World Trade Center 7 - The true target of flight 93?

[mikelewis]

I have often asked this question when reading the analysis of the attacks. Everyone believes 93 was headed for the White House but what if the intent was WTC7?

Wouldn't this seem logical?

4 planes hijacked

4 buildings collapse

but oops, one is shot down and we have a building filled with explosives and a shit load of evidence that we need to get rid of. They had already passed the point of no return. The first two had hit, they had to continue on mission.

This could explain Larry Silverstiens comments.

"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

What terrible loss of life is he talking about? No one was supposed to have died in WTC7

Now, if the call came in saying Flight 93 had crashed and wouldn't hit 7, Maybe the smartest thing to do would be to just blow the fuckin thing up and hope for the best.


Now, take the timing of the flights.

8:42 -- United Flight 93 takes off from Newark, more than 40 minutes after its scheduled departure. It takes off right before 11 crashes.

8:46 -- American 11 slams into Tower 1 of the World Trade Center and is gone.

9:03 -- United 175 crashes into Tower Two of the World Trade Center.

9:29 -- Around this time, Thomas Burnett, a passenger on Flight 93 calls his wife and says, "The plane has been hijacked. We are in the air. They've already knifed a guy. There is a bomb on board. Call the FBI."

9: 29 -- "A radio transmission of unintelligible sounds of possible screaming or a struggle from an unknown origin" is heard by Cleveland controllers, followed by someone screaming "Get out of here, get out of here!"

9:41 -- Hijackers turn off United 93's transponder.


9:59 -- Tower One of the World Trade Center collapses in a cloud of dust.

10:03 -- United 93 crashes in western Pennsylvania

10:26 -- Tower Two of the World Trade Center collapses in a cloud of dust.

4:10 -- Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex reported to be on fire. The building housed, among other things, a secret CIA command center.

5:20 -- Building 7 of the WTC complex collapses. Later, the building's destruction becomes the subject of conspiracy theories.





Now see if this makes sense
8:42 93 takes off

9:29 It's hijacked and turned away

So it is roughly over 47 minutes away from New York since Newark Airport isn't that far away from Manhattan


10:03 it crashes - 32 minutes en route to ?

flight time to NY from crash site
15+ minutes

9:59 Tower 1 crashes

10:26 Tower 2 collapses

If 93 was headed for New York it would have hit WTC7 after the fall of the second building.

Now, if you look at a 3d map of the crash so excellently provided by CNN
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/day.section.html
Click on 3-D animation of attacks - This is very well done

Also look at this picture of the damage so you can position the interactive map North to South and get an idea where wtc7 is in relation to the 2 towers.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/damage.map.html

Now, you'll notice that before the collapses, if you approach from the southeast, there is no direct path to WTC7 but after the buildings fall, the way is clear to hit the building.

This is why I think Flight 93 was headed towards WTC7.

If true, it would explain Larry Silversteins statement. There was a terrible loss of life. They had started it and it was too late now. Best thing to do is pull the building and hope for the best. Later they start a fire in WTC7 and an hour later they detonate it and hope the shock and awe will cover it up.


What do you think?

[demodonkey]

1. No. Unless there was a major flight course change planned by the hijackers

I live in Western PA; area where Flt. 93 crossed and about 50 miles west of the crash site.

The flight path they were on was a direct SE line between me and D.C. To go to NYC they would have had to correct course to a much more Northeasterly direction.

[mikelewis]

3. But if you look at the flight path ...

here

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/map.html

You'll notice they start to take a turn north.

They were headed for DC but then they turn, this angle would have put them back towards Manhattan

[mikelewis]

6. It also looks as though they were flying slower as well

A Boeing 767-200 has a cruising speed of 530 mph

Newark to Cle
395 miles
They made this run in 47 minutes


Cle to Manhattan
405 miles
They could have made this run in roughly 47 minutes


Cle to DC
304 miles
They could have made this run in 40? 35?


Cle to Shanksville, PA
177 miles
No it took them 30 minutes to go 200 miles

They were going slower. These guys were defintiely bold. They hijack a plane and fly slower? Shit, I'd be standing on the pedal, afraid someone might shoot me down. Which is exactly what happened.

[WMliberal]

2. i think...

:tinfoilhat:

Seriously, your plan-don't take me too seriously as I've had LOTS of madeira tonight- makes sense logically. It just lacks the grand scale of what Al Qaeda seemed to be after. They seemed to be going for symbols of power in the U.S. The WH or the Capitol were more likely targets. I doubt they had planned on the plane being exactly 40 minutes late and then taking X amount of time before hijacking the plane and turning it elsewhere.

[mikelewis]

4. But you're assuming Al Qeada did it - I don't believe they did

I'm a MIHOP

[Zan_of_Texas]

5. coupla things, mike

1. A friend posted a while back that there is a theory that five planes were originally intended to be hijacker planes, and that one never crashed but landed at Cleveland Airport. I have just her brief word on that, with little to no documentation.

