5th Plane

Overheal

So I've been thinking again about building 7 and I wondered,

Assuming they were the subject of controlled demolitions, for this to be the case, that would mean WTC1,2 and 7 would have had to have originally been planned to be hit by 3 different planes.

So there would have to be a 5th plane, correct?

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=316277

I haven't had time to look deeply at it, but there are some questions regarding a flight that was originally delayed at the gate that morning under normal circumstances. By the time it was rolling out, the first plane had already hit, and ATC sent it back to the gate and grounded outbound flights.

When it arrived to the gate there are reports that some men of Indian or middle eastern descent got into some kind of argument at the terminal with the crew about the cancellation but before authorities could show up to mediate the situation, they disappeared.

It seems in the realm of possibilities their flight had a mission to accomplish, that it had failed.

I don`t think it`s a good theory, it raises far more questions than it answers.

Like if the conspirators had the ability and resources to plant secret demolition charges under everyone's noses, why would they leave something like the plane to chance? Surely if they have the power to shut down major skyscrapers, they can uncancel a flight or move it up or procure a new one. It doesn't make sense that they would allow the flight to be delayed or cancelled in the first place.

Second, theres the issue of the possibility of it. Building 7 wasnt very tall and it didnt poke out over the skyline of New York much as the the twin towers.
http://modernsurvivalblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/new-york-skyline-with-twin-towers-world-trade-center.jpg
It would take a lot of skill for the terrorists to hit that without plowing into the buildings around it. Especially they were meant to be attack before the towers collapsed. And even then, assuming they could hit their target, it would be high up in the building, making a collapse look even more suspicious.
Nor would it make sense in the official narrative for them to attack this random nondescript building that no-one outside of New York even knew. If there was a 3rd plane heading to New York it would make sense in the official narrative for them to be after something more iconic, like the empire state or Chrysler buildings.

Then we are left to wonder why they decided to use the demolition charges without the plane, especially if we are to believe that the collapse is unexplainable any other way, since it blows the conspiracy wide open.
What benefit would blowing the charges bring aside from giving clues to conspiracy theorists?
If they wanted to destroy something specific like some claim, then its trivial to simply say it was destroyed in the fire in the building. (And there are much easier ways to make evidence vanish than staging the most elaborate conspiracy ever...)
If they were concerned about leaving evidence of the demolition charges (now, rather than when they were installed and waiting) then again it would be a trivial matter for them to cordon the building off due to the possibility of collapse while the charges are removed. (This assumes again that the charges would have been able to survive the plane crash and subsequent fire, which is a huge leap.)

But then this entire thing seems to hinge on a pretty racist idea in the first place.
If this incident with the middle eastern men actually happened (which is suspect) and they were actually middle eastern (rather than just brown) and they were actually arguing and shouting (again suspect and possibly tainted perception of the person reporting it), then it doesn't make sense.
Why would they yell and shout and draw attention to themselves? What were they arguing? That the plane should leave because they had an important highjacking to get to?
If this incident actually happened as described, then its far more likely that it was just some guys who were pissed about their flight being delayed. I would be too if I needed to get to New York where my friends/family might be and where they might be in trouble.
What beyond the colour of these guys skin actually links them to the attacks?
I think their race is the only reason anyone paid any attention or bothered to recall the incident in the first place.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I don`t think it`s a good theory, it raises far more questions than it answers.

Like if the conspirators had the ability and resources to plant secret demolition charges under everyone's noses, why would they leave something like the plane to chance? Surely if they have the power to shut down major skyscrapers, they can uncancel a flight or move it up or procure a new one. It doesn't make sense that they would allow the flight to be delayed or cancelled in the first place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB8-2n5OuUg

King Mob wrote: »

Second, theres the issue of the possibility of it. Building 7 wasnt very tall and it didnt poke out over the skyline of New York much as the the twin towers.
http://modernsurvivalblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/new-york-skyline-with-twin-towers-world-trade-center.jpg
It would take a lot of skill for the terrorists to hit that without plowing into the buildings around it.

