Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Friday, November 11, 2005

9-11: Why did the 3rd building fall down without an aircraft collision?

This is a speculative thought on what may have gone wrong in the original 9-11 plan, and why WTC7 had a controlled demolition as did Towers 1 and 2.

The story with WTC 7 is curious in that, despite not suffering an aircraft impact, suffered from a controlled demolition.

This raises in this observer's mind the possibility of an unusual alternative plan.

* * *

Let's consider an alternative timeline for 9-11.

Suppose the original plan was to have three aircraft collide with buildings over NYC.

What happens if the third aircraft is accidentally shot down in the wrong location?

Moreover, what happens if the controlled demolition in the third building is already timed on the assumption that the third aircraft had already collided?

* * *

Let's consider what might have gone wrong. Suppose the entire 9-11 scenario assumed that the third aircraft was to have collided, but not impacted, with the two towers that were already standing, and then get shot out of the sky, and plummet into the WTC 7?

The scenario goes like this:

A. Thirty-days prior, a team sets the squibs in both WTC1 and WTC2

B. Two aircraft collide directly with the towers.

C. The third aircraft, which was shot down over Pennsylvania, was supposed to have entered the area, and have been shot down by an F-16, and subsequently collided with WTC7.

D. Other fighter aircraft in the area, also fearful of missing, fire missiles, which were to have hit WTC1 and WTC2, apparently bringing down the towers.

E. All three towers, WTC1/2/7, were already loaded with squibs and the explosions were timed to appear to be random reactions to the aircraft collisions and missile impacts.

This scenario would solve these problems:

Explain away why the buildings fell down, despite insufficient heat within the core to melt the steel in either Tower 1 or 1;

Destroy the evidence before the buildings started to fall;

Alter the impact areas and muddy the waters on how big the holes were where the aircraft were reported to have collided;

Make it appear as though the third aircraft was on a trajectory to somewhere in DC.

* * *

If this scenario is true, then something within the initial Air Force response would have had to have "not gone according to the original plan" -- namely, the intercept would have had to occur later, and within the area over NYC.

Also, what would have had to happen is a new story on why the F-16 that did shoot down the aircraft over PA [that they can't talk about], is now in plain view. Conversely, why the secrecy over what happened in PA, when the original plan was to have the F-16 do the same, but in NYC, and in plain view?

* * *

Other views on this theory: It is not clear why the aircraft would fly over PA when its "actual target" was WTC-7. This seems convoluted.