2. WTC 7 is indeed a mystery to pretty much anybody who looks closely at it. Here's another view.

WTC-7: The Improbable Collapse

by Scott Loughrey
www.globalresearch.ca <http://globalresearch.ca> 10 August 2003 The URL of this article is: <http://globalresearch.ca/articles/LOU308A.html>

Mysteries abound about World Trade Center 7's (WTC-7) demise on September 11. In the early evening in the Big Apple of that horrific day this 47-story steel building suddenly collapsed. An odd series of failures had occurred.

They began when a small amount of debris falls from the implosion of World Trade Center 1, a block away. Somehow small fires subsequently break out in WTC-7. The fireproofing systems completely fail. The fires burn all day from an unknown fuel. Eventually, the flames reach tanks of diesel fuel at ground level. Suddenly, the penthouse begins to fall. The entire lower levels immediately experience the same massive failures. About seven seconds later the entire building is gone. It takes a minute for 2 million square feet of office space to become a large pile of rubble.

Satellite photos later confirm that the vast majority of WTC-7's rubble rests in what was the building’s footprint. The neatness of the rubble enables clean-up crews to swiftly remove and recycle the steel after just a cursory examination (See Eric Hufschmid at http://www.erichufschmid.net/PainfulQuestions_1.pdf) <http://www.erichufschmid.net/PainfulQuestions_1.pdf>
World Trade Center 7 (WTC-7) was built in 1985. It was located across Vesey Street from the main World Trade Center compound. It was a largely-conventional steel building which had forty-four floors. Somewhat dark and sleek, it was designed by Emery Roth & Sons. It collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001. Fortunately, WTC-7 had been evacuated and no one is known to have been killed by its demise.

It fell about seven hours after the strange collapses <http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/> of the North and South Twin Towers. (WTC-2, the South tower, collapsed around 10:00 a.m. WTC-1, the North, came down about a half hour later.) The unknown quantity of debris from WTC-1 is said to have caused fires in WTC-7 that prevailed on the 11th floor.

MORE


The article also says that FEMA says that 36,000 gallons of diesel fuel was stored in diesel tanks just above and at ground level. And that the NYC Office of Emergency Management took up the entire 23rd floor, serving as some sort of command center for then-Mayor Guiliani.

[mikelewis]

7. The question isn't what happened to 7, it's where was 93 headed?

This is from the FEMA Report Chapter 5
The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers. Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings.

On the contrary, it appears the collapse was primarily due to a controlled demolition. This is confirmed by Larry Silversteins statement. Before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. And yet on 9/11, 3 buildings collapse due to fire.

Problem is, there is not one reason that explains how fire was able to weaken steel. The impact of the 2 towers collapse registered a 2.6 on the richter scale. This was not enought to cause structural damage sufficient enought to weaken WTC7. It was most certainly demolished. Larry Silverstien actually confirmed it in his PBS interview. Also, WTC 6, though it sustained severe structural damaged, did not collapse. This building was in between WTC2 and WTC7.

There is no evidence to support the theory that the plane was headed for D.C. at all. This suspect information was confirmed by Osama's second in command and everybody just says okay. But what evidence is there to support thier claim.

[Zan_of_Texas]

8. Who needs evidence when you have repetition?

The echo chamber of the media, repeating the same thing over and over again.

If there were intended to be 5 planes, one could have been meant for WTC 7 and one for the White House or Capitol.

Dunno.

[mikelewis]

9. There was a report...

9:41 -- Boston air traffic controllers tell NORAD that Delta 1989 might have been hijacked. It wasn't, but NORAD orders fighters to intercept it anyway. It lands without event

http://www.rotten.com/library/crime/terrorism/september_11/

[Abe Linkman]

12. Speaking of WTC:7 & the fire before Larry "Pull It" S. said to...

as I understand it, there was only small fires on two different floors. What is the Official story version of how the fires were started?

[mikelewis]

19. Yeah a zippo and some kerosene.... they don't know

[stickdog]

10. My first thought is ...

it makes a lot of sense.

[MrSammo1]

11. This is a great point Mike

It does fit the timeline great.

One thing that I who like to point out about Flight 93. As with Flight 77 we have never been shown proof that such a jet existed. Not in a physical sense anyway?

[mikelewis]

14. There is a thought that these planes weren't the ones that crashed...

There was a theory put forth that the plane that crashed into the pentagon was a Global Hawk that was painted to look like a United Airlines flight. The reason for this is because it was capable of carrying a missile large enough to blast a hole through the pentagon. Also, coincidentally, there were 2 global hawks that went missing immediately after 9/11. This had the effect of further exascebating the rumors.

But regardless if there were missiles utilized or the actual planes were used. The story is a complete fabrication from start to finish. There has been no satisfactory explanation for the collapse of WTC7. The only explanation offered that made any sense was offered by Larry Silverstein and this was retracted. He claimed that they were discussing the eventual need to "pull it" and by chance, it simply fell down on it's own. It's a ridiculous assertion.

The funny thing about the timing of this statment is that it was made just during the dabate as to the settlement that he would recieve.

See, Silverstein had asserted that since 2 planes struck at 2 different time this constituted 2 seperate attacks and 2 seperate insurance claimes. His original amount due was $3.5 billion but after the release of this documentary, the decision was made that he was in fact correct. He was awarded $7 billion dollars. This statement was used to put pressure on those responsible to see that he got paid and it worked. He recanted his statement and no one was the wiser.

