911 Conspiracy Update: Was Flight 93 headed for WTC7?
 

Whether you're one of the approx 1 in 3 GFY 911 Truthers or someone who just follows the conspiracy for a bit of fun/debate/trolling etc. You might be interested to see the latest evolution of the 911 Conspiracy Theory. People are suggesting that WTC7 was also meant to have a plane in it (Flight 93) after the twin towers collapsed, meaning that there would then be a seemingly legit reason for a WTC7 collapse, but things didn't work out; Flight 93 had to be shot down and the WTC7 story had to be changed on the spot, with the controlled demo being delayed and the confusion (change of plan) even causing the BBC to accidentally announce the collapse of WTC7 before it had happened.

9/11 Shock Opera? Act 4 ? Building 7 and Flight 93: The Grand Finale that Wasn?t
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010...asn%E2%80%99t/

Flight 93 was headed for Building 7
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread840964/pg1

That's the latest news from Conspiracy Land

Just passing by ...

Building #7 bothers me ...

.

Where are cam vids of plane hitting pentagon, that is still off the air?

1/3 in your dreams..

A Smooth Move

If Flight 93 had gone into WTC7, the story would be much harder to break down. WTC7 has got a lot of people interested who wouldn't have otherwise given thought to this.

Locked in a safe to protect National Security

oh boy... you guys looooooooooooove 9/11 talk.

I always thought that flight 93 was going to hit the White House or the Capital Building.

All very approx, only a small sample size, but that's what this poll suggested https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1067663

It looked that way until point H on the flightpath, then it seems it was headed back to New York.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../UA93_path.svg

More pigshit...from the kooky.

What i cannot understand was why the WTC was hit first, if i was planning it, my main and first target would have been the white house.

lol, the BBC was in on it too?

Much harder to hit a small building like the white house

The BEEB said a lot of things on the day, i distinctly remember them saying at least one car bomb had gone off, maybe more.

The conspiracy side will say that the WTC was expendable, as they had already applied for controlled demos on 2 occasions and been turned down, whereas the White House is a nice place

The most important arm of government is the media, so if a criminal mafia do control the West, they would have put people loyal to them in key positions within the BBC

If it was a false flag, then like you say deaths would be very important for use in propaganda to convince people that a new war is necessary

Well, the Turks own, run, and control the media and monetary systems in both the US and the UK so...

Did I just say Turks, I meant to say...

The Globalist Banker's control it all for sure

Good point! This is what we see going on with vaccines, but that's for another thread

Did you get ass raped by a Turk? Oh sorry I meant to say a....

:1orglaugh

.

false flag.. controlled explosives..and cgi planes ( added into videos to go out on the airwaves)

and there was no plane shot down or crashed in a field..looked like scraps thrown in a hole in a field..no bodies no blood no engine or chairs.. same as all the other "planes" that crashed that day...no evidence left over that ANY PLANE crashed...and no I don't believe what I saw on TV..not anymore...if you do...then lets say Spiderman is real too


..WTC7 was brought down to cover the business paper trail in lower floors.

What is the basis for your statement?

:D

Look out. here comes a plane....DUCK!

http://opposingdigits.com/images/building7big.gif

Well, obviously all of the jet fuel and fires took down building 7.

What... no jet fuel? No plane?

How much insurance money, paid out to who?

Ummmm, nevermind...

If you have not yet seen this, take a look.



Ace Baker provides the best and most thorough analysis proving that real planes did not hit the WTC. Yes, it's very difficult to believe that the various videos and photos showing planes hitting the WTC on 9/11 were all digitally manipulated, and that the various lie-witnesses lied about seeing planes, and that the mainstream media video feed was compromised, but the facts presented in this video leave no doubt that the videos showing planes crashing into the WTC are digital deceptions.

How can you come out with CRAP like that with a straight face?
I saw the second fucking plane fly and hit the second tower LIVE. You are telling me some fucking out of this world entity was able to brain wash me in seeing something that was not?

