Why not one more plane?

Hey all,

I've been thinking about a few things which have been bothering me lately, and thought it best to put it out there for discussion...

Whilst it is generally known I don't support the 'official story' in its entirity, there are a couple of things that still don't add up for me. The first big question for me is, IF this entire event was arranged and carried out by The Powers That Be, and given the GREAT lengths they went to in order to do this, why would they not just use ONE more plane?

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? After all, according to some it was rigged with explosives to be demolished anyway - wouldn't they want this hidden by a plane hitting it, just like WTC 1&2?

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..."

They allegedly planned one hijacked plane for WTC1, one for WTC2, one for the Pentagon, and one for somewhere else in DC (Whitehouse? Congress?). Why not just grab one more to make sure the WHOOOOLE massive staged event wasn't jeopardised by someone with an internet connection asking "Hey - 3 buildings, 2 planes? Must have had explosives in there..."

Any thoughts?

Rewey

PS - please don't let this thread deteriorate into an argument about whether there was a plane at the Pentagon or Shanksville - it's been doen to death. This is a simple question which I believe needs a sensible answer - why not one more plane to cover their tracks?

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Rewey]

The simple answer is Flight 93. THe plane that never made it to it's destination.

How do you know that it's real destination was Washinton D.C.?

reply to post by In nothing we trust


Well - that's part of what's bothered me... I've always heard in the news that Flight 93 was heading for DC. I've NEVER heard it suggested that it was heading for WTC7.

Therefore, when TPTB realised one of the planes had crashed, how would it make sense to start the 'controlled demolition' of WTC7, knowing the plane was never going to hit it? Wouldn't they simply have let it go, or demolished it later claiming gross structural damage? Seems strange to think that this group of very smart and sneaky people would just say, "Just blow up the building anyway - no-one will notice the plane never got near it..."

Rewey


[edit on 17-8-2009 by Rewey]

Originally posted by Rewey

... how would it make sense to start the 'controlled demolition' of WTC7, knowing the plane was never going to hit it?

No operation goes completly according to plan.

9/11 was a complex and well timed co-ordinated operation.

Call it operational chaos which they knew could be glossed over by manipulating the press coverage afterwards.

The building was wired with explosives. They had to blow it.


[edit on 17-8-2009 by In nothing we trust]

reply to post by In nothing we trust

The simple answer is Flight 93. THe plane that never made it to it's destination.

How do you know that it's real destination was Washinton D.C.?

Flight 93 took off from Newark NJ, original destination San Francisco
Newark is west of NYC It then headed west and was hijacked near
Cleveland

When it crashed at Shanksville was headed Southeast toward Wash DC

Now if your destination was NYC

Why do fly halfway across the US before hijacking the aircraft? Then why
are you heading SE - away from NYC?

Flight 93 destination was Washington

reply to post by thedman


I don't know about that kind of logic b/c f77 took off from DC(dulles Va.) and flew all the way to almost the same point as f93 before it turned around and hit the Pentagon.

Ultimately, I agree, we know that f93 was on its way to DC also b/c the hijacker pilot supposedly programed the auto pilot to fly back to DC. Based off the flight data recorder that was recovered.

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? After all, according to some it was rigged with explosives to be demolished anyway - wouldn't they want this hidden by a plane hitting it, just like WTC 1&2?

This is simply yet another inconsistancy and contradiction among many that the conspiracy movement is plagued with. They're exceptionally eagar to find a conspiracy, any conspiracy at all, in the events of 9/11, but when you put all their stories together, the master plot driving all these operations sounds like something a retarded gorilla would come up with.

-Why use hijacked planes to cover up bombs to begin with when everyone knows bombs were already used back in 1993?

-Why the heck did they go through the trouble of creating a fake crash site in Shanksville only to turn around and conceal the fake crash site they created?

-Why use a cruise missile against the Pentagon and then manufacture all sorts of fake evidence making it look like it was a passenger jet when the conspirators already had one or more disposable passenger jets they in their possession? Simply use another passenger jet.

-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?

There is absolutely no pattern in any way, shape, or form to their claims. It's patently obvious that these people want to believe there's a conspiracy, and they're simply seeing what they want to see.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
This is simply yet another inconsistancy and contradiction among many that the conspiracy movement is plagued with. They're exceptionally eagar to find a conspiracy, any conspiracy at all, in the events of 9/11, but when you put all their stories together, the master plot driving all these operations sounds like something a retarded gorilla would come up with.

