Flight 93 was headed for Building 7

Half of you people have lost your damn mind. There is legitimate evidence to be explored and focused on, and instead most of the "truthers" are just wack jobs with half baked theories that make absolutely no sense.

No planes? bahahaha...that is just deliberate misinformation

Flying a jet into a building enclosed on 3 sides by taller buildings? For what purpose? Why not just sell the public on the idea that building 7 collapsed from the debris of two 110 story skyscrapers falling into it, causing massive fires that burned out of control for hours.....ya know, like the official story claims. If they were already willing to claim the twin towers can completely collapse from two jet impacts and the resultant "inferno", why bother complicating the situation by flying a third jet into a building less than half the size of the twins?

It would be more suspicious to me if a plane not only tried to hit building 7, but also succeeded. it's just a bad theory, i'm sorry. and these bad theories only help to discredit legit ones.

reply to post by RedGoneWILD


Not any more suspicious than 3 barely trained pilots hitting 3 building dead center. You might have thought that at least one of them hits it with the wing instead, or at least with the nose off center. But no they were all right on target. Quite a feat, unless it was just a matter of punching a couple of numbers into the autopilot.

you make a good point,but dont forget....
(flight) 93 + (w.t.c.) 7 = 100, 100= 100%
this proves you are 100% correct with your assumptions

reply to post by Cassius666

You might have thought that at least one of them hits it with the wing instead, or at least with the nose off center. But no they were all right on target.

You must be looking at a different WTC than I did.

The second WTC hit barely had both wings on target. The plane was banked quite a bit just to make that.

reply to post by Wonderer2012

It collapsed into it's own footrpint close to free fall speed and it came down almost vertically- even somebody with no engineering or physics knowledge should see the nature of the collapse is very odd.

Odd vertical collapse huh?
Yes, gravity is odd that way.

I have a theory about 9/11 too:

YOU WILL NOT FIND OUT THE TRUTH FOR ANOTHER FOUR DECADES. SO, LET - IT - GO!!

reply to post by Cassius666

But no they were all right on target. Quite a feat...

Intentionally crashing a plane is not as hard as you make it sound.
Landing safely however, now thats a feat.

reply to post by samkent


The point he is making is ... These amature pilots could not hit three targets with that accuracy , and it would have been a little more realistic if they actually missed one of the towers , or the pentagon , clipping a wing and hitting something else.

www.youtube.com...

Even that ^^ is far too accurate for an amature pilot.


...................................................................................................................................................... .
As for 93 heading to tower 7 .... i think 93 was supposed to go down / blow up as it did , everything that happened on "9/11" was supposed to happen.

But these people saying "the plane was facing the other way...yada yada" you need to think about the amazing capabilities these planes had , they made some pretty record breaking manouvers that day .... if they told you they were flying sideways you`d probably believe them .... so long as NIST put it in their report

(dodging the spelling police today)

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Cassius666

 

But no they were all right on target. Quite a feat...

Intentionally crashing a plane is not as hard as you make it sound.
Landing safely however, now thats a feat.

Really ? and what makes you say that ?
2nd

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Thank you, I had never seen this. I watched the whole damn thing, all 40m. Strikes a chord with me.

I am dying here. I have never seen so many kooks, fran and ollies with their heads so far up the garbage chute. This has taken the ATS tagline of "Deny Ignorance" and turned it up on end..."Embrace Idiocy" should be the tag line for this thread. No Plane Theory, really, is the only refuge for the total and utter deniers who cannot wrap theyr little pea brains around the fact that it was suicidal hijackers who commandeered the aircraft and flew them into the biggest symbols of American power.

Keep it up, boys and girls! Some of the best belly laughs on the intertubes here at ATS!

Originally posted by RockLobster

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Cassius666

 

But no they were all right on target. Quite a feat...

Intentionally crashing a plane is not as hard as you make it sound.
Landing safely however, now thats a feat.

Really ? and what makes you say that ?
2nd

Any pilot will tell you that safely landing a plane is the most difficult skill to learn. The first time it is successfully done is a milestone in their training. You don't know that? Good day.

Originally posted by trebor451
I am dying here. I have never seen so many kooks, fran and ollies with their heads so far up the garbage chute. This has taken the ATS tagline of "Deny Ignorance" and turned it up on end..."Embrace Idiocy" should be the tag line for this thread. No Plane Theory, really, is the only refuge for the total and utter deniers who cannot wrap theyr little pea brains around the fact that it was suicidal hijackers who commandeered the aircraft and flew them into the biggest symbols of American power.

Keep it up, boys and girls! Some of the best belly laughs on the intertubes here at ATS!

BUT ........ this thread is not about the no plane theory , and even us "truthers" are split on that theory , so isnt your post ignorant ?

"suicidal hijackers who commandeered the aircraft and flew them into the biggest symbols of American power."

Oh.... youre one of THOSE Americans .... "Hoorah" "in god we trust".. all that tripe ...i bet you think you`re a "patriot" too

reply to post by intrptr


This i know , but this ---> "Intentionally crashing a plane is not as hard as you make it sound "

Listen , there is pilots who say they couldnt make the manouvers that those planes did that day , let alone hit both towers , and bring a jet down to about 20 feet (if that) to slam into the pentagon ..... these "hijackers" couldnt even fly small planes.

I cant believe these people say WE`RE crazy.

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by RedGoneWILD

 

Not any more suspicious than 3 barely trained pilots hitting 3 building dead center. You might have thought that at least one of them hits it with the wing instead, or at least with the nose off center. But no they were all right on target. Quite a feat, unless it was just a matter of punching a couple of numbers into the autopilot.

