Saturday, January 3, 2009

Has This Theory About WTC7 Been Out There Yet?

#####

By Chimpplanet

I’m a firm believer that 9/11 was an inside job. Because there are 1000s of reasons on the Internet why a few raggedy Saudis could not have done it, I have not read all the theories.

This morning, this theory popped into my puny brain.

The questions and theories of why World Trade Center building 7, which was not hit by an aircraft, also fell on 9/11 are often thought as “the smoking gun” in this crime.

What about if United Flight 93, the ill-fated plane that crashed in the rural fields of Pennsylvania, was not really routed by the “terrorists” to Washington DC as many claim, but was scheduled to hit WTC7?

If the “insiders” who did 9/11 were planning to crash a third plane in New York City, that plane would probably have been scheduled to hit WTC7.

In my theory, a floor in WTC7 was the staging area for the 9/11 “attacks”. This floor had much of the incriminating evidence of what was to be. Because of this, explosive charges had also been set in WTC7 along with the charges set to take down WTC 1 and 2. And of course, a third plane, United 93, would have “taken down” this third building.

But plans failed, as all perfect plans must, and United 93 was probably shot down by accident by US Air Force planes which did not get the “stand down” orders from Washington as most fighters in the Northeast USA had been ordered.

So, the “insiders” had a dilemma.

They had incriminating evidence in WTC7 and the building had already been rigged with explosives to be detonated after United 93 crashed into it, like the other two buildings.

They could not allow this building to stand.

Maybe this theory has been out there, but I have not read it yet.

#####

(Yes, this theory has been proposed before, and in fact on the Naudet Brothers documentary, "9-11", you can hear the emergency responders being told a third plane is on its way to New York. - WRH)



#####

Here's the clip WRH may have mentioned above:



#####



#####

5 comments:

elewis said...

I think so too;

4 planes;
the pentagon is hit by 1; and 3 skyscrapers drop;

yet only 2 skyscrapers were hit by planes; 1 plane didn't make it. Obviously raises the question - maybe the plane that didn't make it was headed for WTC7.

I hear talk that the plane was headed for camp david but I presume that to be disinformation.

But now how about this one:

Ever been bothered about the jumpers?

Why did all those people decide to jump for no obvious reason?

You're in a building and there's this white hot thermate things buring in the building and you hear booming noises and you feel the building rock sometimes; maybe you best just end it right there and not wait for the building to come down; heck maybe jumping off the building might help warn all those people staring up in disbelief to get the hell away because the building is coming down.

Chimpplanet said...

Interesting thought. We really don't know what those jumpers felt or heard. When the charges go off in a building being demolished the noise and machine-gun-like explosions should be frightening.

dogismyth said...

interesting theory. need to look at a 3-D picture of the location to determine ease of accessability to WTC7 by Flight 93. It was a much smaller building than WTC1,2 and a difficult maneuver for a commercial jet at a low altitude in a city. It could be that "they" thought the destruction of WTC1,2 would cause enough peripheral damage to WTC7.

It could be that 93 was just a tool of propaganda to help deceive the world that the terrorist were set to attack the "heart" of the US. Not much happens by circumstance with the powers that be.

Anyways, the 911 re-investigation is a moot point that will not be addressed for many decades, if at all. No one of power has the integrity, muster, support or evidence to suggest such an investigation. We, the people (or sheeple I should say) are powerless at the moment and that is of our own choice. We need 10% of the population to get really pissed off about the myriad of corrupt activities that have occurred over the past decade. Once we get our 10% that are outwardly vocal about our corrupt process, treasonous officials, the zionist control of the monetary system, the war machiners and other participants (media), maybe then something can be done.

The primary focus now should be deterring any additional false flag operations which would create disarray and ultimately, martial law.

The trains is rocketing forward, but the bridge is out. We are headed for some interesting times, and some rough times ahead. our republic cannot be reborn in a day, week, month or year. The next ten years will be a struggle between good and evil, and my money is on "good"!

TerraHertz said...

Here's a copy of some relevent discussion from a private mail list, Mar 2007:

Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 20:52:44 -0000
Subject: Re: We are witnessing the unraveling of the 9/11 cover-up

B:

Yesterday, a comment by Mike Rivero caught my eye when I was scanning
items on his What Really Happened sight. Here's his comment:

"What seems to be emerging here is that Flight 93 was planned to crash
into WTC-7. When Flight 93 had to be shot down instead because the
crew regained control, WTC-7 still had to come down or the pre-placed
explosives inside would have given the whole game away. What seems
likely is that a time was set for the demolition and sent out to
agents in the media, but there was an unexpected delay to clear
responders from the building, which is why WTC-7 is seen still
standing behind the female announcer even as she reports the building
as destroyed."

The first statement was the wake-up call:

"What seems to be emerging here is that Flight 93 was planned to crash
into WTC-7."

Later, yesterday evening, I poked around to review the timelines for
9-11. It didn't take long to notice one interesting fact. The 2
flights from Boston were delayed slightly, but 93 was delayed until
8:42 - only minutes before the first WTC collision. A reasonable guess
is that flight 93 was scripted to hit WTC 7 about the same time, but
the delay had fouled up its role for that morning. Consequently, a
plan B (which perhaps involved a good deal of ad lib) had to be
effected to deal with the flight 93/WTC 7 missing piece in the plan.
Flight 93 was taken out @ shortly after 10 am; WTC7 was taken out @ 5:20.

Recognizing that possibility, I looked up a timeline for Bush on the
morning of 9-11. Here's the link:

http://www.september11news.com/PresidentBush.htm

Most interestingly, Bush arrived at the school at essentially the same
time that WTC towers were hit. My guess is that the "plan" had been
for Bush to make a speech at about that time, after the 3 planes had
hit the 3 WTC towers (but flight 93 had barely taken off). The 3rd
plane (flight 93) had become the Achilles heel for "the best laid
plans of rats and crooks." Recognition of flight 93 as an Achilles
heel answers the somewhat unexplainable fact that Bush just sat in the
classroom for half an hour - "they" had to (as an immediate problem)
determine what to do with flight 93. When Bush met with C. Rice, he
may have been made aware that flight 93 would shortly be dispatched,
and gave his speech (which may have been a modification of the
original intended speech). Bush talked with Cheney by phone @ about 10
am, just before flight 93 crashed. Bush's oddly circuitous itinerary
in the following hours may have some connection with the disposal of
WTC7 (to bury the evidence).

The film about flight 93 may be just another (cynically conceived)
propaganda piece.


- D


--- In xxxxxxx, xxxxx wrote:
>
> As many have speculated TC 7 was wired for demo as was 1 and 2. that
> supposes that it was supposed to have been hit by the 4th plane. I'm
> not familiar with the layout of these buildings other than that 7 is
> much shorter than 1 and 2. Would it have been possible for an
> airplane to hit 7 without hitting other surrounding buildings? Bob
>
> --- In xxxxxxxx, W wrote:
> >
> > http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/270207_bbc_lost_response.html
> >
> > BOMBSHELL: 9/11 COVER-UP UNRAVELING

Eric Vaughan said...

In all probability, Flight 93 was a decoy for what was about to unfold in Toronto that day but was somehow snagged.

Air Canada was attacked before by Indian (dots not feathers) terrorists and had way better security than the Americans as a result. That alone tells you why the Toronto aspect doesn't get much press. (Two weeks before 9/11, something wanted overseas flights to have maximum fuel stored with a narrowly averted Canadian disaster over the Azores.)