[Sweet Pea]

22. Couple 'a questions.......

Re: "capable of carrying a missile large enough to blast a hole through the pentagon."

Could you provide a link to back up your statement that Global Hawk carries ordnance, specifically a missile-firing capability, and exactly what missile are you talking about? This particular UAV is optimized for high altitude, high-resolution intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance imagery. I was never designed to fire missiles at targets and to my knowledge has never been modified, used, nor evaluated as a power-projection platform. Predator was, but if you drop down and say that it was a Predator painted in United livery that caused the damage at the Pentagon, you should be laughed out of here. Stating that Global Hawk *could* carry ordnance is just about as laughable - a Volkswagen Van could modified to carry a hellfire missile, but it has never been done and I would dispute such a claim if it were ever made.

Re: "...there were 2 global hawks that went missing immediately after 9/11."

Again, do you have any proof of this claim? I am...shall we say...somewhat disbelieving just based on your claim.

Lastly, painting a Global Hawk in United colors and expecting the VAST majority of people to mistake a 25,000 lb, 44 foot long, 69 foot wingspan UAV for a 255,000 lb, 155 ft, 124 foot wingspan 757 is not only crazy but insane.

[mikelewis]

23. Oh sorry... This is Eric Hufschmit's thoery in Painful Qeustions

Here's the link
http://www.erichufschmid.net/PainfulQuestionsBook.html
It's a well thought out thoery especially his information on the New York Attack. His pentagon analysis is a little rough and doesn't include a lot of new evidence. It still is well worth getting a copy.

I was responding to this statement
One thing that I who like to point out about Flight 93. As with Flight 77 we have never been shown proof that such a jet existed. Not in a physical sense anyway?

I don't necessarily believe it but I was just throwing it out there as another theory I had read. If you notice, I then say, "But regardless if there were missiles utilized or the actual planes were used." I really didn't want to get into a debate about it, that's why I just shot it out. You have to understand, when I'm writing a lot of these at 3 a.m., I'm not always so coherent {and some times I'm a little drunk too}.


I don't believe there is a point in debating what hit the pentagon, I am concentrating on the fact that something hit the pentagon. I am focusing my inquiries towards WTC7 and the Air Defense Failures. I posed the question about 93 going towards WTC7 because I wanted to know if others had the same thought and what other possible explanations exist.

[Sweet Pea]

24. Thanks.

If Hufschmits' theories include a Global Hawk, in United colors, first firing a missile at the Pentagon then flying into it, then I would not agree that it is a well-thought out theory - at least the Pentagon part of it.

[mikelewis]

26. Just because some of his conclusions are wrong doesn't mean his data is

Eric has helped uncover a lot of information. He has posed a theory and while incorrect in some aspects, the reason he reaches these conclusions are valid based upon the information that was available. See at that time, we were unaware of the wargames. Now the picture is becoming quite a bit clearer. We know the who, the what, the why and now the how is becoming more clear. The information is finally coming out of the intelligence community.

That's why I am so optimistic about the election fraud success. To take down Bush & Co for 9/11 would create a shit storm of biblical proportions. I believe the attack is going to come in two directions, the torture issue and the election fraud issue. Bush may be able to weather this but it looks better and better for our side everyday.

[Sweet Pea]

28. Again, Thanks.

Eric looks like the real deal. I've been looking for someone who can join me in exposing the fake Apollo Moon landings. His comments are the sharpest I have ever encountered in my attempts to expose this obvious sham:

"After one or two missions, I wishing that they had sent a few intelligent people." This is true! The astronauts were all idiots. Being a test pilot of new aircraft (nearly all of them) or being a PhD in Geology (Harrison Schmidt) or Astrophysics (Any number of them, Aldrin with a thesis on Orbital Rendezvous) or Aerodynamics are only two of the great unknown hoaxs in our history - that these achievements are in reality mail-order acomplishments from an organization with an Arizona post office box.

I'm sorry that I'm drifting from the thread of your subject, but I am so excited you've provided this contact.

:)



:)

[demodewd]

13. two objections

Weren't fighter jets from Otis AFB protecting NYC airspace shortly after the secong plane hit? How would the admin talk away a third plane coming in to NYC almost 1 1/2 hours after the fighter jets had arrived?

We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

I differ here with you also. "Pull it" also is fire fighter vernacucular for pulling the hoses,ceasing operation. If Silverstein implies that he and NY's finest decided to "pull it",meaning demolishing it at that juncture,then the New York Fire Dept would have been complicit in a determination to collapse the building. That's a big step involving a whole lot more people.

But ...WTC7 was brought down by demolitions..don't get me wrong.

[stickdog]

15. Was the reported 40 minute delay at the gate part of the original plan?

Like all good disinfo, it's almost impossible to tell what's smoke, what's mirrors and what's real here.

All we really know for sure is that there are still hundreds of questions that have never been answered in a sensible or believable manner. And many "answers" that are logically inconsistent with other "answers."