If they can perform the maneuvers to hit the pentagon, they can hit building 7

King Mob wrote: »

Especially they were meant to be attack before the towers collapsed. And even then, assuming they could hit their target, it would be high up in the building, making a collapse look even more suspicious.

WTC 1 was hit high up ...So that makes it suspicious ?

King Mob wrote: »

Nor would it make sense in the official narrative for them to attack this random nondescript building that no-one outside of New York even knew. If there was a 3rd plane heading to New York it would make sense in the official narrative for them to be after something more iconic, like the empire state or Chrysler buildings.

What is not interesting to the common man could be interesting for terrorists ... Plenty of interesting targets in that building

King Mob wrote: »

Then we are left to wonder why they decided to use the demolition charges without the plane, especially if we are to believe that the collapse is unexplainable any other way, since it blows the conspiracy wide open.
What benefit would blowing the charges bring aside from giving clues to conspiracy theorists?
If they wanted to destroy something specific like some claim, then its trivial to simply say it was destroyed in the fire in the building. (And there are much easier ways to make evidence vanish than staging the most elaborate conspiracy ever...)
If they were concerned about leaving evidence of the demolition charges (now, rather than when they were installed and waiting) then again it would be a trivial matter for them to cordon the building off due to the possibility of collapse while the charges are removed. (This assumes again that the charges would have been able to survive the plane crash and subsequent fire, which is a huge leap.)

Even Larry said they decided to pull it

King Mob wrote: »

But then this entire thing seems to hinge on a pretty racist idea in the first place.
If this incident with the middle eastern men actually happened (which is suspect) and they were actually middle eastern (rather than just brown) and they were actually arguing and shouting (again suspect and possibly tainted perception of the person reporting it), then it doesn't make sense.
Why would they yell and shout and draw attention to themselves? What were they arguing? That the plane should leave because they had an important highjacking to get to?
If this incident actually happened as described, then its far more likely that it was just some guys who were pissed about their flight being delayed. I would be too if I needed to get to New York where my friends/family might be and where they might be in trouble.
What beyond the colour of these guys skin actually links them to the attacks?
I think their race is the only reason anyone paid any attention or bothered to recall the incident in the first place.

I think the news report I posted is pretty clear on that

weisses

weisses wrote: »

I think the news report I posted is pretty clear on that

No it wasn't. Still relies on testimony about brown people being agitated.
It goes onto claim that there was evidence found, but offers nothing to support it besides "unnamed sources" and a plug for someone's book.
So not particularly convincing. Do you have anything more substantial?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

No it wasn't. Still relies on testimony about brown people being agitated.
It goes onto claim that there was evidence found, but offers nothing to support it besides "unnamed sources" and a plug for someone's book.
So not particularly convincing. Do you have anything more substantial?

I think it was

It provided more substance then what you posted

Can you point out where things get "racist" in that piece?

weisses

weisses wrote: »

I think it was

It provided more substance then what you posted

Can you point out where things get racist in that piece?

Because, again, there's nothing linking these people, if they actually existed and actually did as described to anything on 9/11 aside from their skin colour.

There's no confirmation of who they were or where they are from.
All there is to link them to the events is that some people thought they looked middle eastern and completely empty claims about evidence found which can't actually be linked to them at all.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Because, again, there's nothing linking these people, if they actually existed and actually did as described to anything on 9/11 aside from their skin colour.

There's no confirmation of who they were or where they are from.
All there is to link them to the events is that some people thought they looked middle eastern and completely empty claims about evidence found which can't actually be linked to them at all.

Who do I believe ...People's testimony who were actually there or ..King Mob ?

I think you know the answer

Overheal

Be nice

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Who do I believe ...People's testimony who were actually there or ..King Mob ?

I think you know the answer

What evidence or reasoning do they provide to show that the people in question might be involved in the attacks?

1. They were "middle eastern looking."
2. ...?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

What evidence or reasoning do they provide to show that the people in question might be involved in the attacks?

