Flight 93 was headed for Building 7

reply to post by intrptr


Speaking of WWII, the government was planning on using drone "kamikazes" way back then in a mission involving JFK's brother...

On the 31st July 1944 a U.S.N. special air unit, codenamed Project Anvil, moved to Fersfield from Dunkeswell in Devon. The mission was to involve the use of explosive-laden PB4Y-1 Liberator bombers under radio control. The crew of two, Lt Joe Kennedy (pilot), and Lt. Wilford John Willy (radio control technician/co-pilot), were to take off with 21,150 lbs of Torpex in 347 boxes and establish radio control of the Liberator by a Ventura mother-ship. Once full control was established and tested, at a pre-determined point the crew would parachute from the aircraft through the nose wheel bay emergency exit and the bomber would continue the rest of its mission under radio control, finally crashing onto the target.

Source

Let's not even touch Operation Northwoods from the 60's.

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

You are assuming a lot of things. We don't know, and never will know, why the hi-jack happened 46 minutes into the flight. They were a man short on that flight and perhaps had to be more careful with their timing. I suspect they waited for flight attendants to offer the flight crew refreshments and burst in then.

If you think it was a deliberate delay this doesn't make sense because UA 93 took off 42 minutes late. So, to keep to schedule, they should have taken over the plane 3 minutes in.

You are also assuming the hi-jackers knew exactly when the Towers would fall. I haven't seen any evidence that anyone in the world knew that.

You haven't addressed why the plane was on a steady south east heading, to Washington, until the last minutes when we do know from the cockpit voice recorder that the passengers were attempting to take back the plane. Nor why the hi-jackers had dialled up the VOR for Reagan National Airport.

And why on earth should a plan of such complexity, depending on the Towers falling at precise times, be devised to take out a building most had never heard of ?

- You're also assuming I mean 'hijackers' literally as in the 19 hijackers of the official story.

- By hijackers, we don't even know the planes were hijacked. They may well have been, they could also have been controlled remotely- the technology to hijack a plane remotely has been around for years.

- I don't for one second think the 19 hijackers listed carried out these hijackings, the Pentagon hit is impossible for an amateur pilot. Alfie, do you think an amateur pilot unable to control a small plane could navigate a plane the size of a Boeing into the Pentagon with the flight path it took?

- Regarding the direction of the plane, it was heading east, and actually adjusted course slightly and headed directly to New York for 5-6 minutes before 'crashing'. The flight path illustrations show this.

- So I guess it was just another coincidence of events they waited just long enough into the flight that meant a flight back to WTC7 would happen approx twenty minutes after both towers had collapsed and left a flight path into WTC7? Coincidence right?

If you are going to eliminate hijackers from the equation and insert radio-control I think that , in common truther tradition, you haven't considered what must flow from that. It means that maintenance staff at United Airlines were in on it. You would expect the aircraft to be out of service for a while but there is no evidence of that. The many phone calls from passengers to loved ones, speaking of the hi-jacking, must have been faked in some fabulous way. The cockpit voice recorder showing the increasing desperation of the hi-jackers must have been faked. The flight data recorder which shows the final desperate manoeuvres and the fatal dive which tie in with the cvr must have been faked.

You keep saying the aircraft was headed east but it wasn't. It was headed south east until the final desperate minutes. Anyone can take a look at the flightpath and see for themselves so I am not going to debate that any further with you.

Your timing is nonsense because you wont take into account that UA 93 took off 42 minutes late so they should have initiated the hi-jack 3 or 4 minutes into the flight.

You also continue to ignore that they dialled up the VOR for Reagan National Airport and that OBL's driver has said the target was "the Dome".

Originally posted by intrptr
Listen , there is pilots who say they couldnt make the manouvers that those planes did that day
I agree. Pilots know best the capabilities of their aircraft. During WWII Kamikaze planes flew into moving ships piloted by boys, some with just a few hours of flight time. They trained for these attacks in twin seated trainers and weren't taught to land either. The instructor landed for them at the end of their "lesson". Sound familiar?

There were rumors that the hijackers had no interest in landing, yet that's essentially what Flight 77 had to do to hit the Pentagon. Is it just irony or discrediting to your theory? You decide

reply to post by thedman


Your image link is broke. From the all-knowing wikipedia, too I wonder what expert loaded that one up?