[mikelewis]

16. Slow pilots with no orders to shoot?

excerpts http://www.911timeline.net/

//////////
29) 8:40 a.m. Nasty and Duff are the code names of the two F-15 pilots from the 102nd Fighter Wing of the Otis Air National Guard Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts who would scramble after United Airlines Flight 175. Nasty says that at this time, a colleague tells him that a flight out of Boston has been hijacked, and to be on alert. They put on their flight gear and get ready.


8:46 a.m.: NORAD orders the 102nd Fighter Wing of the Otis Air National Guard Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts to scramble two of their F-15 fighters. This is from the 102nd Fighter Wing's mission statement of September 11, 2001. "Our aircraft and their crews are on continuous 24-hour, 365-day alert to guard our skies. The 102nd Fighter Wing's area of responsibility includes over 500,000 square miles, 90 million people, and the major industrial centers of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C."


NORAD, by their own account, held on to this most vital information of these two hijacking for at least 6 minutes before ordering Otis to scramble. NORAD may have held on to the vital information of American Airlines Flight 11 for perhaps 8 minutes, maybe 10 minutes (see 8:36 a.m. # 25 statement by NORAD spokesman, Major Mike Snyder), possibly up to 26 minutes (see 8:20 a.m. # 14 American Airlines Flight 11 transponder signal stopped transmitting its IFF beacon signal) and let us not forget that the last transmission of American Airlines Flight 11 with Boston air traffic control occurred at 8:13:31, so maybe NORAD had over 32 minutes before they notified Otis to scramble their two F-15’s.


How could NORAD possibly hold on to the 8:40 information of the American Airlines Flight 11 hijacking, and not immediately scrambled Otis? How could NORAD possibly hold on to the 8:43 information of the United Airlines Flight 175 hijacking, and not have immediately scrambled Otis? How could NORAD, by their own account, hold on to the most vital information of both of these hijackings for three and six full minutes before notifying Otis to scramble?
///////////////////


http://www.worldnewsstand.net/2002/new/1.htm
America's defence establishment has disclosed that it ordered its fighter jets to intercept ALL the passenger aircraft hijacked in last week's attacks on New York and Washington.... The data made clear that military intelligence was aware of the hijackings – and possibly the suicidal nature of their mission – before ANY of the aircraft had hit their targets. It also raised questions about who ordered the fighter jets to undertake their intercept mission and what their instructions would have been in the event that they successfully caught up with a passenger aircraft while it was still in the air.... The US Vice-President, Dick Cheney, revealed in a television interview over the weekend that President George Bush had given an order last Tuesday for the military to shoot down any civilian aircraft that disregarded instructions from air traffic control and appeared to be a threat. However, Mr Cheney and Mr Bush explained that the presidential order was given only after the first three planes had hit their targets.... Last week, rumours surfaced that Flight 93 had been shot down by the military.
—The Independant, London, England, 20 September 2001
////////////


This is an excerpt from the UK Telegraph on the pilots.

"Within minutes of the second plane crashing they were over Manhattan. "It was a very surreal experience," says Duff. "It was like you were in the middle of a bad B movie flying over Central Park chasing down air planes and watching the Towers burning and flying by the Statue of Liberty."

As they circled, they were told that there were other hijacked planes. In Washington Dick Cheney, the vice-president, had been taken to a bunker under the White House.

In a conversation with President Bush, who was in Florida, it was decided to order fighters to shoot down any hijacked aircraft heading towards major cities. "We will take lives in the air to preserve lives on the ground," came the instructions.

"The New York controller came over the radio and said if we have another hijacked aircraft you're going to have to shoot it down," said Nasty.

Both men recall the silence that followed as they tried to absorb what the order meant. They also flew commercial aircraft and now they were being told to use their missiles against planes with civilians on board. They had never trained for such a moment."
//////////


This gives the impression that they recieved these orders immediately after they arrived but they actually didn't recieve any orders until after the report came in that 77 supposedly hit the pentagon.

also this excerpt shows what was going on in the cockpit.

"I was just trying to find out where the contact was," said Duff, "and they told me he's over Kennedy airport." That was United Flight 175 turning towards the Tower No 2.

Nasty and Duff continued flying for a couple more minutes but could not find the plane. At 9.05 am the second plane hit its target. "It was quite a shock," said Duff, "because we both thought there was only one aircraft."

These guys had no idea what was going on or what they were looking for. They were sent up blind and told to sit tight until they got some intel on what to do. There is no idication that they would have intercepted 93 if it would have entered New York airspace or that they would be able to identify it as a target unto it was too late. That's why they went so slow, they had no idea where they were going.

Now look at this...
http://www.911timeline.net/
82) 9:30 a.m.: Two maybe three F-16 Fighting Falcons code-named Huntress take off from Langley AFB headed at first toward at NYC. A couple of minutes into their mission, according to General Haugen "A person came on the radio and identified themselves as being with the Secret Service" and said, "I want you to protect the White House at all costs." The F-16’s laid in a new course and vectored to Washington D.C.