1. They were "middle eastern looking."
2. ...?

They left the plane and left their luggage behind

They were agitated (which is no evidence of a terrorist attack)

Why do you rule out the plan for more planes to be hijacked ?

weisses

weisses wrote: »

They left the plane and left their luggage behind

No one says this in the video. The only witness who was there makes no mention of that.

They say that "box cutters and Al Queda documents were found in unclaimed baggage." They glaringly don't say that those pieces of luggage belonged to the middle eastern men. (And this is leaving aside that the claim about those items existing is entirely suspect.)

What, besides their race, would make people think that the unclaimed luggage belonged to those middle eastern men in the first place?
I don't see any reason beyond good ol' fashion racism.

weisses wrote: »

They were agitated (which is no evidence of a terrorist attack)

I doubt they were the only ones who were agitated about their flight being cancelled. Also if a person is going to assume that just because a person is brown, they might be a terrorist, then perhaps their recollection of the incident might have been tainted by their prejudice.

weisses wrote: »

Why do you rule out the plan for more planes to be hijacked ?

Because there is no convincing evidence for it.
Because it doesn't make sense whether you believe the accepted narrative or the conspiracy theory.
Because (assuming no conspiracy) if there were more hijackers there would be no reason for the government to hide this fact and would more likely try to make it a propaganda point to find them.

Titanucd

So Box cutters and Al Queda 'documents' were found in luggage?

Seems legit.

What were the documents?

An Al Queda to do list?

1. Hijack plane.
2. Crash plane.
3. Get to heaven and defile some virgins.

This to me only weakens the argument however I believe it would be naive to think there werent other planned hi-jackings that were either foiled or called off on that day.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

No one says this in the video. The only witness who was there makes no mention of that.

They say that "box cutters and Al Queda documents were found in unclaimed baggage." They glaringly don't say that those pieces of luggage belonged to the middle eastern men. (And this is leaving aside that the claim about those items existing is entirely suspect.)

What, besides their race, would make people think that the unclaimed luggage belonged to those middle eastern men in the first place?
I don't see any reason beyond good ol' fashion racism.

Because maybe the other hijackers were also Arabic .. Or the bags were in the overhead compartment above their seats ?

Timmons confirmed that as the pilot grabbed the crash ax, she jumped from her seat and started barricading the cockpit door. From the other side of the barricade the cabin crew relayed their concern about four young Arab men in first-class who became agitated when the take-off was cancelled, and fled from the plane when it returned to the terminal. Box cutters and Al Qaeda documents were later found in their luggage.

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/brandywine-to-broad/19560-the-5th-plane-to-be-seized-on-911-and-the-terrorists-who-got-away

King Mob wrote: »

I doubt they were the only ones who were agitated about their flight being cancelled. Also if a person is going to assume that just because a person is brown, they might be a terrorist, then perhaps their recollection of the incident might have been tainted by their prejudice.

They could see the towers burning from the plane... I do think any rational person would understand

King Mob wrote: »

Because there is no convincing evidence for it.
Because it doesn't make sense whether you believe the accepted narrative or the conspiracy theory.
Because (assuming no conspiracy) if there were more hijackers there would be no reason for the government to hide this fact and would more likely try to make it a propaganda point to find them.

According to the people involved FBI questioned them several times ... why would they lie

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Because maybe the other hijackers were also Arabic ..

That wasn't confirmed at the time. And no one involved seems to know whether these men actually were Arabic or not. They are only described as "Middle-eastern or Indian looking".
And even still, if they were actually Arabic, it is racist to assume they might be involved simply because of that. This is the point I'm making.

weisses wrote: »

Or the bags were in the overhead compartment above their seats ?

That's not what the news report says and no source you have provided says that.

weisses wrote: »

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/brandywine-to-broad/19560-the-5th-plane-to-be-seized-on-911-and-the-terrorists-who-got-away
"Timmons confirmed that as the pilot grabbed the crash ax, she jumped from her seat and started barricading the cockpit door. From the other side of the barricade the cabin crew relayed their concern about four young Arab men in first-class who became agitated when the take-off was cancelled, and fled from the plane when it returned to the terminal. Box cutters and Al Qaeda documents were later found in their luggage."