You might have a point if it wasn't for the fact that the WTC Towers were the tallest buildings in New York and the Pentagon is the largest office building in the world.

What do you reckon the "dead center" of a Pentagon is anyway ?

reply to post by Alfie1


How wide were the towers ? how wide were the planes ? how fast were they going ? .... c`mon

Originally posted by trebor451
I am dying here. I have never seen so many kooks, fran and ollies with their heads so far up the garbage chute. This has taken the ATS tagline of "Deny Ignorance" and turned it up on end..."Embrace Idiocy" should be the tag line for this thread. No Plane Theory, really, is the only refuge for the total and utter deniers who cannot wrap theyr little pea brains around the fact that it was suicidal hijackers who commandeered the aircraft and flew them into the biggest symbols of American power.

Keep it up, boys and girls! Some of the best belly laughs on the intertubes here at ATS!

Wow dude, way to enter a thread and completely derail it by bashing those on the opposing end of you. Your argument totally showed me the truth and I no longer have to question anything. All praise trebor for his amazing contribution to the 9/11 forums as well as his achievements outside of the internet. You are one convincing person, I must say. You should be a lawyer or something, for real. You have the strongest points with the strongest evidence to offer. How could I have been so dumb to question anything I'm told by the government? How could I be so dumb in thinking the government would ever try to cover anything up? Damn, I really idolize you bro. When I have children I really hope they grow up to be just like you. But then again, that might require a lot of dumbing down & massive amounts of ADD/ADHD medication as well as several other chemicals that could brainwash them to believe anything/everything they're told.

I must say, I don't really believe in the NWO , but people like you really give me a reason to believe it. You really are a prime example that shows how ignorant some people can be and how easily they can be manipulated. I don't know if you've accomplished the power to freely think for yourself, but if you have, try and expand those horizons just a little bit. Your Hulk Hogan-Real American-True Patriot side seems to shine through as bright as the sun. I'm glad you stand for anything/everything your government does.

Most likely a phrase trebor has used in his lifetime: "Bomb them towel heads!"

How does this theory not make sense? It is relatively straightforward. They would have WTC rigged with so many explosives that they wouldn't have wanted to attempt to get them all out unnoticed. Because before this incident, all eyes were elsewhere and it was easier to plant the charges covertly over a period of time...But after the towers start collapsing, ALL eyes are on that area, and attempting to cart out that much explosive material unseen is next to impossible.

I think that is why they went ahead and blew the building. There is sufficient evidence that points to the plane being shot down. Multiple witnesses stating the same thing, who did not talk with each or work out some story...And it fits with what is found at the crash site. I always knew there was something fishy about a few of those details, but I never have had anyone put together a theory that was entirely believable for me....Until now.

This explanation just makes perfect sense, and it is so simple that I am surprised I haven't heard of it until now. The actions of the hijackers blatantly suggest that they had some sort of inside help. I mean think about it. What was happening on that day? What exercises? What were they training for? Not only that, but the stand-down order recently implemented at that time...How did the terrorists know that they would not be intercepted immediately? Luck? Haha.

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by Alfie1

 

How wide were the towers ? how wide were the planes ? how fast were they going ? .... c`mon

The Towers were 208 ft wide and the planes had a wingspan of 156 ft so 52 ft to spare.

Runways at international airports are usually less than 200 ft wide. So here we have buildings wider than runways and conveniently sticking up over 1300 ft in the air.

Originally posted by RedGoneWILD
Half of you people have lost your damn mind. There is legitimate evidence to be explored and focused on, and instead most of the "truthers" are just wack jobs with half baked theories that make absolutely no sense.

No planes? bahahaha...that is just deliberate misinformation

Flying a jet into a building enclosed on 3 sides by taller buildings? For what purpose? Why not just sell the public on the idea that building 7 collapsed from the debris of two 110 story skyscrapers falling into it, causing massive fires that burned out of control for hours.....ya know, like the official story claims. If they were already willing to claim the twin towers can completely collapse from two jet impacts and the resultant "inferno", why bother complicating the situation by flying a third jet into a building less than half the size of the twins?

It would be more suspicious to me if a plane not only tried to hit building 7, but also succeeded. it's just a bad theory, i'm sorry. and these bad theories only help to discredit legit ones.

edit on 17-5-2012 by RedGoneWILD because: (no reason given)

Two people have come in here saying that WTC7 was surrounded by buildings.

Before WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed, you couldn't fly a plane into WTC7. That makes sense so explains the hijackers delay- they waited over 45 mins to take over the plane- it was designed to give the towers time to collapse to make way for the final strike on WTC7.

They were then a flight path back east, in fact, the final flight path shows that as the plane was heading east, it turned to be north east and travelled that way for 5-6 minutes- directly to New York.

The official account says this course change was due to the passengers taking back the plane- so just another coincidence in the 9/11 plot it would seem.

IF flight 93 was heading back to New York- given it crashed at 10:03am in Shanksville and still had approx 45 mins to reach New York, both towers would have collapsed before it arrived, hence leaving a direct clear path to hit WTC7.

As pointed out in the OP- that at least makes sense as a theory and explains the delay on the hijackers part.

Think about what the official account is saying-

1- That the hijackers wanted to head to Washington DC yet let the plane fly west for 45 minutes before hijacking it and taking it to DC. If they wanted to strike the white house why would they wait to hijack the plane when they could take it over straight away and head south rather than travel West?

The official account makes no sense when the hijackers would have known both towers would have been hit before they reached DC and almost certainly shot down by the airforce (as did happen!).

If you want to believe yet another coincidence that flight 93 flew on a direct path to New York for 5-6 minutes as a result of tussle between the passengers and hijackers, then you're a coincidence theorist.