Why were these fighters headed to NYC when American Airlines Flight 77 has been headed directly for Washington D.C. for the last 31 minutes, and with their communication and transponder turned off for 34 minutes? There are no airliners headed for NYC or anywhere else with their communication and transponders turned off. Also, at 9:25 air traffic controllers have already informed the US Secret Service in Washington D.C. that American Airlines Flight 77 is approaching them very fast. So why are these F-16’s first flying toward NYC?

Also, in the Naudet Video, America Remembers they talk about a report of a third plane coming in. I have posted an extract of this video on my home page.

http://users.adelphia.net/~mikelewis1971/naudet clip.mpg

///In this excerpt, you can also hear an explosion long before the collapse and also you can hear the explosions as the first tower collapses.////

My point is that the plane could have sailed on right past them and they wouldn't even have the slightest clue of what to do. NORAD was feeding the information to these guys and the information was unreliable at best and late. If Major Rick Gibney from 119th Fighter Wing hadn't intercepted and shot down the plane, for which he recieved a medal, then the plane could have gone on to New York and sailed right past the 2 blind pilots.

Also keep in mind, there were U.S. sponsored wargames...




"Pull it" also is fire fighter vernacucular for pulling the hoses,ceasing operation. If Silverstein implies that he and NY's finest decided to "pull it",meaning demolishing it at that juncture,then the New York Fire Dept would have been complicit in a determination to collapse the building. That's a big step involving a whole lot more people.

There is no idication that he meant this at all. Silverstein is a building contractor. He would be more comfortable with demolition terminology than refering to firemen terminology. He is describing a cause and effect scenario. The decision was made to pull it and then we watched it fall. Pull it has also been used to describe masterbation. Maybe they were all jerking off as they watched the building blow up. I wouldn't put it past them. Also this wouldn't make the Fire Department complicit, this would make that Fire Chief complicit. This is a big step involving a whole lot more cash. Silversteins putting the squeeze on to get the money he wants from the insurance settlement.


And I do appreciate your questions, I hadn't considered the flight from Otis but even so there was no way the plane could have gotten through the DC patrols either if there were kill orders given and good intel. This also has the effect of reducing the White House scenario to speculation.

Sincerely,
Michael Lewis

[demodewd]

25. Why WTC7?

Why would the true conspirators plot to destroy the WTC7 by crashing a plane into it and blaming it on Arab hijackers? This seems "remote" to me. There are so many more landmarks quite familiar to the American public that would be of higher priority. To most of the American public the WTC7 building didn't exist.

And...there would not have been any arguable defense for Cheney et al if a plane entered NYC airspace at 10:30 and wasn't engaged. This would have put the administration in a very weak position. One that I am sure they would have avoided. Your whole scenario forces the Administration to play a much weaker hand.

Silverstein would have had considerable contact with the NYC Fire Dept by the time he issued that statement. I believe his intent was to convince the American public that it was a good idea to "pull" the firefighters in light of how many had already paid for their lives that day to cover his true intent of getting them away from the building and to stop them from actually putting the fires out.

The plane("Flight 77") that arrived in the DC airspace arrived an hour earlier and before jet fighter air presense in the area. The Otis planes were already positioned. I don't believe your comparison applies.

[mikelewis]

27. WTC7 is a logical choice for several reasons

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC/7WTC.html
The Tenants
Tenant List (provided by CoStar Group Inc)

Building:
7 World Trade Center

Tenant
Square Feet Leased
Floor
Industry

Salomon Smith Barney
1,202,900
GRND,1-6,13,18-46
Financial Institutions

Internal Revenue Service Regional Council
90,430
24,25
Government

U.S. Secret Service
85,343
9,10
Government

American Express Bank International
106,117
7,8,13
Financial Institutions

Standard Chartered Bank
111,398
10,13,26,27
Financial Institutions

Provident Financial Management
9,000
7,13
Financial Institutions

ITT Hartford Insurance Group
122,590
19-21


First State Management Group, Inc
4,000
21
Insurance

Federal Home Loan Bank
47,490
22
Financial Institutions

NAIC Securities
22,500
19
Insurance

Securities & Exchange Commission
106,117
11,12,13
Financial Institutions

Mayor's Office of Emergency Mgmt
45,815
23
Government

http://www.intellnet.org/resources/costar_wtc/7WorldTradeCenterTenants.xls

Floor Plan
“ Central Intelligence Agency's clandestine New York station was destroyed in Sept 11 attack on World Trade Center, seriously disrupting US intelligence operations; station was in 7 World Trade Center, one of smaller office towers destroyed in aftermath of collapse of twin towers; all CIA employees at site were safely evacuated; agency immediately dispatched special team to scour rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports stored in station”

http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F00711F63C5D0C778CDDA80994D9404482

This place was not only a part of the U.S. financial district it also housed the CIA and other government offices in New York City. It is a viable high profile target if the intent was to attack our financial district and get a bonus of hitting the CIA.

You're assertion that since New York was protected this wasn't a viable target. But Washington D.C. was already protected by the Langley Squadron. But also keep in mind, the Langley Squadron was orinially headed to New York but a "Secret Service" agent ordered them to protect the capitol.

