the two hit by planes, the only problem is that no plane hit it. The BBC reported it had fallen, while it was still standing whoops! not withstanding standing that and its implications of collusion between the reporting entities. Is it possible that their was supposed to be a third plane to render the narrative complete but it did not show up for the party. If so it means that a plane alone could not collapse a building of those dimensions, and needed help with charges already placed to complete the narrative.
So what happened to this third plane ? It must have caused a problem to the narrative. Logically their should have been one in the air about the same time as the others hit. ?

a reply to: jtrenthacker



P

I regret this entire mess.

I delete it all.

a reply to: anonentity

Logically their should have been one in the air about the same time as the others hit. ?

Interesting theory, are you saying that Flight 93 may have been intended for the purpose of flying into WTC 7?

And logically in regards to WTC 1 & 2, it makes absolutely no sense how both could fall from the base down unless something destructive was taking place below the impact zones of the planes

a reply to: pheonix358

Brilliant response

a reply to: anonentity

I have thought this for some time. I think it is possible that the plane that crashed in Shanksfield, Penn was intended to hit WTC 7 and when it did not the building was still brought down as planned.

It is said that the plane was headed to Washington DC, but would a terrorist reveal their real flight trajectory?

Excellent theory.
That explains all of the hours it must have taken to rig building 7 to demo.
They did it way in advance (during the Israeli art group visit).
Always planned on building 7 to be the final hit.
Well, might as well follow through with the explosives.
Just blame it on the confusion and sweep it aside.
Those PNAC sons of bitches.
Hundreds of tiny whiskey airplane bottles and almost 2 decades later.
I'm still really pissed off about 9/11.

a reply to: anonentity

Corner of WTC 7 just visible

After examining the height of WTC 7 and potential flight path, the theory wouldn't work imo

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Yes it was a massive attack requiring precise coordination, in fact so precise something could easily go wrong, and it did. They left some very glaring cock ups. The biggest is the plane that never made it to the impact site for some reason.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

A skilled pilot would be required to do a steep dive, and they didn't have one and called it off at the last minute?

a reply to: anonentity

Buildings 1,2 and 7 were set up for demolition well before the event.

1 & 2 went off as programed. 7 failed to fall on queue.

The story was supposed to be 1 and 2 took out 7 as they fell.

It was still standing so they fixed up the demolition charges communication problem after a few hours and down she went.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

That wouldn't be a good enough excuse because a controlled demolition, can occur with a building next door left intact. Like when the first tower went down the second was still standing happily, they had to make it look like the planes did the job. But having no plane to blame for building seven , they had to blow it anyway. Or the charges would have been discovered.

a reply to: anonentity
A logical look is they did it.
And they got away with it.

We can know what they are doing or we can be unaware.
We can't stop them.

Nice theory, but would it be easier to have planned to rig the twin towers to fall toward that building? Perhaps the idea was to make it look like a third explosion caused by the twin towers, but reality and plan never came close to intersecting. So plan “c”: “ the building looks damaged, pull it.”

a reply to: apydomis
The only reasonable alternate conspiracy is that most high rise buildings are actually built to fail spectacularly if it comes down to the crunch. It's not a comforting thought for all those people working in high rises.

And do you really think it would be easy to aim that much force?

a reply to: anonentity
Read a very good book at the time by Dr Judy Wood Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11 her theory from the residual evidence was that it was a high energy space based weapon that took down the twin towers. One of the theories on no.7 was that it housed records of several government agencies that could not be allowed to be released. Rumsfeld's statement for the need of a new pearl harbor for a new American century along with the area of the pentagon being destroyed that housed records of the missing 2.3 trillion cash too.

a reply to: PhilbertDezineck

Their a lot of gold bars that went missing as well? things on that scale almost look like a power struggle way above the average guys pay scale.

a reply to: anonentity

9/11 used to be a huge interest of mine and to some extent it still is. I agree though that we're getting to the point where its like beating a dead horse, most of the conspiracies have been debunked. Now I know on ATS that's not going to be popular statement but its not less true. For example

Two planes are supposed to have collapsed the two towers, they fell in their own footprint

Well sorry but no, they didn't, thats just factually not true as this picture demonstrates



Part of the problem with 9/11 conspiracies has always been laziness (I don't mean this as an insult), you hear that the buildings fell into their own footprint but they quite clear didn't. The damage was widespread, hell they even found part of the planes landing gear over 10 years later or something crazy like that.

But a third tower also collapsed into its own footprint just like the two hit by planes, the only problem is that no plane hit it.

WTC-7 took a massive hit when the towers collapsed, year ago I wrote a Massive thread examining WTC-7 in more detail, it also did not collapse into its own footprint.



As you can see in this picture, the wreckage spread out onto the surrounding roads. In fact WTC-7 caused massive damage to WTC-5 which was so extensive they had to rip that whole building down.

The BBC reported it had fallen, while it was still standing whoops! not withstanding standing that and its implications of collusion between the reporting entities

Again a simple explanation. Basically what happened here was a local news station listening into the FDNY heard them saying that WTC-7 was going to collapse so they where pulling out of the building. This was misinterpreted as them saying it had actually collapsed when picked up by the BBC. It was a simple reporting error but when you dig into it you also realise that the FDNY where pretty much expecting WTC-7 to collapse.

Is it possible that their was supposed to be a third plane to render the narrative complete but it did not show up for the party.

This theory isn't new, the idea that WTC-7 was the intended target for flight 93



Its flight path was taking it closer to Washington and it's real target is unknown but it seems most likely that the target was going to be a political target so probably the Capitol Building or the White House. If you look at the above picture it looks like the flight was heading towards Washington. Its also been reported that it would have been extremely difficult to fly a plane into that building.

So what happened to this third plane ? It must have caused a problem to the narrative. Logically their should have been one in the air about the same time as the others hit. ?

errr yeah...it was flight 93, the fourth plane that went down in Shanksville.

Anyway, like I said, yeah at this point its a bit of a dead horse but its still a very interesting topic I think and one that we should question, there is a 9/11 conspiracy its probably just not the massive controlled demolitions false flag you might think it is, but its also not exactly 19 guys with box cutters.

How much do you really know about the day - 9/11/2001 ?
The untold story you were never supposed to know .....
Once SEEN you'll understand the WAR that is raging NOW for your minds

originally posted by: anonentity

a reply to: PhilbertDezineck

Their a lot of gold bars that went missing as well? things on that scale almost look like a power struggle way above the average guys pay scale.

I had read at the time that there was gold that could not be account for, the theory was it was Nazi or gold from the Philippine golden dragon catches.