The smoke would be a visibility issue.... assuming it was being flown by the naked eye.

Technology's been around since way before 9/11 to fly an aircraft remotely, some even incorporating the use of IR imaging.

A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the first unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean.
...
The Global Hawk, a jet-powered aircraft with a wingspan equivalent to a Boeing 737, flew from Edwards Air Force Base in California and landed late on Monday at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh, in South Australia state.
...
The Global Hawk flies along a pre-programmed flight path, but a pilot monitors the aircraft during its flight via a sensor suite which provides infra-red and visual images.

[web.archive.org/web/20010707000937/(http)://itn.co.uk/news/20010424/world/05robotplane.shtm]
Remove parentheses

What's the date on that? April 24, 2001? Impossible!

What did I lose again?

reply to post by Alfie1


Why would you expect the aircraft to be "out of service?"

Remote FMS have been on planes since the 70's

And you like to use the VOR input of Reagan National. Fact is, it had to be approved by an FAA employee. IF it was even requested by the "hijacker." It was changed in the FAA computers as can only be done from an FAA computer. The 9/11 CR lays out the speculative story (as is most of it) that it was first dialed and requested from the cockpit.

Originally posted by Alfie1
The many phone calls from passengers to loved ones, speaking of the hi-jacking, must have been faked in some fabulous way. The cockpit voice recorder showing the increasing desperation of the hi-jackers must have been faked. The flight data recorder which shows the final desperate manoeuvres and the fatal dive which tie in with the cvr must have been faked.

Hasn't it been proven that cell phones were not able to make calls from the planes? I'm not 100% sure myself, which is why I'm asking. I mean, I heard some of the callsfor the first time the other day and they just don't sound too convincing. There's no panic in any of their voices and I'm pretty sure in one of them you can hear someone say "you did great!" at the end of one of the calls. I'm not saying they were definitely fake, but it adds to my suspicions as to what happened on flight 93.

One air traffic controller with the help of an assistant monitored the two Boeing 767s that toppled the World Trade Center, the employee said.
The same controller handled Egypt Air Flight 990 when it crashed off the coast of Massachusetts in 1999, the employee said. The controller is "pretty disturbed" that he lost both planes, the employee said.

www.usatoday.com...

Hmm... Same air controller for EgyptAir 990 - another one of those darned Muslims suiciding a plane from two years previous to 9/11? What a coincidence. Not even going to get into the mysteries surrounding that plane's curious descent, but ironically, one of the only intact pieces of the flight recovered was the cockpit voice recorder.

Killed 30 of Egypt's top military officials. Couldn't have them hang around for the coming revolution, huh?

Fire Men Say Explosions ! Civilians Say Explosions !

WTC 7 - Pull It By Larry Silverstein



Some of you are saying What ! Pull it !!

They dont Use that Term!! in Demolition!!!!

BS!! they Sure did...... it was Common language say back in the 50s to the 70s !

Some Debunker are saying Pull it was Meaning Evacuating Civilians and Firemen Out of the Building !

Here is what a Crew Member of the Demolition Clean Up PULLING Fricken Building 6!!!
From the Aftermath of the Tragic day of September 11th 2001
Hes SAYS !! PULL Very Clear !!!!!!


Right Here Below !! Listen to that Clean UP Crew Member say PULL IT on Building 6 !

and Some Of you People Say that the Term doesn't Exist in the Demolition Occupational; Field Lingo !!!



Pull It?



Larry Silverstein admits to having demolished wtc building 7


Now your says Pull means By Cables! not Explosives! Right...

Ive Asked that to Some Iron Workers that made those buildings in New York City!!

Pull was Used also to bringing Down Old Buildings Clearing for the New Buildings ! and Used Explosives !!!

and Cables !!! to Direct the way the building will Fall ....

My my thought is the Term PULL is Bring it Down!!!!

Yeah we are going To Pull this ONE and This One .... and that One Over there !


Bring Down = Pull Pull = Bring Down


SO that the Big Debate of the Term Pull !

I Also say the 4th Plane was meant for Building 7

But... that little Slip up of ....


Rumsfeld slips up and admits flight 93 shot down

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here Folks !

Just WOW !!!!! why wasn't this Caught!!!!!!