How would anyone know where the plane was headed? What intelligence exists that supports the conclusion that 93 was headed for the White House? What intelligence exists at this time that warrants rerouting the pilots bound for New York to DC? Furthermore, how can we be so sure the Otis pilots would have been able to stop the plane from entering New York air space and striking world trade center 7. By thier own admission they were flying essentially blind.

"I was just trying to find out where the contact was," said Duff, "and they told me he's over Kennedy airport." That was United Flight 175 turning towards the Tower No 2.

Nasty and Duff continued flying for a couple more minutes but could not find the plane. At 9.05 am the second plane hit its target. "It was quite a shock," said Duff, "because we both thought there was only one aircraft."

What factors were in play that could account for Nasty and Duff not being able to see a Boeing 767? Why were they under the assumption that there was only one plane? Obviosly they lacked good intel on the situation. If the Langley crew had not shot down 93, how can we be certain that 93 couldn't have sailed right on past Nasty and Duff and hit the target without them being aware of the plane before it was over populated air space.

Also, Cheney et. al. wasn't on the hook for the defense, the pentagon was. It was the military that was running this wargame. It was the military that was failing. Cheney could claim that he was issuing orders and that because he lacks the authority it unintentionally delayed the defense and allowed the last plane to strike it's target.

Let's look at your statements here.
First you say,
But ...WTC7 was brought down by demolitions..don't get me wrong

Then you say...

Silverstein would have had considerable contact with the NYC Fire Dept by the time he issued that statement. I believe his intent was to convince the American public that it was a good idea to "pull" the firefighters in light of how many had already paid for their lives that day to cover his true intent of getting them away from the building and to stop them from actually putting the fires out.

If the building was subjected to controlled demolitions, the question has to be asked, who put the bombs in the building? To rig a building for demolition is a difficult and time consuming job. This had to have taken weeks under the guise of construction or rennovation projects. To do all of this and risk getting caught by the owner and administrator of the complex seems like a a much more riskier venture than the entire plot. While it is possible that he didn't know, it is highly unlikely. He had a lot to gain from this attack. The insurance alone is reason enough but he would agree that the buildings be destroyed. Fire damage can be repaired, this building was obviously beyond repair. There is a strong likelyhood that he was recalling 2 seperate converstations and confusing them when he spoke to PBS.

In his statement, Silverstein was recalling an actual conversation. The problem was that this conversation wasn't with the Fire Chief. This conversation was made after it became appearant the 93 had been shot down and that there were no planes left to hit 7 which needed to be destroyed. There is every indication that 7 was the command center for the attack. If this building was not destroyed, there would be no way to hide the evidence. It had to go down. If they never intended to hit it with a plane and they did intentionally demolish the building, what other possible explanation can you offer as to how they were planning on getting away with 7 falling. This is a very weak spot in the official story.

Of course, they would speak with the fire department and have them pull the firemen back but the question remains... why would he be the one making this decision? Even though he was the owner, this decision to pull the firemen away from a burning building that was clearly not out of control and risk another explosion of several thousand gallons of deisel fuel seems like something that is beyond his area of influence. If my house catches on fire, once the firemen are on the scene. I am out of the loop. I can give them information but I cannot tell them how to do thier jobs. If the decision was made to pull the firemen away from the building, who made this decision and why? There were no idications that the building would fall. No steel framed building has ever fallen due to fire and the building did not suffer extreme structural damage. What is the basis that we are to assume that this decision was made? Of course, the firemen pulled back but his choice of words is very telling.

If you could, please provide a link to prove that the fire department also use this term. I have not come across it's use in any other articles or sites to mean anything other than demolition.

Again, I remind you...

4 planes were hijacked
4 Buildings were destroyed
Only 3 planes struck thier target.

It seems only logical that the 4th building was the target.

[demodewd]

30. reconsidering it but...

The more I toy with your idea,I can't rule it out but I'm not quite "there" with it either.

Furthermore, how can we be so sure the Otis pilots would have been able to stop the plane from entering New York air space and striking world trade center 7. By their own admission they were flying essentially blind.

How can we be sure that the Otis pilots would NOT have been able to intercept a third plane? They had a near full hour to orient themselves and establish comunication with the Pentagon. Cheney was the Administration's go to guy in explaining fighter response to the media or lack of it. How is he going to explain a lack of response when the jets were there for a full hour? This doesn't sound like part of a major PNAC,NWO et al operation that had been in the works probably for years. It seems too shaky to me. It would have put focus on the ifs and buts of WTC7. How many Americans are even aware of the circumstances of WTC7? And then how many of us have taken the time to really investigate? If you accept the WTC1 and WTC2 explanation,then WTC7 isn't even on your mind.

There is every indication that 7 was the command center for the attack. If this building was not destroyed, there would be no way to hide the evidence. It had to go down. If they never intended to hit it with a plane and they did intentionally demolish the building, what other possible explanation can you offer as to how they were planning on getting away with 7 falling. This is a very weak spot in the official story.

I agree for your reasons you state above that the building had to come down. And for 99 plus % of Americans it came down in an inconspicuous manner.

In his statement, Silverstein was recalling an actual conversation. The problem was that this conversation wasn't with the Fire Chief.