Well first, you're going to have to find a better source than some random blog.
Second, how come she didn't mention anything about barricading the door in her TV interview?
Third, assuming that actually happened as described, it doesn't mention that the men in question tried to force their way in at all, just that they were agitated.
Fourth, I like how everyone describes them as "fleeing" the plane, but it seems like they just left with anyone else.
Fifth, it describes the luggage as theirs, in contradiction to the news report.
Sixth, again it claims that "Al Qaeda documents" were found, but provides no source or explanation what those documents were. So again, It's suspect.

weisses wrote: »

They could see the towers burning from the plane... I do think any rational person would understand

Not everyone is rational during a crisis. Not all of the information was available at the time, for all the men knew it could have just been a big fire in the buildings, which wouldn't require the plane being grounded.

If they were actually terrorists, then it's not rational for them to act as they did.
Why do you think they acted all agitated and drew attention to themselves when the plane wasn't going to take off? What would that have achieved?

weisses wrote: »

According to the people involved FBI questioned them several times ... why would they lie

Again, this is unsourced. But assuming it was true, I'm not saying that any of the witnesses are lying. It's very likely that they believed that these men were involved, but the only reason they believed this was because they were brown.
The news report, the book written by that one woman and now this random blog are simply sensationalising things and being purposefully lax in their sourcing and evidence to make a better, more eye catching story.

I don't buy into it because the questions I asked in my first post remain unanswered.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

That wasn't confirmed at the time. And no one involved seems to know whether these men actually were Arabic or not. They are only described as "Middle-eastern or Indian looking".
And even still, if they were actually Arabic, it is racist to assume they might be involved simply because of that. This is the point I'm making.

Of course they know ... I think if you board a plane your identity is known

And they were mentioned because they allegedly started making a fuss ..

And what has racial profiling to do with the fact more planes were supposed to be hijacked that day

King Mob wrote: »

That's not what the news report says and no source you have provided says that.

So where did they get the luggage from ?

King Mob wrote: »

Well first, you're going to have to find a better source than some random blog.
Second, how come she didn't mention anything about barricading the door in her TV interview?
Third, assuming that actually happened as described, it doesn't mention that the men in question tried to force their way in at all, just that they were agitated.
Fourth, I like how everyone describes them as "fleeing" the plane, but it seems like they just left with anyone else.
Fifth, it describes the luggage as theirs, in contradiction to the news report.
Sixth, again it claims that "Al Qaeda documents" were found, but provides no source or explanation what those documents were. So again, It's suspect.

There is so much information not disclosed in regards to 9/11 by authorities

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8297848/WikiLeaks-Did-al-Qaeda-plot-fifth-attack-on-911.html

Another story in regards to more planes being hyjacked

King Mob wrote: »

I don't buy into it because the questions I asked in my first post remain unanswered.

What important part remains unanswered making you not buying the story that possibly more planes were supposed to be hijacked that day ?

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Of course they know ... I think if you board a plane your identity is known

So then why are the reports all of "Middle Eastern or Indian" men and not directly reporting what nationality they were? Did the co-pilot you say should have know exactly who they were suddenly not know what nationality they were?

weisses wrote: »

And they were mentioned because they allegedly started making a fuss ..

And? How does this indicate that they might have been involved? Why would they act this way if they were involved?

weisses wrote: »

And what has racial profiling to do with the fact more planes were supposed to be hijacked that day

As I said in the very first post: because it's the only reason anyone has linking these people to the attacks.

weisses wrote: »

So where did they get the luggage from ?

What makes you think:
1. The luggage actually existed and contained what is claimed?
2. that the luggage, if it existed, belonged to those men?