This is why I tend to lean a little towards LIHOP, rather than MIHOP... I honestly can't believe the entire 'official story', but everyone knows there are a few tenets of the truth movement which don't make sense. Ray guns from space and NPT are two obvious examples. Although so many like to mock the truth movement, I believe that it should be aimed at uncovering the truth (even if it is uncomfortably closer to the 'official story' than they'd like it to be), rather than trying to confirm a grand conspiracy for the sake of it...

-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?

There is a doco (I think it's The World According To Bush, but not sure), in which an ex-CIA operative (not sure what the right term is - 'spy' just sounds like a bad Hollywood story), who got a call on the morning of Sept 12 and was told to find a way to pin it on Iraq. He said he couldn't because he knew they had nothing to do with it, and Saddam apparently detested the Taliban or AQ, but he was told to find a way anyway.

I might learn how to grab a clip from a dvd and post it here...

Rewey

reply to post by Rewey


Not sure i get your point here: If it was LIHOP or MIHOP wouldnt said CIA guy have gotten the call a *little* earlier?

How about this question: If everybody knows that planes can't demolish buildings, why use planes at all?

Originally posted by debunky
How about this question: If everybody knows that planes can't demolish buildings, why use planes at all?

Hmmm... The Lockerbie crash created such a violent explosion when the wings hit the ground that it 'vapourised nearby homes and their [concrete/limestone] foundations'. That's a paraphrase - I'll have to find the source...

I would think that with examples such as that, the idea that a plane might bring down a building like the WTC somewhat feasible to some. By memory, it wasn't really until the architects and engineers of the WTC buildings started saying "Hey, we thought of that scenario...", that people started looking into it a little deeper...

Rewey

reply to post by Rewey


IMO this could have gone down 2 ways
The burning Thermite falling from the WTC hit the building and cut though it like a hot knife though butter. This would be a problem for 2 reasons;

1 - There was a large diesel fuel storage in the building

2 - You cant mistake the effects of thermite. If investigators had seen the damage they would have easily worked out what had happened.

Or maybe it was supposed to have burnt up when the towers collapsed and they had to send in the demolition experts to finish the job.Remember building 7 wasn't the only other building to be destroyed it just was the only other building to have a mysterious collapse.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by VitalOverdose]

Oh, i have no doubt that fully fueled full speed jets can bring down highrise buildings (I know of 2 examples, in NY)

But isn't it a standard truther argument that "that would never happen"?

Originally posted by debunky
Oh, i have no doubt that fully fueled full speed jets can bring down highrise buildings (I know of 2 examples, in NY)

But isn't it a standard truther argument that "that would never happen"?

Yes because those buildings were specifically designed for that not to happen. Because of the amazing design no building of that type has ever collapsed due to fire of any kind. The building was a solid matrix of steal. Its like a giant roll of chicken wire .. you could hack huge holes in it and it would never collapse. Lets be sensible here..

reply to post by Rewey


if you would like an on topic answer,
relevant to your specific question..
assuming that the they you are talking about could be either high jackers or conspirators.. the skyline is why..
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, albeit lower to the ground, they are more isolated as targets..
non expert pilots at best.. occams razor huh?

off topic: flight 93s target is unknown..

Originally posted by Rewey
There is a doco (I think it's The World According To Bush, but not sure), in which an ex-CIA operative (not sure what the right term is - 'spy' just sounds like a bad Hollywood story), who got a call on the morning of Sept 12 and was told to find a way to pin it on Iraq. He said he couldn't because he knew they had nothing to do with it, and Saddam apparently detested the Taliban or AQ, but he was told to find a way anyway.

...but that claim only adds more confusion to the gigantic pile of confusion the conspiracy theorists have already sown.

The entire beef the US had with Iraq was that they supposedly had hidden WMD. If that idea was all manufactured as you say then I ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY guarantee the conspirators would have planted WMD in Iraq to use as justification for the invasion, particularly when they went though all the trouble of doing all those other things like concealing CD in a heavily occupied building. How could they *not* plant WMD in Iraq? I daresay that planting WMD in Iraq would have been a heck of a lot easier than concealing CD in a heavily occupied building. Heck, if we had framed Iraq instead of Al Qaida we wouldn't even need to use WMD as a reason.

