Yes, WTC 7 was a national icon, just like the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. I know every time I saw a picture of the New York skyline, I would see WTC 7, even though it was a relatively short, unremarkable building, and would think, "I'm so proud of that building and its unusual truss system to transfer loads to the original foundation." It always was a big tourist attraction. I understand why we included it in our plot to terrorize America.
the turn towards WTC 7 occurs right at the first ridge on your map. The curl at the very end is the downward spiral as the plane is crashing and out of control.Do you make this up as you go, or do you believe propaganda without fact checking? It was heading strait for DC until some passengers get into the cabin.
Flight path of flight 93:
The plane was not pointed towards Washington at the time it was shot down.
Duh, we faked the flight path so that when 93 struck WTC 7 it would be a big surprise everyone would be all "o man that's a big shock we thot it wuz goin to dc" and we'd be all "pwnd pwnd ha ha you thot wrong bichzzz." Cuz Americans loved WTC 7 lotz more than the Capitol.Do you make this up as you go, or do you believe propaganda without fact checking? It was heading strait for DC until some passengers get into the cabin.
Flight path of flight 93:
The only ones who conspired were the terrorists. Not a US involved conspiracy. No explosives used.
Oh... on my previous post, notice how the aircraft turns again toward DC before crashing? With the timing as it is, there is no credible way to say they intended to change course to NY.
not only that, 7 is a lucky number.
No Sherlock. Your bulb burns bright.
Why WTC 7?
1) A plane flying into it looks great on TV.
2) A controlled demolition collapse looks great on TV.
3) It eliminates to only part of the WTC not destroyed by the collapses of WTC 1 & 2.
4) Floor 23 of WTC 7 may have been the commaned center for the WTC 1 & 2 attacks.
FL11 flew right over WTC 7 before it hit WTC 1. FL175 was on a path towards WTC 7 when it struck WTC 2. WTC 7 may have beamed a homing signal.
Blowing it up conceals the evidence.
Nixt!!
FYI
The 9/11 attacks were carfully planned to not destroy anything of historical value.
They did not hit the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, or the Washington Monument. WTC 7 had no historical value.
They also took great care to minimize the loss of life. One of the planes flew right over a nuclear power plant. Hitting that could have killed millions.
Other ways loss of life was spared by the domestic neocon terrorists:
1) Hit WTC early in morning before it was filled up.
2) Hit WTC 1 on 95th so not many were trapped. A hit on floor 50 would have trapped 50,000.
3) Waited 17 minutes before hitting WTC 2 so most people could get out.
4) Hit WTC 2 on floor 80, not lower.
5) Control demolitioned the towers straight down. If they had knocked the towers over sideways ways, there would have been untold wanton death and destruction with the towers falling on other buildings.
6) waiting until WTC 7 was evacuated before blowing it up.
7) the hijacked flights were only 30% booked, saving many lives.
8) the Pentagon was hit in an area reinforced for attack, saving lives.
9) the Pentagon was hit in an area under construction, so only a small fraction of the people who normally worked there were present.
10) FL93 shot down over an open field, saving lives oj the ground.
11) they waited an hour before blowing up the Twin Towers, so most people could get out.
Yep, you're making it up as you go. Notice that that turn corresponds with a rapid change in al ude when you compare the map to the al ude time. Up. Not down. There was more likely already a struggle in the pit. Our heroes were likely taking control of the plane, or trying to.
Now I will not exclude the possibility it was shot down. I do find it unlikely however. The impact site is consistant with the plane being intact, heading nearly strait down, very fast.
Now assuming it was shot down, they may have been taking evasive actions. The planned change to NY theory doesn't was with me. They didn't need to climb so high to clear the mountain range. The highest peak is Blue Knob, at 3146 ft.
You know what else sucks about your theory? The planes that struck WTC 1 and WTC 2 were 767's Flt 93 was a 757, same as what hit the pentagon. A 757 wouln't do enought damage to bring WTC 7 down.
Yes, you nailed it!
The purpose of terrorism is to cause terror. Not do historical or monetary damage.
An assumption, and an ignorant on at that. Hitting a nuclear power plant would not cause a nuclear explosion. The core is protected well enough that there would likely be no damage to it. Yes, radioactive steam would be released, and there would be some potential deaths outside the building. However, it took me some time to pick myself off the floor from laughter at the claim of millions.
Why might it not be liberal elitists?
They picked the best flights. Their timing was dependant upon probable success, not maximizing casualties.
OK, you expect them to fly sideways between buildings to do that?
OMG... Ever hear of an aircraft taking off on time? Kind of hard to plan precise timing.
Probably the planned location of tower 2. These were not expert pilots, and this is above the tops of the other nearby buildings.
Gravity takes huge structures down, not allowing for them to fall like models will.
Funny. I remember reading a transcript of an officer who went into WTC 7. Rudy Weindler came back talking about the damage, clearing the collapse zone for fear of collapse because of the structural damage they witnessed. The transcript went on to say she heard rumbling before the tower collapsed. I have the file on my computer, but don't know the source link.
I assume they must have had a 100,000 watt speaker system to simulate that before the explosions went off, right? Then I wonder. Why wasn't there a report of such explosions?
Seems like crown management was a larger concern to me. A 100% booked flight wouldn't allow then to put everyone to the rear!