I think that it is a completely unsourced claim that everyone, including you are repeating uncritically.
If it wasn't simply dreamt up whole cloth, it is likely the result of the same racist profiling that made people link these men to the attacks based on the colour of their skin.

weisses wrote: »

What important part remains unanswered making you not buying the story that possibly more planes were supposed to be hijacked that day ?

Literally all of the questions I raised and detailed in my first post.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

So then why are the reports all of "Middle Eastern or Indian" men and not directly reporting what nationality they were? Did the co-pilot you say should have know exactly who they were suddenly not know what nationality they were?

No, not to the FO at the time ... But their nationality was known of course

King Mob wrote: »

And? How does this indicate that they might have been involved? Why would they act this way if they were involved?

Why would they not behave like this ? ... If I was preparing for months/years to become a martyr and on the moment supreme the plan goes wrong I would get agitated .. I mean they were human after all

King Mob wrote: »

As I said in the very first post: because it's the only reason anyone has linking these people to the attacks.

No its not ... I posted another story as well so its hardly the only reason

If other planes were supposed to be hijacked what would the profile of the attackers be ?

King Mob wrote: »

What makes you think:
1. The luggage actually existed and contained what is claimed?
2. that the luggage, if it existed, belonged to those men?

I think that it is a completely unsourced claim that everyone, including you are repeating uncritically.
If it wasn't simply dreamt up whole cloth, it is likely the result of the same racist profiling that made people link these men to the attacks based on the colour of their skin.

I go by the statement of the FO (now a general) who gave a detailed account of what happened and seen what has happened that day the story seems plausible

King Mob wrote: »

Literally all of the questions I raised and detailed in my first post.

Which I replied to and you ignored so far

weisses

weisses wrote: »

No, not to the FO at the time ... But their nationality was known of course

They are constantly reffered to as "Middle-Eastern or Indian" not by their nationality. If their nationality was known by anyone, how come no one is being specific?
Which were they, middle-eastern or Indian? What was their actual nationality, cause the middle-east is a big place?

weisses wrote: »

Why would they not behave like this ?

Because it gives them away, and if we are to believe that they "fled" then they didn't want to be caught.
Arguing and asking "why isn't the plane taking off" probably wouldn't have helped since they would know every well why it wasn't taking off and that shouting at a flight attendant wouldn't get the plane off the ground.

weisses wrote: »

If I was preparing for months/years to become a martyr and on the moment supreme the plan goes wrong I would get agitated .. I mean they were human after all

Why is it implausible for them to act this if they were just annoyed about the flight being canceled?

weisses wrote: »

If other planes were supposed to be hijacked what would the profile of the attackers be ?

Not all "Middle Eastern or Indian" people have ties to terrorism.
Seeing a brown person being angry on a plane and thinking it's possible he might be a terrorist isn't good reasoning. It's racist.
Again, given the testimony, none of these men were violent or tried to force their way into the cockpit. Despite the claims you have failed to substantiate, there is no evidence they had any weapons.
All they had to make the connection is the colour of their skin.

weisses wrote: »

I go by the statement of the FO (now a general) who gave a detailed account of what happened and seen what has happened that day the story seems plausible

But she doesn't mention anything about the luggage at all. Neither it's contents or who owned it or even if it existed.
Nor did she actually see these men or their behavior. Nor did see give any details about anything of the incident at all as she has barricaded herself in the cockpit before the men started acting up.

The information about the luggage does not come from her. It comes from unnamed sources. No details about where and when the luggage was found or what actually was in it. There's even conflicting reports in the sources you are using. One says that it was in unclaimed baggage, the other says it specifically belonged to the men.

So again I ask:
What makes you think:
1. The luggage actually existed and contained what is claimed?
2. that the luggage, if it existed, belonged to those men?

weisses wrote: »

Which I replied to and you ignored so far

You post did not address any of the points you quoted.
All of my questions remained unanswered.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

They are constantly reffered to as "Middle-Eastern or Indian" not by their nationality. If their nationality was known by anyone, how come no one is being specific?
Which were they, middle-eastern or Indian? What was their actual nationality, cause the middle-east is a big place?

