IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

If Plan B For Wtc7 Is Too Obvious, What Was Plan A?, Possible scenario for original plan for destruction of WTC7

pollyanna
post Apr 14 2015, 01:59 AM
Post #1





Group: Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: 25-May 14
Member No.: 7,824



The collapse of WTC7 is such a dead giveaway it seems natural to conclude that it was not part of the 911 event as originally conceived. Surely no planners with their marbles intact would incorporate this obviously artificial collapse into the events of the day, unless they were forced into it by circumstances beyond their control. The question arises therefore, what was the original plan for WTC7’s collapse and how did this fit into the overall scheme? After a diligent search of the internet I can only find variations of the following scenarios:

1. UA93 was intended to hit WTC7 after the WTC1&2 hits but since the hijackers were overcome by the passengers, the plane or its clone could not make it to the scene. The building was therefore demolished to prevent the inevitable discovery of the preinstalled explosive charges.

2. The building was not intended to be hit by a plane but was supposed to be collapsed while covered with the dust cloud generated by the fall of the adjacent WTC1 North Tower. The charges failed to detonate perhaps due to radio interference from the dust cloud or some other technical malfunction. Therefore the building had to be demolished later in the day.

But why bother with setting up a plane hijack just to strike another small building after the humungous mind-boggling main event? Hiding the collapse under a dust cloud makes more sense but then again was there actually any compelling reason to destroy WTC7 anyway? I therefore remained perplexed by this issue until I read “Methodical Illusion” a recently published novel about the 911 events written by Rebekah Roth, a former flight attendant. I bit the bullet and plowed through the novelistic dross to see what was on offer. Here is Ms Roth’s take on Flight 93:

“After a long period of silence, Jim asked, “The last flight was United 93 . How does its flight time and phone calls work with our theory?” “Flight 93 left Newark at 8 :42— it was forty-one minutes late getting off the ground,” Vera reported. “That could have caused a problem for either hijackers or handlers,” Jim interjected.
“Yes, it could have. Could this plane have been what was supposed to hit Building 7? Remember, it wasn’t hit by any plane or even much debris from the towers and it fell down at free-fall speed and looked exactly like a controlled demolition. What if it was supposed to look like Flight 93 was the plane that hit that building? Since nothing did hit it, why did it fall down into its own footprint at 5: 20 that afternoon?” Vera asked. “Clearly that late departure messed up their plans. If it was scheduled to depart at eight o’clock, it could’ve been meant to hit Building 7 first, shortly after eight o’clock.”

--Methodical Illusion Ch 32


Now some of Ms Roth’s numbers are wrong here. According to the official timeline UA93 was scheduled to depart the gate at 8.00am and in normal circumstances would have taken off at approximately 8.15. Due to airport traffic delays it did not take off until 8.42 and so was only about 25 minutes late. Nevertheless, considering that Newark is close to New York UA93 could have been hijacked within 15 minutes after take off and could have been back in New York in another 15 minutes. If it took off as scheduled at 8.15 it could therefore have hit WTC7 by about 8.45, coincidentally about the same time of the first plane strike as it actually happened.

Considering the 911 attack as a pre-planned media event it becomes immediately obvious why this was, in my opinion, probably the original plan. Ideally the planners would want reams of good quality video of both hits to the towers, but since the attack is supposed to be a surprise how do they solve the problem of getting footage of the first hit? Clearly the Naudet brothers were set up to get this and succeeded admirably, but to rely on this to work as the originally planned method of getting the footage always seemed a rather tenuous way to go about it in my opinion. I think the Naudets were in fact the backup plan to get the video of the first tower hit if the original plan failed.

The original plan was to have UA93 come in, either from the north, south or west, do a spectacular miss of the towers and plow into WTC7. There is now a big fireball at the WTC and news cameras, helicopters and private video cameras are rushed to the scene. The hijacking of AA11 is then adjusted so that it arrives 15-20 minutes later. There are now plenty of video resources focusing on the towers to get footage of the first hit. AA175 then can either come in almost simultaneously or 15 minutes later depending on preference. Suitable video is thereby obtained of BOTH tower hits. This plan would have resulted in an even more spectacular media event than actually occurred, and the event that actually occurred was plenty spectacular anyway.

An additional advantage of this plan is that since one of the planes has missed its (apparently) intended target, this acts as a counterfoil to any perceived problem of how the incompetent terrorists were otherwise able to manage three hits with such great precision. If any conspiracy nut wants to know how these inept pilots were able to hit their targets, all the OCT believer has to do is point to WTC7 and say “Well, one of the pilots did miss after all so there”.

As the events actually unfolded however, the operations team realized by 8.15 that UA93 was stuck in a queue at Newark and was not going to take off any time soon. The plan was then switched to a backup plan, which was to have AA11 make the first hit and rely on the Naudets for the footage. UA93 was then allowed to cruise until the backup plan for it too was implemented. This was to stage a fake heroic passenger takeover and fly the plane into its prearranged crash site with the convenient soft ground to cover the incriminating remains.

In the above scenario I have implicitly assumed that each of the original planes was at some point replaced with its identical remotely controlled drone, perhaps modified for extra speed etc. Whether this was feasible I don’t know, but I assume that if the military can insert blips into civilian radars for drill purposes as is claimed, then they can also delete them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
amazed!
post Apr 17 2015, 09:12 AM
Post #2





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



It's good to see such discussion.

I'm wondering what evidence there is, for those who hold the view, that 93 was shot down?

It seems to me that the ACARS data contradicts any theory that 93 was shot down, not to mention the conflicting stories "proved" by its FDR.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
excontroller
post Jun 8 2015, 10:07 AM
Post #3





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 28-December 09
From: Ypsilanti, MI
Member No.: 4,819



QUOTE (amazed! @ Apr 17 2015, 08:12 AM) *
It's good to see such discussion.

I'm wondering what evidence there is, for those who hold the view, that 93 was shot down?

It seems to me that the ACARS data contradicts any theory that 93 was shot down, not to mention the conflicting stories "proved" by its FDR.


ACARS data only refutes UA93 was shot down....not that SOME aircraft was shot down. There are so damn many anomalies and so much evidence that the stuff gets mixed up. I still think there were other aircraft involved, where the real flights were transferred during flight, meaning the radar data tags were exchanged to another aircraft, who then became the flight in question. The lack of body parts and such just do NOT lend themselves to the flights who were REPORTED to have crashed at each site. Never before have bodies been VAPORIZED in a crash. It just does NOT happen like that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jun 13 2015, 10:35 AM
Post #4





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (excontroller @ Jun 8 2015, 10:07 AM) *
ACARS data only refutes UA93 was shot down....not that SOME aircraft was shot down. There are so damn many anomalies and so much evidence that the stuff gets mixed up. I still think there were other aircraft involved, where the real flights were transferred during flight, meaning the radar data tags were exchanged to another aircraft, who then became the flight in question. The lack of body parts and such just do NOT lend themselves to the flights who were REPORTED to have crashed at each site. Never before have bodies been VAPORIZED in a crash. It just does NOT happen like that.


IMO, there is no case at all that 93 was shot down. I challenged somebody on this thread to make the case for a shootdown, but no reply.

ACARS simply shows that 93 was still airborne somewhere in Illinois 30 minutes after the government says it crashed at Shanksville.

There is no case it was shot down, but perhaps somebody can make a case for that scenario.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic


Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 14th October 2019 - 04:23 AM