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 )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
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
excontroller
post Apr 14 2015, 08:45 AM
Post #2





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 103
Joined: 28-December 09
From: Ypsilanti, MI
Member No.: 4,819



QUOTE (pollyanna @ Apr 14 2015, 12:59 AM) *
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.



Don't forget, UA93 was most probably SHOT DOWN. Too large a debris field for a crash. Secondly, you are correct about inserting and deleting radar targets, either WITH transponder data tags or without. Besides THAT, back in my day (35 years ago), occasionally, intermittent raw radar returns (blips with no data) would appear and then disappear without reference to real targets, usually out of sync, meaning they could be 90 degrees, or even 180 degrees out of phase (they would appear to the right or left 90 degrees or even opposite side of radar indicator, at the 180 from a real target. As far as the real plan, I have come to believe that ALL the equipment in the Mayor's bunker in WTC7 was there to laser-guide the planes into their intended targets. I trust pilots who say it couldn't be done by a person in the plane! That's what also leads me to believe the "thing" that hit the Pentagon was NOT a Boeing but had to be something smaller and also laser-guided. This entire episode HAD to be planned years in advance, with the foreknowledge of quite a surprising number of people. I suspect a HELL of a lot of those people are dead by now. The original "team" could never afford to have to worry about a few people having guilt complexes down the line, as ALWAYS occurs with a certain percentage of people.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Art
post Apr 14 2015, 10:41 AM
Post #3





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 48
Joined: 23-March 11
Member No.: 5,754



The Flight 93 story was preplanned. The victims called their relatives on their cell phones to read the script. (It was proved in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui that those cell phone calls were not made in the air.) A missile hit the center of a ravine to simulate an impact from the fuselage while the ravine was supposed to be the wings. The first responders reported that there was shrapnel in the trees and of course the media reported that there was nothing there but a hole in the ground.

The reason the Salomon Brothers' Building collapsed so much later is because 9/11 was an occult ritual. The Twin Towers represented the pillars Boaz and Jachin and they needed to be destroyed before the destruction of Solomon's Temple. Everything about 9/11 was part of the ritual, from the President reading Pet Goat (what the occultists call us) and chanting with the children, to the precise locations of the targets, to the numbers and words used. The Most Dangerous Book in the World by S. K. Bain is an important read for every 9/11 researcher.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Art
post Apr 14 2015, 11:23 AM
Post #4





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 48
Joined: 23-March 11
Member No.: 5,754



One more thing. It was well known by the insiders when Building 7 would collapse. The firemen knew, as did the media and of course Lucky Larry.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pollyanna
post Apr 15 2015, 06:40 AM
Post #5





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



It’s quite possible that UA93 was shot down in this scenario. If the plane that crashed was the remotely controlled drone, there would be no need to shoot it down just point it at the ground. But what about the bodies? I would argue that the drones were not carrying bodies or human tissue since this would leave too much unidentifiable DNA in the buildings after they crashed into their targets.

According to one report about the crash of UA93:
“Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total.”

If it is true that this amount of human tissue was found at the site, it indicates that the ‘real UA93’ was crashed, not the drone. Since the ‘real UA93’ was under the control of the contract hijackers, the only way to eliminate it would be to shoot it down. In doing so, the plotters would be shooting down their own men but I’m sure they had no qualms about that.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pollyanna
post Apr 15 2015, 07:51 AM
Post #6





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



As an alternative to shooting down the real UA93 and their own men, the planners could have had one or more 'meat wagon' drones in the air in the proximity of the pre-planned crash site(s). These drones would be carrying human tissue and would come into play if a crash into the ground became necessary as the events of the day unfolded.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Art
post Apr 16 2015, 04:07 PM
Post #7





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 48
Joined: 23-March 11
Member No.: 5,754



Many locals told how their lights flickered before the plane came down. Perhaps they zapped the radar frequency before they hit the plane with cannon fire. There were two crash sites near Shanksville. One is where the Memorial is at and the other was secured. The Memorial site was hit by a missile, there were no 757 parts there. Pictures of the secured site kept hidden for five years until the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. If they used cannon fire to bring down the jet, they could not have reporters taking pictures of the fuselage with bullet holes. It is possible that Flight 93 went down in Pennsylvania but since no serial-numbered time-change parts were identified, it cannot be confirmed.

The coroner that looked over the Memorial site right after the crash said there was not even a drop of blood at the site.


Only the government was able to take pictures of the debris as they were the only ones allowed at the actual crash site. Notice the different foliage than the Memorial site.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Apr 17 2015, 09:12 AM
Post #8





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,018
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
pollyanna
post Apr 20 2015, 04:48 AM
Post #9





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



If the drone substitution hypothesis is correct, then UA93 would still be in flight when a drone was crashed in its place. The secondary crash sites, ie Pentagon and Shanksville, were purposefully set up to 1. Keep crash debris away from public since they were not the original planes. 2. Provide a strange appearance in order to foster kooky theories such as missiles etc.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alpha66
post Apr 20 2015, 05:35 PM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 7-April 15
From: Preussen / Westfalen
Member No.: 8,105



Guess what you propose is a plan with a backup plan. And that´s quite realistic imo. You need to have an alternative if plan a goes wrong. You switch to plan b.