Their nationality is known ... If you board a plane and something happens they know exactly who was on board

Fact that the FBI did not release these names can have various reasons ... one of witch is that they are innocent

King Mob wrote: »

Because it gives them away, and if we are to believe that they "fled" then they didn't want to be caught.
Arguing and asking "why isn't the plane taking off" probably wouldn't have helped since they would know every well why it wasn't taking off and that shouting at a flight attendant wouldn't get the plane off the ground.

Why is it implausible for them to act this if they were just annoyed about the flight being canceled?

They can have various reasons for being agitated, the reason i gave is 1 of them

King Mob wrote: »

Not all "Middle Eastern or Indian" people have ties to terrorism.
Seeing a brown person being angry on a plane and thinking it's possible he might be a terrorist isn't good reasoning. It's racist.
Again, given the testimony, none of these men were violent or tried to force their way into the cockpit. Despite the claims you have failed to substantiate, there is no evidence they had any weapons.
All they had to make the connection is the colour of their skin.

I go with what the reports say ...That luggage was found with box cutters ... I don't mind who it belonged to ... The story that more planes were supposed to get hijacked that day seems a valid one ... specially when looking at other reports coming from various airports around that time ... As far as evidence goes ... Its the FBI and you and I know they are not really forthcoming in regards to releasing any evidence

King Mob wrote: »

But she doesn't mention anything about the luggage at all. Neither it's contents or who owned it or even if it existed.
Nor did she actually see these men or their behavior. Nor did see give any details about anything of the incident at all as she has barricaded herself in the cockpit before the men started acting up.

I never said she did ... what is your point ?

King Mob wrote: »

The information about the luggage does not come from her. It comes from unnamed sources. No details about where and when the luggage was found or what actually was in it. There's even conflicting reports in the sources you are using. One says that it was in unclaimed baggage, the other says it specifically belonged to the men.

So again I ask:
What makes you think:
1. The luggage actually existed and contained what is claimed?
2. that the luggage, if it existed, belonged to those men?

I can only go with what is in the various reports and looking back what happened that day its well possible the luggage story is valid

It could well be it belongs to those men ... In the end I don't give a crap who it belonged to ... The story it was allegedly on UA23 is the biggest concern

King Mob wrote: »

ou post did not address any of the points you quoted.
All of my questions remained unanswered.

I think I tried here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101039659&postcount=3

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Their nationality is known ... If you board a plane and something happens they know exactly who was on board

Fact that the FBI did not release these names can have various reasons ... one of witch is that they are innocent

You keep saying that the people there knew what their nationality was. Yet the people there refer to them as "Middle -Eastern or Indian".
Why do they say this if they know what their nationality was?
Which were they? What nationality were they?

weisses wrote: »

They can have various reasons for being agitated, the reason i gave is 1 of them

And I gave another one that doesn't have a rather large plot hole and doesn't require a ton of extra leaps like yours does.

weisses wrote: »

I go with what the reports say ...That luggage was found with box cutters

Well we don't know what the reports say. You are relying on what people say the reports say. But you have not provided the original source for this claim, so you don't really have much to go on.

You still haven't detailed what these "Al Queda Documents" were.
Were they found with the box cutters in the same luggage? Was the luggage found in the overhead bins? Or the hold? Or Lost and found?
Is the fact it was found with box cutters enough to prove there was a terrorist on the flight even though it was more common then due to less strict security pre-9/11?

weisses wrote: »

... I don't mind who it belonged to ...

Well you should because you are agruing that it's the only thing other then the men's skin colour that connects them to the attacks.

weisses wrote: »

I never said she did ... what is your point ?

You are relying on her as some kind of infallible witness because she was there and saw everything. But in reality, she did not actually see anything and does not confirm most of the claims you are supporting.

weisses wrote: »

It could well be it belongs to those men ... In the end I don't give a crap who it belonged to ... The story it was allegedly on UA23 is the biggest concern

Well we haven't confirmed that any such luggage was actually found in the first place.
Where does the report actually come from? Have you read it or sought it out?
Or are you just accepting what you are told by a local mainstream media outlet who are plugging a book and some random blog?

weisses wrote: »

I think I tried here

None of my questions are answered by the post.