Silverstein was recalling a conversation he had with someone obviously in high command.

If the building was subjected to controlled demolitions, the question has to be asked, who put the bombs in the building? To rig a building for demolition is a difficult and time consuming job. This had to have taken weeks under the guise of construction or rennovation projects. To do all of this and risk getting caught by the owner and administrator of the complex seems like a a much more riskier venture than the entire plot. While it is possible that he didn't know, it is highly unlikely. He had a lot to gain from this attack. The insurance alone is reason enough but he would agree that the buildings be destroyed.

I didn't mean to insinuate that Silverstein was out of the loop. I am assuming that he damn well was a part of the whole treacherous scam.

Again, I remind you...

4 planes were hijacked
4 Buildings were destroyed
Only 3 planes struck thier target.
It seems only logical that the 4th building was the target.

But I believe the first three planes were replaced by drones. Why would the fourth be the actual Flight 93? Why wouldn't Flight 93 be replaced and flown in by remote like the other three?

[mikelewis]

31. This should in no way infringe on your beliefs.

This should in no way infringe on your beliefs.
"But I believe the first three planes were replaced by drones. Why would the fourth be the actual Flight 93? Why wouldn't Flight 93 be replaced and flown in by remote like the other three?"

I'm not sure if this is even relevent to the question. Assuming that the other planes were successfully switched, there is no idication that 93 had been. There is abundant evidence to support visual sighting by several pilots that this was in fact 93. If this was 93, then the attempt to switch it, if this was the intent, clearly failed. This may have been the reason for the shoot down order issued after 77 supposedly hit the pentagon. The question still remains what was the target that this attack was focused on. The assertion that the target was the White House is simply conjecture at this point. It has been accepted as fact but it is not. Because 93 crashed without hitting it's final target there is no way they could have determined the White House was the target. The possibilty exists that there could be telephone intercepts or cockpit transmissions that were monitored but not one piece of evidence has surfaced to date to support this. It's not a fact. This plane could have been heading anywhere on the Eastern Seaboard. It makes logical sense that the plane was heading for WTC7. Regardless of it's chance of success, it makes more sense in the flow of the attack.

4 planes hijacked
3 Buildings Hit and Destroyed
1 Building Destroyed but not hit.

Out of all the targets in the world, what better target would there be than a building that has to come down and come down with an explanation? They fucked up.

[demodewd]

32. Hmmm

Try this for a scenario. For some reason they were at first unable to take control of #93 as planned in order to substitute a drone. They finally gained outside control of the plane near Cleveland. By that time they were obliged to have air cover over NYC. Crashing the substitute drone was aborted because they would have had to account still for #93.In other words the planned crash into the WTC7 was to occur very near the time of the WTC2 crash?

They would not have crashed into the Whitehouse for the same reason they didn't crash into the part of the Pentagon near Rumsfeld's,Meyers' and Eberhard's offices. I never have thought that the Whitehouse was a target.

And what was that 30 minute delay on the tarmac all about? I've always wondered about that part of it.

[demodewd]

33. perhaps...

Perhaps the planned crash into the WTC7 was aborted due to the 30 minute delay on the ground.

[mikelewis]

34. No, I'm telling you, it's simpler than that

The best plan would have been to have had all 3 planes hit the buildings before Otis could be scrambled, then once Otis scrambles they hit the pentagon. Langley would scramble too late, WTC 1,2,& 7 would all drop, pop, pop, pop and no one would even pay attention to 7.

But a problem arises...

They can't hit 7 because 1 & 2 are in the way.


So, they use the wargame to delay flight 93, giving them additional time to drop 1 & 2. While everyone's looking at the Pentagon and D.C. the 4th plane somehow evades the Otis squadron and slams into 7.

If 7 was the target of 93 then this scenario could have played out this way. It's more plausible than 93 hitting the White House.

The problem is, 93 was shot down. The guy who shot it down was named Major Rick Gibney from the 119th Fighter Wing "Happy Hooligans" http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/flight93shotdown.html

This creates a minor problem. There is a building filled with evidence and explosives that might be a bit difficult to explain away. The decision is made to simply blow the building up and deal with an explanation later.

If evidence exists that can prove 93 was heading for New York and not D.C. then this will bring us closer to the truth. Please keep hitting me with questions on this. Hit hard, I want to turn this thoery inside out.

[Wilms]

17. Yeah, forget PA for a moment, what was up in Newark?

I wondered if it was about 175 getting off 'late', too.

I'm mixed about Silverstein's lip flappin', and like demodewd, I think they demo'd those buildings, so I can give a shit what that thief says. Hopefully, they'll get his ass anyway.

Now with 93, it's late departure caught my attention. Do you think they could have used 93, GlobalHawked even, to hit WTC7 even if the towers were still standing??

And yes. Fuck 4 planes. Maybe 5, maybe more. And I like your sniffing around the idea that they didn't pull-off what they intended. So...

I've been wondering if things like; Chimp is the air-head quarterback, Cheney's the snarlin' coach pacing up and down the sidelines having heart attacks, and the General Manager is in some tinted-windowed box, yelling into Cheney's headset.

