Flight 93 was headed for Building 7

reply to post by RealSpoke

Quite easy, by watching the video and the info presented within it. It's not the only docu on youtube exposing shall we say the inconsistencies of physics but even more important is who "produced" all those amateur clips that we all know so well. Were you aware that all the amateur clips were actually made by media companies and not some Joe in the street? I guess not...

ETA Just to be clear, there were NO planes. Not at the pentagon, not at the towers and not at that hole in a field somewhere. (Shanksville?)

reply to post by RealSpoke


The no plane theory is really compelling to me.

Idk if you've watched the video or not but it helps to make sense of a lot of the anomalies. The video itself has its moments of being self-fulfilling, meaning I wouldn't have noticed some anomalies hadn't the video pointed them out, but it also explained some things that just didn't seem right, such as eye witness testimony, when they were explained by the msm or other 911 truth videos.

It also goes really well with the AE911Truth theories which I also believe.

OK ... how about this?

Lets say that the passengers were able to overtake the hijackers and regain control of the plane. While trying to get things back under control the govt decided to shoot down the plane rather than let the passengers land the plane and start telling stories about what actually happened up there during the hijacking.

reply to post by boncho


lol, I was thinking that too

This video invites a video composite expert in it, he explains the images, and the video dismisses them. So ridiculous. I can't handle watching things like this.

Originally posted by Dustytoad
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)

7

Okay, so I was interpreting that by "losing their cover" meant that they lost their cover of hijacking or something along those lines.

So lets say this was a grand conspiracy, 93 was taken over and no one was supposed to know until it hit 7. But then someone on board somehow contacted family or got word out and regular people/authorities that were not "in on it" were now aware. Thereby "losing the cover".

To be honest that was what I thought you were implying. Not realizing that you were talking about the plane going down.

reply to post by Dustytoad

I am not going to show any equations/calculations

Gee, I wonder why.

Originally posted by underduck
OK ... how about this?

Lets say that the passengers were able to overtake the hijackers and regain control of the plane. While trying to get things back under control the govt decided to shoot down the plane rather than let the passengers land the plane and start telling stories about what actually happened up there during the hijacking.

Yeah..

I never thought the shot down, and the retaken by passenger theories didn't have to be mutually exclusive.

Thanks for that.

Sounds plausible. First thing they would have done is get on the radio, and say something like "the controls are jammed, it's flying itself!!!"

and then someone on the inside goes... efff.

We need to get these people OFF the radio...

So yeah...

reply to post by underduck

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.

The whole building was pulverized to dust huh? You're kidding, right? There were trucks full of material hauling stuff out of ground zero for months and it wasn't "dust". That's just plain old B.S. Isolated fires? Cute. Nonsense. But cute.

reply to post by Bleeeeep

The no plane theory is really compelling to me.

You realize that even if you found 100% confirmed, doctored video of that morning, it still wouldn't support the 'no plane theory' since it would be entirely possible that a news outlet created the footage because they didn't have anything at the time.

This type of fakery has happened quite a lot in modern media. However, it doesn't actually change whether or not an event happened, it only addresses whether or not the news outlets were there at the time, or were able to get footage from the event.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Dustytoad

 

I am not going to show any equations/calculations

Gee, I wonder why.

Sorry hooper, but my adrenaline is already raised by what I said.

You could do them yourself.

I used NISTs numbers for weights of the floors. Office materials, structural integrity and everything really, building height, materials used, construction techniques... Everything. They had lots of data to go by.

The mass of floors x the acceleration of gravity gives you the force.

I gave the buildings 0 floor strength above the weight of the floors above them up to the collapse.

This means no structural strength.

I made all the floors hit by the planes as negative space, meaning no structure, and the top piece (15 floors) get's to accelerate through this space unhendered.

The buildings fall to fast like this by about .5 seconds. And I was being generous in my calculations...

Next I did conservation of Energy. I put the entire potential energy of the building at the tallest height (maxing out the potential energy)

I then converted it all directly into kinetic energy, ignoreing wasted energy to heat...

There just wasn't enough energy to make that much concrete powder...

I'm sorry, but I'm not going into this anymore than I already have.

reply to post by underduck


How about this...

The phone calls and the plane itself was just a staged event to lend credence to there even being planes that were taken over by hijackers. The giant hole in the ground in that field was made by explosives put into a mock-up plane but they put far too much explosives thus making it look very sloppy.

reply to post by boncho


Ok man, I see that I wasn't super clear..

Not that articulate is me.

But yes you have it right now, for what I meant.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Bleeeeep

The no plane theory is really compelling to me.

 

You realize that even if you found 100% confirmed, doctored video of that morning, it still wouldn't support the 'no plane theory' since it would be entirely possible that a news outlet created the footage because they didn't have anything at the time.

This type of fakery has happened quite a lot in modern media. However, it doesn't actually change whether or not an event happened, it only addresses whether or not the news outlets were there at the time, or were able to get footage from the event.

This is true..

Did you see my post that has the bolded part about an odd experience that day on Live TV??

I NEED to find someone who remembers..

It drives me crazy knowing I might die (long time down the road) and no one will have seen what I did, or I may never meet anyone who knows what I'm talking about ever.

Gahh...

reply to post by Bleeeeep


That takes so much work and effort. So many things could go wrong. You would have to include a lot more people in on the scoop in order to pull that off. I just dont know if they would be capable or willing to go through all that. And why just that one. Why would that flight be different from the other 3?

reply to post by Dustytoad

There just wasn't enough energy to make that much concrete powder...

How much? And how much energy does it take to make "concrete powder"?

reply to post by boncho


Is that the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument in reverse?

I guess I can't disagree with you since we really can't prove anything to be 100% accurate but the no plane theory is one that best fits into my overall understanding of the events that took place that day.

There is not a single reason to believe UA 93 was heading for New York but there are several indicating it was not.

a) When UA 93 turned around after the hi-jacking it headed south-east, towards Washington, and not east as it would have done for New York.

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.

c) OBL's driver Salim Hamdan, in custody at Guantanamo Bay, is on record as saying he knew the target of UA 93 was "the Dome". Generally understood to mean the Capitol.

d) UA 93 took off 42 minutes late; nothing to do with the hi-jackers. If they had taken off on time and headed back from the same point they did they would have found themselves stooging about the New York sky waiting for the Towers to fall and give them a shot at WTC 7.

reply to post by underduck


I don't think it would make things overly complicated and it would give credence to there actually being hijackers - which in turn gives reason to retaliate(attack another country)..

You could even say that the phone calls that stated there were hijackers was MORE important than actually blowing up the buildings because it gave eyewitness reports of whom our enemy was to be.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


But then what happened to the original plane? Did they just shot all the people on some remote runway? I have a hard time believing that.

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.

c) OBL's driver Salim Hamdan, in custody at Guantanamo Bay, is on record as saying he knew the target of UA 93 was "the Dome". Generally understood to mean the Capitol.

Could you dig out sources for us on these two?

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?