PeterTheNinth

I don't buy the theory about the fifth plane. But I have questioned "how did they think they could just bring down Building 7 and nobody would question it?".

But I think that whoever brought it down assumed that:

a) possibly more damage would have been done to the building so that it falling might not look as conspicuous as it does.
b) the dust of the collapse would have hidden the other buildings.
c) all cameras would have been focused on the twin towers so there would not have been such clear footage of the collapse.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

None of my questions are answered by the post.

No ?

I am clearly replying to your concerns in regards to the 5th plane

weisses

weisses wrote: »

No ?

I am clearly replying to your concerns in regards to the 5th plane

Nope.
First you post the video which only confirms the incident happens, but when examined actually does not confirm anything beyond that, contrary to the claims and the theory.

Next you post:

If they can perform the maneuvers to hit the pentagon, they can hit building 7

Which is irrelevant.

WTC 1 was hit high up ...So that makes it suspicious ?

Which is again irrelevant and non-comparable, and an attempt to misrepresent me and my position, so did not warrant a response.

What is not interesting to the common man could be interesting for terrorists ... Plenty of interesting targets in that building

Which is not an answer to the question I posed.

Even Larry said they decided to pull it

Which is not an answer to the question I posed, doesn't actually make much sense as a statement and is just an outright lie at this stage.

So no. None of my questions are answered. You answered none of them in my last post either.
So I think the discussion has run it's course.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Nope.
First you post the video which only confirms the incident happens, but when examined actually does not confirm anything beyond that, contrary to the claims and the theory.

What exactly did you examine ? and what did you present other then your opinion as to why its not possible ?

King Mob wrote: »

Next you post:
Which is irrelevant.

Nope its not

It is relevant If you say

Second, theres the issue of the possibility of it. Building 7 wasnt very tall and it didnt poke out over the skyline of New York much as the the twin towers.
http://modernsurvivalblog.com/wp-con...ade-center.jpg
It would take a lot of skill for the terrorists to hit that without plowing into the buildings around it.

Apparently it took a lot of skill to pull the maneuver they executed before hitting the pentagon ... So its safe to assume they could hit WTC7

The pentagon wasn't that tall either plus they had to fly over an embankment as well

King Mob wrote: »

Which is again irrelevant and non-comparable, and an attempt to misrepresent me and my position, so did not warrant a response.

Again it is relevant .... WTC1 was hit high up as well

When you say

Especially they were meant to be attack before the towers collapsed. And even then, assuming they could hit their target, it would be high up in the building, making a collapse look even more suspicious.

You actually agree the collapse of at least one of the towers is suspicious ?

Plus OBL actually stated he was very surprised the buildings fell in a statement after the attacks so the fact the planes were meant to hit before a collapse is mute because that was a scenario not thought possible in the first place

https://www.quora.com/Did-the-9-11-hijackers-know-they-were-going-to-collapse-the-Twin-Towers-or-just-cause-moderate-damage

King Mob wrote: »

Which is not an answer to the question I posed..

Sorry but again it is

If you say

Nor would it make sense in the official narrative for them to attack this random nondescript building that no-one outside of New York even knew

You are forgetting the mayor has his crisis centre there ...Also CIA and DoD had offices in there ... Again what seems nondescript to you doesnt mean it actually is the case

King Mob wrote: »

Which is not an answer to the question I posed, doesn't actually make much sense as a statement and is just an outright lie at this stage.

No it is not ... You tried this approach in another thread and there it was pointed out with evidence that your assumption in regards to the Pull remark was incorrect

King Mob wrote: »

So no. None of my questions are answered. You answered none of them in my last post either.
So I think the discussion has run it's course.

So there you have it ... My response (again) to your questions

The possibility you don't like the answers is not my problem but they are answers nonetheless