Chimp/Cheney fuck up the attack so Chimp just freezes up and pets his goat while Cheney starts poppin' Cipro. Or...while Chimp/Cheney are getting ready to 9/11 us, somewhere in the timeline they begin to think THEY, TOO are targets. You know about all the ruckes in Florida, right??

It would be a rather convienient time to off people. And it would amplify the gag they were pulling on the world. I mean, shit, for all we know they could have murdered a few folks in the Trade Center Complex and propped the bodies by the explosives (John O'Neil???). The 77 passenger list is a who's who shocker of bio, electronic, and avionics heavyweights.

Thanks for getting me to do some more pondering on 93?

Let me know if you need links for Cipro and Florida incidents or dead heavyweights.

[tngledwebb]

18. Possibly.

Perhaps for WTC 7 or back-up in case WTC I or II 'planes' missed their targets. Even in that event it may have been carrying passengers from the other flights, transferred to it somewhere in Ohio or Pa. (Assuming there were other passengers and other flights.)

Either way it's strange how both the WTC 7 collapse and the Pentagon 'crash' seem to have been so poorly planned, at least in terms of covering up the trail of evidence.

Thank God and Allah for the MSM blackout.

[Old and In the Way]

20. I believe WTC7 housed the federal task force trying corporations in

Federal Court. IIRC, there were many high level investigations underway that involved white color crime for stock manipulation during the 90's market run-up. I assume all those records and cases went down the tubes when 7 was "pulled".

I've never understood how those fires started...I've never seen any explanation for them, actually. Where were the sprinkler system?

From the internet video I've seen, WTC7 was definitely demo'd, no question.

And another thing.....wasn't the WTC a huge financial risk? I believe the occupancy numbers were pretty flat and the towers may have been approaching end-of-life? Why would Silverstein shell out that kind of money, if billions would be needed to overhaul or tear down the towers, maybe 10-20 years down the road? And what group would underwrite the risk?

Perhaps the real story is the takedown of WTC7.....WTC1 and WTC2 may have been the big distraction in all of this.


Silverstein pockets $7BB owning the WTC complex for 2 months? Seems that Bush wasn't the only person to hit the Trifecta on 9/11....

[mikelewis]

21. That's not the final race of the tri-fecta - the $25bn in gold is the main

event.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewBusiness.asp?Page=\Business\archive\200109\BUS20010912b.html



I wonder what happened to all that gold. Did it disintigrate upon impact?

[mikelewis]

29. Does anyone know the flight number and time the "other" plane

that was turned away from New York?

[mikelewis]

35. A flight plan for DC was filed by flight 93 at 9:36

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_911=ua93

Project: Complete 911 Timeline
Open-Content project managed by Paul Thompson

(9:36 a.m.)


Flight 93 files a new flight plan with a final destination of Washington, reverses course and heads toward Washington. <9:35, “turned around near Cleveland,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/01, “turns off course,”9:36:01, Guardian, 10/17/01, 9:36, MSNBC, 9/3/02, 9:36, “made an ominous turn,” Among the Heroes, by Jere Longman, 8/02, p. 219> Radar shows the plane turning 180 degrees. The new flight plan schedules the plane to arrive in Washington at 10:28.

Why would the terrorists file a new flight plan? Does this seem a bit odd? Is this why everyone thinks the plane was heading for the White House? I wonder if the pilot asked for directions to 1600 Penn. Ave?

[Sweet Pea]

36. Semantics.

Has to be. There has been nothing...absolutely nothing...reported anywhere that the hijackers "filed a new flight plan" in the traditional sense of the phrase. I strongly suspect that these are words used by Paul Thompson to describe the internal events inside the cockpit, i.e. an update into the aircraft's navigation and guidance system that directed the aircraft back towards the east, Washington DC in particular.

This is a classic example of the problems that occur oftentimes when individuals unfamiliar with aeronautical and standard aviation terminology start to wade into the realm of an area they know little to nothing about.

Perhaps Thompson was simply using the term "file a new flight plan" in the most literal sense, that being the aircraft had a new flight direction, one that did not adhere to its officially filed flight plan. In any event, this was a poor choice of words and/or phrase and, as evidenced by the post I am responding to, has created confusion and misunderstanding.

There are specific procedures published in flight publications, specifically the US IFR Supplement, that outline the procedures and data required in order to file a "change of route or destination" with ATC. These include:

1. Type of flight plan
2. Aircraft identification
3. Type of aircraft/TD Code
4. Estimated true airspeed
5. Original destination
(if applicable)
6. Departure point
7. Position and time
8. New route and altitude/FL
9. New destination (if applicable)
10. ETE or ETA
11. Fuel endurance
12. Alternate (if required)
13. Station where original flight plan filed

https://164.214.2.62/dafif/dafif_0413_ed6/plan/usifr_sup.pdf

It would not only be "odd", but ludicrous as well as silly, indeed, to assume that hijackers would go through the aforementioned procedures to "file a new flight plan" as the aforementioned post suggests.

Specificity is the soul of credibility, and using the correct terminology in cases such as this would go to great lengths in fostering a more mutual understanding of the various positions.