Dick Cheney admits Flight 93 was shot down / ALSO REFER TO VIDEO RESPONSE

The point of this video is many lies were told in the 9/11 commission's report. The 9/11 commission doesn't state 93 was shot down. The 9/11 truthers have been saying ever since that day it was shot down. This confession coupled with so much other evidence helps to prove what we've known for years. When you do the research and stop relying on assumptions.....it is a no brainer. Chris Wallace mentions a very specific plane when he says to Dick "You are the one that gave the direct order to shoot down a plane that you were told as it turns out incorrectly was headed for Washington". Dick goes on to prove it was 93 when he mentions the other 3 planes in question on that day. That 3 being the 2 planes that went into the towers and the 3rd plane that allegedly went into the Pentagon. That left only 1 plane and that plane was 93.

and here is something to think about

What caused this huge crater in the WTC 6 that went all the way down to its basement?
thewebfairy.com...

reply to post by Wonderer2012


I buy into a lot of what you say but have one question that really bugs me. What was in building 7 that was so important to bring down? Does anyone have the answer?

reply to post by jlm912

Yah I remember that. Thinking that back then remote control by radio could produce enough signal to initiate electric blasting caps. The last thing Kennedy did before bailout was a) arm the on board explosives and b) throw the switch that activated the receiver for the remote pilot of the aircraft to fly into target. It is theorized that throwing that switch was what detonated the planes explosive charge with Kennedy still inside. These were unmanned guided weapons technology of their day.

Germans had another "Maverick" type guided missile fired from the wing of an aircraft that relied on new TV camera and screen and remote radio control. Once fired, the operator in the plane guided the weapon to target by watching the view in the cockpit transmitted from the TV camera in missile nose cone. Then RC guidance with a joy stick helped steer the warhead into its target. This was a late development during the war and saw limited but successful use in the Mediterranean engaging ships in convoys. One plane, one missile, one hit. Here is vid of a wire guided variant taking out a simulated ship target.


German Luftwaffe also had suicide missions designed to thwart allied bombers by colliding with them over Europe. This was also a later stage development used in desperation by Nazi High Command. These were modified armored planes and props designed to close from behind and cutoff tail sections or noses of 8th air force bombers. They intended to survive as well by bailing out after impact.

German Kamikaze

And of course, the Japanese "Cherry Blossom" suicide cruise missile. Very scary from both the delivery and receiving ends.

Japanese Ohka

Siech Heil! Bonzai! Allahu Akbar! Nuts...

I guess if you are losing, or you are under equipped then there is but one alternative for destroying your enemy.

reply to post by jlm912


130 Liberty St - Deutsche Bank




Remote Control Now...?

Like most truthers when confronted with reality toss another piece of excrement to see if it sticks.......

According to all evidence the planes were flown by live hijackers - in case of United 175 almost missed the
South Tower

Has to throw it into steep last second bank to catch Southeast corner

So why wasn;t that remote controlled....?

Originally posted by homervb

 

There were rumors that the hijackers had no interest in landing, yet that's essentially what Flight 77 had to do to hit the Pentagon. Is it just irony or discrediting to your theory? You decide

That was hardly a landing approach. A barely controlled descent and low pass maybe.
I know, different airplane and skilled pilot. Like in here at :26.


Comparing this to a landing is like comparing a "drive by" shooting to parallel parking.

OP,


I think you know I'm on your side That's the first thing I'd like to say .
I haven't read through all the pages/comments but I want to ask you this:
So what?

And so what......if what I think: the white van was involved and was headed towards WTC 7 too
I mean, how is that relevant to finding out what REALLY happened?

Don't you think we have enough real-event stuff to siphon through without adding the 'what ifs'?

Again, I am asking this respectfully because perhaps I am overlooking something that would help break open this case. So could you tell me how this is pertinent to finding out the truth because so far, we haven't heard officially anything remotely CLOSE to the truth

Thanks!

reply to post by jlm912


Try again - 130 Liberty St

en.wikipedia.org...

What's funny about this is all the contradictory statements within one conspiracy theory. So the plane was shot down because it was heading for WTC 7 but since it got shot down, they just blew it up?

reply to post by boncho


An aircraft that is blown up in mid flight by the missile of another aircraft has been shot down. Those are just the terms. Just because the aircraft doesn't physically fall to the ground in one piece, if at all, doesn't negate the use of the phrase.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Insolubrious

 

Don't see what would have been a "schedule" problem. UA 93 went down at 10.03 127 miles from Washington. It could easily have arrived in Washington and crashed into the Capitol before the North WTC Tower fell at 10.28.