Btw. weren´t in WTC7 important facilties from CIA, secret service and others ?`Maybe there were documents and/or equipment that needed to go up in flames? I also heard of evidence for some cases which where in WTC6 or 7, like banking frauds and cases vs. big corporations (Enron?)....so you can say, 9/11 hit severall birds with one stone, also do not forget the insider trading before 9/11 in which some people made millions. Also the insurance sum of the WTC towers would be worth it. Not only political reasons in this also just greed - making money.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pollyanna
post Jun 7 2015, 08:36 AM
Post #11





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



One possible objection to the theory proposed, ie that UA93 was meant to strike WTC7 first as the initial media setup event, might be that the operators could have rerouted AA11 to do the same job. UA93 took off 25 mins late, but could still have arrived at the WTC7 in the required time frame. I think the answer to this objection is that the operators could not predict how long UA93 would be delayed. If it ended up being delayed an hour for example and the operators were still waiting on it for the show to start they could be in big trouble.

If the theory is correct, then it is implied that there were a total of three planes sent to the WTC by the hijackers. Since there are two towers, questions might be asked why three planes, why not send four planes. This suggests that AA77 may have been originally targeted not at the Pentagon but at the WTC. Four planes for the two towers would fit in with a public and media perception of the Arab hijackers believing (due to their inexperience as pilots) that they would need two planes for each tower to guarantee success.

AA77 would also fit this role as a backup failsafe for the operators as well. The overriding goal for the operators is to hit both towers, since they are packed with explosives which are too difficult to cover up later. Once both towers have been hit, the plan is a success and the operators can relax. The two spare planes available are then routed according to their respective backup plans. On UA93, the hijacking is delayed for 45 minutes so that the passengers are able to learn of the fate of other hijacked planes by phone. This creates a strong motivation for the passenger revolt which is what the operators are waiting for.

AA77 is rerouted to strike the Pentagon, the least important of the Washington national architectural monuments, in the place most likely to cause the least damage. One other event suggests that this was not originally meant to happen. This is the conversation Cheney has in the White House bunker with the staff officer who tells him that the plane is '60 miles out and do the orders still stand' etc. I doubt if this sort of blatant giveaway conversation was in the original plan.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jun 7 2015, 10:21 PM
Post #12





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (pollyanna @ Jun 7 2015, 07:36 AM) *
One possible objection to the theory proposed, ie that UA93 was meant to strike WTC7 first as the initial media setup event, might be that the operators could have rerouted AA11 to do the same job. UA93 took off 25 mins late, but could still have arrived at the WTC7 in the required time frame. I think the answer to this objection is that the operators could not predict how long UA93 would be delayed. If it ended up being delayed an hour for example and the operators were still waiting on it for the show to start they could be in big trouble....

I



Interesting theories.

I don't buy that WTC7 was supposed to be hit by 93 prior to WTC1/2 coming down.
It makes a heck of a lot more sense that WTC7 was used a control center to demolish the towers.

You couldn't beat the view of the towers they had, for a million bucks!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
excontroller
post Jun 8 2015, 10:01 AM
Post #13





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 103
Joined: 28-December 09
From: Ypsilanti, MI
Member No.: 4,819



QUOTE (pollyanna @ Apr 15 2015, 05:40 AM) *
It’s quite possible that UA93 was shot down in this scenario. If the plane that crashed was the remotely controlled drone, there would be no need to shoot it down just point it at the ground. But what about the bodies? I would argue that the drones were not carrying bodies or human tissue since this would leave too much unidentifiable DNA in the buildings after they crashed into their targets.

According to one report about the crash of UA93:
“Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total.”

If it is true that this amount of human tissue was found at the site, it indicates that the ‘real UA93’ was crashed, not the drone. Since the ‘real UA93’ was under the control of the contract hijackers, the only way to eliminate it would be to shoot it down. In doing so, the plotters would be shooting down their own men but I’m sure they had no qualms about that.



I only believe it was shot down, because a former air traffic controller SAID he was informed by someone working Cleveland Center, that there was a small plane, a probable military plane, shadowing UA93 when it lost radar contact. Additionally, the debris field almost DICTATES a shoot-down. The main problem I have with the crash site, is there is NO SIGN a plane crashed there. That NEVER happens at a crash site.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
excontroller
post Jun 8 2015, 10:07 AM
Post #14





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 103
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 #15





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,018
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

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th October 2018 - 08:21 PM