The Pentagon was hit on the only side that had a clear flight path.
Maybe it was shot down. Still, heroes do exist. Maybe you're too chicken- to imagine such people, but I believe the incidents as reported, especially in light of the telephone conversations reported.
It takes time for steel to heat up. The timing is correct for the damage and weight above the damage. That is why tower 2 fell first even though tower 1 was hit first.
You have no evidence to make those statements, and more logical theories exists.
I cannot believe you are so blinded by the hate. Why don't you just go join Al-Qeada yourself.
Now back to the damage by WTC-1 to WTC-7. Look at the below photo. WTC-6 has clear damage. Not only did WTC-1 put a huge hole it the roof, look at the top edge of the building (lower right of 6) with a path to WTC-7. The edge is obliterated. The debris that did this went into the side of WTC-7!
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 03-15-2008 at 09:42 PM.
Your ignorant.....I'm not supporting either side in this fight, but to say that there weren't explosions on 9/11 that weren't part of a plane going through a building, or buildings collapsing is just is stupid...there are plenty of videos on youtube that prove otherwise....Why wasn't there a report of such explosions?
Strike ball....imagine this... all the targeted transcontinental flights were not only under-booked, they were very under-booked....some would say unusally underbooked for flights taking off in the not to early morning from major hubs to major hubs...7) the hijacked flights were only 30% booked, saving many lives.
OK, so I didn't specify immediately befor the callapse. So what?
Weve been through these points. An explosion heard hoes not mean explosive. Especially when it's reported by those who are not explosive experts. Several thing explode. An egg explodes in a microwave oven. That doesn't mean I put C4 in the microwave too.
As for the videos... I have not seen a single one where a 'burst' preceeds the destruction. In all, the bursts are part of the destruction.
Is that seasonally adjusted for time of day and for the first few weeks of school? That might not matter so much, but that time of day is one of the quietest for traveling east across the Atlantic. Look at the arrival time. How many people want to travel during that time? They still have to fly one aircraft east for every one they fly west.
Have any stats that take the same weekday, time, and school week into account? Does it also take the econimic situation into account? I'lll bet if they took flights an hour later to maximize capacity in the buildings, they would have had more people than they considered safe to handle.
I used to regulary fly as a technician to various location in the USA. I saw dramatic changed in the aircrafts utilized capacity. Your's is a very ignorant statement to use without taking the effects I spoke of and more.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 03-16-2008 at 08:33 PM.
Yes, it's everyone who was there who is wrong...
You are blinded by hatred of Arabs which makes you a racist. You are condoning mass murder. I find you to be a disgusting individual.The purpose of terrorism is to cause terror. Not do historical or monetary damage.
An assumption, and an ignorant on at that. Hitting a nuclear power plant would not cause a nuclear explosion. The core is protected well enough that there would likely be no damage to it. Yes, radioactive steam would be released, and there would be some potential deaths outside the building. However, it took me some time to pick myself off the floor from laughter at the claim of millions.
Why might it not be liberal elitists?
They picked the best flights. Their timing was dependant upon probable success, not maximizing casualties.
OK, you expect them to fly sideways between buildings to do that?
OMG... Ever hear of an aircraft taking off on time? Kind of hard to plan precise timing.
Probably the planned location of tower 2. These were not expert pilots, and this is above the tops of the other nearby buildings.
Gravity takes huge structures down, not allowing for them to fall like models will.
Funny. I remember reading a transcript of an officer who went into WTC 7. Rudy Weindler came back talking about the damage, clearing the collapse zone for fear of collapse because of the structural damage they witnessed. The transcript went on to say she heard rumbling before the tower collapsed. I have the file on my computer, but don't know the source link.
I assume they must have had a 100,000 watt speaker system to simulate that before the explosions went off, right? Then I wonder. Why wasn't there a report of such explosions?
Seems like crown management was a larger concern to me. A 100% booked flight wouldn't allow then to put everyone to the rear!
The Pentagon was hit on the only side that had a clear flight path.
Maybe it was shot down. Still, heroes do exist. Maybe you're too chicken- to imagine such people, but I believe the incidents as reported, especially in light of the telephone conversations reported.
It takes time for steel to heat up. The timing is correct for the damage and weight above the damage. That is why tower 2 fell first even though tower 1 was hit first.
You have no evidence to make those statements, and more logical theories exists.
I cannot believe you are so blinded by the hate. Why don't you just go join Al-Qeada yourself.
Now back to the damage by WTC-1 to WTC-7. Look at the below photo. WTC-6 has clear damage. Not only did WTC-1 put a huge hole it the roof, look at the top edge of the building (lower right of 6) with a path to WTC-7. The edge is obliterated. The debris that did this went into the side of WTC-7!
It is possible that Flight 23 was also supposed to take out WTC 7.
You are making the same argument the people who planted the bombs made.
They said; "We'll set bombs in the WTC and if anyone claims to hear them, we'll just say that they aren't experts in sound indentification."
From whence came that quote?
He was probably taking a .
Loose Change rev. 27
Why plant bombs that would go off at times other than the actual collapse?
In places completely uncritical to the total structure?
And occupied by busy financial corporations?
Because clearly Bush and friends are closet Marxists.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