So, either the conspirators driving all these plots are the most bumbling idiots in the history of recorded human history, or, one or more of these conspiracy scenarios are completely wrong.

Why plan the attacks at that time of day?, an hour or 2 later the towers would have been full, also why hit the tops of the buildings and not a lot lower, i`m not being cruel but two huge pointers there of a lower death count. Hani Hanjour pulled off some awesome flying skills over at the office and he sucked. I`d imagine hitting the towers a lot lower would be a walk in the park.

One aspect I really cannot get my head around and that`s 757/767`s hold around 200 passengers, the terrorists wouldn`t know how full each plane would be, 200 passengers on average - 100 males - a high percent in the 16-60 year old bracket say 80%, that`s a probability of 20 or 17 men V one hijacker, and they opted for crafting knives as weapons???.

More planes = a higher chance of success and heaps more mayhem, plus Silverstein`s double indemnity insurance pay out - double whammy here also if you played the stock market that day a la put options, still over $5 billion dollars waiting to be picked up, wonder why that is?, more planes the merrier they seemed at the time very easy to get control of.

[edit on 18/08/2009 by Seventh]

Originally posted by Seventh
One aspect I really cannot get my head around and that`s 757/767`s hold around 200 passengers, the terrorists wouldn`t know how full each plane would be, 200 passengers on average - 100 males - a high percent in the 16-60 year old bracket say 80%, that`s a probability of 20 or 17 men V one hijacker, and they opted for crafting knives as weapons???.

You already know the answer to that. First, the airlines certainly aren't goign to let anyone board with AK-47s so concelable weapons like knives were all they *could* use. Second, every plane that had calls from the passengers reported that a stewardess had been injured/killed. We'll obviously never know, but it appears that the very first step in the plan was to grab and murder a stewardess in cold blood, to show the passengers they meant business. Third, until 9/11, sitting quietly is what hijacked passengers did anyway, becuase up until then, they'd always be flown somewhere to be held hostage and released later.

It was haute couture to be a pacifist sheep before the wolves. It can be argued that it's still haute couture to be a pacifist sheep before the wolves.

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..

Yeah, I get that... but 'too risky'? Some people argue they were radio controlled planes - I would think this means they could be flown quite accurately - maybe even laser-guided or GPS-guided (as some people have suggested).

But there's the problem - if the whole thing IS a conspiracy, and they couldn't get a clear shot at it with another plane, why risk taking WTC7 down on the basis of "We'll tell people that burning wreckage from the OTHER building hit it, and a huge fire erupted which weakened... blah, blah, blah"? Why not just take it down weeks after the event like some of the other buildings in the area?

Look - here's where I'm stuck...

The WTC7 building certainly LOOKS like a controlled demolition. But WHY would they bring it down in such a way WITHOUT bothering to grab ONE MORE plane to hit it, given that several other buildings were demolished in a more conventional manner WEEKS after the event? NO-ONE asks suspicious questions about THOSE buildings. If they couldn't hit WTC7 with a plane because it doesn't poke above the skyline too much, why not just tear it down weeks later (with all the other buildings), claiming it was just too damaged? END of conspiracy questions about it...

Rewey

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
...but that claim only adds more confusion to the gigantic pile of confusion the conspiracy theorists have already sown.

I've found a clip from the doco on the internet here:

www.liveleak.com...

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

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

 

The simple answer is Flight 93. THe plane that never made it to it's destination.

How do you know that it's real destination was Washinton D.C.?

Flight 93 took off from Newark NJ, original destination San Francisco
Newark is west of NYC It then headed west and was hijacked near
Cleveland

When it crashed at Shanksville was headed Southeast toward Wash DC

Now if your destination was NYC

Why do fly halfway across the US before hijacking the aircraft? Then why
are you heading SE - away from NYC?

Flight 93 destination was Washington

Please point to the aircraft which had a normal flight path.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6ea04d1b13f6.gif[/atsimg]

11 and 175 made 90 degree turns. What makes you think that 93 wouldn't have as well?

175 was headed for DC before it turned.

93 could have turned towards NY or D.C. It might have been flying a primary mission as backup in case the other 3 missed thier targets and had a secondary target of WTC7.

I guess the question should be asked how come they didn't hijack 5 planes instead of 4?


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