Yes, but the first collapse of the south tower was finished by 10:00, U93 was taken down just minutes later. The intention may of been to get all the planes to their targets before the south tower collapse or it was considered a failure for some reason. If the target was wtc7, the ash from the south tower probably would of made the approach impossible.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

You are assuming a lot of things. We don't know, and never will know, why the hi-jack happened 46 minutes into the flight. They were a man short on that flight and perhaps had to be more careful with their timing. I suspect they waited for flight attendants to offer the flight crew refreshments and burst in then.

If you think it was a deliberate delay this doesn't make sense because UA 93 took off 42 minutes late. So, to keep to schedule, they should have taken over the plane 3 minutes in.

You are also assuming the hi-jackers knew exactly when the Towers would fall. I haven't seen any evidence that anyone in the world knew that.

You haven't addressed why the plane was on a steady south east heading, to Washington, until the last minutes when we do know from the cockpit voice recorder that the passengers were attempting to take back the plane. Nor why the hi-jackers had dialled up the VOR for Reagan National Airport.

And why on earth should a plan of such complexity, depending on the Towers falling at precise times, be devised to take out a building most had never heard of ?

- You're also assuming I mean 'hijackers' literally as in the 19 hijackers of the official story.

- By hijackers, we don't even know the planes were hijacked. They may well have been, they could also have been controlled remotely- the technology to hijack a plane remotely has been around for years.

- I don't for one second think the 19 hijackers listed carried out these hijackings, the Pentagon hit is impossible for an amateur pilot. Alfie, do you think an amateur pilot unable to control a small plane could navigate a plane the size of a Boeing into the Pentagon with the flight path it took?

- Regarding the direction of the plane, it was heading east, and actually adjusted course slightly and headed directly to New York for 5-6 minutes before 'crashing'. The flight path illustrations show this.

- So I guess it was just another coincidence of events they waited just long enough into the flight that meant a flight back to WTC7 would happen approx twenty minutes after both towers had collapsed and left a flight path into WTC7? Coincidence right?

If you are going to eliminate hijackers from the equation and insert radio-control I think that , in common truther tradition, you haven't considered what must flow from that. It means that maintenance staff at United Airlines were in on it. You would expect the aircraft to be out of service for a while but there is no evidence of that. The many phone calls from passengers to loved ones, speaking of the hi-jacking, must have been faked in some fabulous way. The cockpit voice recorder showing the increasing desperation of the hi-jackers must have been faked. The flight data recorder which shows the final desperate manoeuvres and the fatal dive which tie in with the cvr must have been faked.

You keep saying the aircraft was headed east but it wasn't. It was headed south east until the final desperate minutes. Anyone can take a look at the flightpath and see for themselves so I am not going to debate that any further with you.

Your timing is nonsense because you wont take into account that UA 93 took off 42 minutes late so they should have initiated the hi-jack 3 or 4 minutes into the flight.

You also continue to ignore that they dialled up the VOR for Reagan National Airport and that OBL's driver has said the target was "the Dome".

As I said, I don't know if the plane was phsyically hijacked, or whether it was remote control assisted? I admitted that and how would I possibly know?

How do we know the phone calls from the planes are real?

Perhaps the plane was landed and the passengers killed before the intended strikes?

We can only speculate, but given some the of the hijackers themselves have been proven to be alive since 9/11, then do not take this as you being right!

reply to post by homervb

Hasn't it been proven that cell phones were not able to make calls from the planes? I'm not 100% sure myself, which is why I'm asking.

I think what was working were the plane cell phones. This is from memory (i'm not sure either) . Personal cell phone calls on board planes were allowed on the ground and in flight but not during take off and landing because they might interfere and garble communications with the towers. This could become serious if communication for landing or takeoff instructions became confused. NOT because cell phones are more powerful than plane radios, but because the planes radio can pick up and transmit the carrier signal from a cell phone when the pilot keys his mike. This is due to the close proximity of the cell phone transmitter as opposed to the tower transmitters and receivers. Get it? Thats not supposed to happen but it has and that is why they did not allow personal cell calls on take off and landing. During 911 the call load was heavy but the planes seat back cell phones were working (off and on). Planes have more powerful carrier signal so dropped calls and no signal problems were less bothersome while airborne.