And what about the 1000's of other people who saw it, who lived it, who saw the FUCKING PLANE BEARING DOWN ON THEM AND LIVE TO TELL THE TALE?

Pretty incredible there are people who believe shit like that!!!!

What about this?



https://youtube.com/watch?v=k2Trj_5J02k

It's all too easy to write such things off without investigating, but when Dcat posts we really should listen because he's one of the smartest posters on the board. So I will be taking the time to examine this video and other similar ones. At this moment in time it doesn't fit in to my own understanding, but now that Dcat has mentioned it I'll need to consider the evidence available.

That's a good one

Fair play, if you were there and saw the 2nd plane, you have an advantage. I've personally never doubted that there were planes, but I will watch the video as DCat posts some very good information

Your use of the term "proving" is weak. His video and "proof" would be hard to swallow even if the three network feeds described were the only ones available. But they weren't. There were dozes if not over a hundred amateur and professional videos of the plane-smacks...

When you say "LIVE" do you mean you were there? Because the video's contention is that live feeds were composited, quite incredibly.

:D

What do you think would happen, if one day it was proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the government, in cahoots with the media, totally lied to us about their version of the 911 story?

Discuss...

There would be criminal trials for those that were involved...but it will never be proven because it is a ridiculous laughable premise.

Absolutely nothing. As with the banks, they are all too big to fail. The U.S. government plotted this exact scenario before, it was discovered and reported, and what's been done - nothing.

Here's the article:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92...1#.T7WLVsWMFe4

live as in YOU were there or LIVE as in on TV? big fuckin difference chief

the premise is not laughable, but society is now so spoonfed, you shun anyone that might show something to the contrary ...ok so, on 9/11 I'm supposed to believe that 4 planes crashed and evaporated into thin air ( that is a historic 1st btw) and that 3 massive skyscrapers pancaked at free fall speed from the "heat and fire"...also another historic 1st

and that a building, 3 blocks away, tower 7 fell for no damn reason at all ( around 5 pm est) ( they didn't even mention it in the commission report) and most people don't even REMEMBER a 3rd building fell.

but paper passports of the hijackers found on the streets below

damn folks...wake up time is upon us.. I was once gung ho for war after this..but the years and the hiding of footage and sidetracking made me look deeper and deeper...got to admit..it changed my life and how I view everything now

Interesting.

It is called "brain storming" and is a common exercise in think tanks of various types...and is presented as an idea and not as an operational plan...end of story.

You are free to believe whatever you choose to believe however flawed your thinking may be...and it is flawed...as proven in your post.

They were written plans that had the Joint Cheifs of Staff's approval and sent on to the defense secretary. This went well beyond brain storming ideas.

I always viewed the "No Planes" theory as being Divide and Conquer. It would be a huge risk for them to have tried this with no planes, given that there are so many tourists roaming the streets of New York with their camcorders. I can't see any advantage of them not using real planes, unless they weren't confident of them hitting. Still, I didn't see with my own eyes, so I'll need to continue researching this one.

The video does make a direct 'divide and conquer' statement in the final minute

I can see why it would be worth preparing fake footage in advance, in case anything went wrong on the day. Fake footage might exist that was created before 9/11, but personally I still believe strongly that planes hit the buildings

Pigshit.

Did you even bother reading the article? It's fact. Hell, it even had an operational code name - Operation Northwoods. Read the article.

Yes I read the article...but I have been familiar with the information for years as provided by James Bamford. If you will reread the article...and pay attention to such words as "reportedly" and "as described by" etc. it may help you to understand when I call the information pigshit. It was never an operational plan and was basically no more than brainstorming. The military has tons of "plans" on the shelve...for virtually every imaginable event...that will never become operational plans but are there as "brain storming".

"Brain storming" about an attack from outside is valuable, but "Brain Storming" about organizing your own False Flag attack; that's of no use unless there's the possibility of making it operational.