Atta made a call on his personal cell phone to another high jacker while sitting on the runway. Stewardesses from hick jacked aircraft called airlines using seat back cell phones on board during flight. So did some passengers, especially on flight 93. These recorded calls sound clearer than personal cell calls because of the planes on board systems. I don't know about the reliability of any personal calls made by private cell calls that day (dropped calls and such).

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

You are assuming a lot of things. We don't know, and never will know, why the hi-jack happened 46 minutes into the flight. They were a man short on that flight and perhaps had to be more careful with their timing. I suspect they waited for flight attendants to offer the flight crew refreshments and burst in then.

If you think it was a deliberate delay this doesn't make sense because UA 93 took off 42 minutes late. So, to keep to schedule, they should have taken over the plane 3 minutes in.

You are also assuming the hi-jackers knew exactly when the Towers would fall. I haven't seen any evidence that anyone in the world knew that.

You haven't addressed why the plane was on a steady south east heading, to Washington, until the last minutes when we do know from the cockpit voice recorder that the passengers were attempting to take back the plane. Nor why the hi-jackers had dialled up the VOR for Reagan National Airport.

And why on earth should a plan of such complexity, depending on the Towers falling at precise times, be devised to take out a building most had never heard of ?

- You're also assuming I mean 'hijackers' literally as in the 19 hijackers of the official story.

- By hijackers, we don't even know the planes were hijacked. They may well have been, they could also have been controlled remotely- the technology to hijack a plane remotely has been around for years.

- I don't for one second think the 19 hijackers listed carried out these hijackings, the Pentagon hit is impossible for an amateur pilot. Alfie, do you think an amateur pilot unable to control a small plane could navigate a plane the size of a Boeing into the Pentagon with the flight path it took?

- Regarding the direction of the plane, it was heading east, and actually adjusted course slightly and headed directly to New York for 5-6 minutes before 'crashing'. The flight path illustrations show this.

- So I guess it was just another coincidence of events they waited just long enough into the flight that meant a flight back to WTC7 would happen approx twenty minutes after both towers had collapsed and left a flight path into WTC7? Coincidence right?

If you are going to eliminate hijackers from the equation and insert radio-control I think that , in common truther tradition, you haven't considered what must flow from that. It means that maintenance staff at United Airlines were in on it. You would expect the aircraft to be out of service for a while but there is no evidence of that. The many phone calls from passengers to loved ones, speaking of the hi-jacking, must have been faked in some fabulous way. The cockpit voice recorder showing the increasing desperation of the hi-jackers must have been faked. The flight data recorder which shows the final desperate manoeuvres and the fatal dive which tie in with the cvr must have been faked.

You keep saying the aircraft was headed east but it wasn't. It was headed south east until the final desperate minutes. Anyone can take a look at the flightpath and see for themselves so I am not going to debate that any further with you.

Your timing is nonsense because you wont take into account that UA 93 took off 42 minutes late so they should have initiated the hi-jack 3 or 4 minutes into the flight.

You also continue to ignore that they dialled up the VOR for Reagan National Airport and that OBL's driver has said the target was "the Dome".

As I said, I don't know if the plane was phsyically hijacked, or whether it was remote control assisted? I admitted that and how would I possibly know?

How do we know the phone calls from the planes are real?

Perhaps the plane was landed and the passengers killed before the intended strikes?

We can only speculate, but given some the of the hijackers themselves have been proven to be alive since 9/11, then do not take this as you being right!

Here's a link for one of the passengers-

www.911myths.com...

'Mom? It's Mark Bingham...'

Mark Bingham's mother- interview on what I assume to be 12/9/2001

So the day after 9/11-



Alfie, even you sir, have to admit this is kind of weird?

She even says Senator John Mcain at one point? Where is the emotion?

The last thing I EVER EVER want to do is insult the many thousands of victims of 9/11 but I cannot believe this is real.

"Incidently he IS a real big supporter of senator John Mcain...we hope this horrible set of events will help bring the American people together in a real effort against this kind of terrorism..."

Her son has just died yesterday and she's talking like this?

You may think I'm evil for saying this, but I've cried many times thinking about 9/11 and the pain it caused to the victims and their families, I just want people to know the official account is BS, no woman could hold herself together this well IMO, a day after 9/11- I don't believe it...I'm sorry I don't.