Did 9/11 go according to plan??

[tony london]

Hi Everybody!!

Firstly, congratulations on an excellent web site. I'm out here in the tropics, living on the sun-kissed beaches of Cambodia. (Its called early retirement) Needless to say, without the net, I would never be asking the type of question that I am today.

After a politically active youth back home in London --- I was on the 1st anti-Vietnam war demo in London in '68 --- I retired from the fray in the early 80's with the anti-cruise missile march......... or so I thought!!!

I was awoken from my dogmatic slumbers the morning of 9/11, by a hysterical phone call from my cousin. "Have you the TV on Tony?" A garbled message about planes smashing into the WTC followed. I knew my cousins daughter was in New York, on her GAP year, staying at a hostel, not a few blocks from the crashing towers. Hence the panic. I turned the TV on and sat there stunned in disbelief for many an hour.

On her safe return to the Uk, the family sat and listened to how my 2nd cousin helped with endless cups of tea and coffee, console the distressed relatives and survivors of the ättack"on the Twin Towers. It was from her, that I learnt of WTC7 crashing, seemingly of its own volition, several hours after the twin towers collapsed. Two planes: two towers. That was the spin. My skeptism about the official story had already been called into play about Atta and his chums having a few flying lessons on Cessna's, and then, magically, hijacking modern jet passenger aircraft, and performing the tight maneuvers that were necessary to hit their targets that fateful day. No way Jose!!! I had flying lessons on Cessna's years ago. I have stood on the flight decks of Douglas DC8's. There is absolutely no way, you can make the quantum leap from piloting a Cessna to flying a modern Boeing jet airliner. No way.

Some eighteen months later, on a bitterly cold February morning, I exited Leicester Square tube station, and made my way to the Embankment, as I had so many times before in the 60's and 70's, to join what was to prove to be the largest demo ever in England. As I had been on most of them, I can certify that claim. There were several millions ... at least. I started marching (joined up with a para who had been on the Arnhem drop in the 2nd World War!!! He was proudly wearing his red beret and campaign medals to boot) around 12pm. Hit Hyde Park at around 3pm. Listened to the speeches, and left the Park at around 4-30pm. Walked all the way along Oxford Street, cut through Soho, and finished back in Leicester Squar, where I ate a welcome Kebab. I jumped on a tube, arriving home around 7-30pm, frozen to the marrow. I turned on the TV, and was proud
to see on the News, that marchers were STILL arriving in Hyde Park at that time. It was one of the few moments in my humdrum existence, that I was really proud of the British people. The neocons of the so-called "New Labour" Party, had thought they had conned us all. Even then, despite all the spin and hype, us Brits weren't buying it.

Back to my question (sorry about the diatribe):

Did things go according to plan that day for Kissinger and his Zionist clique?? Why did WTC7 collapse several hours after the main towers? Was this in the original script? And what about WTC6?? I only read of the Customs House going up in a cloud of smoke and debris, in Tarpley's excellent tome. Any other confirmation of this?? Having visited the USA on many occasions, and having a healthy respect for many of the American people, I personally believe that there was fierce resistance, even at the 11th hour, to the perpetrators of this heinous crime. I'm sure their story will be told in the years ahead. Any other anomalies that readers have spotted or suspected??I would like to hear your views.

It looks like being yet another hot sunny day in paradise, so I'm off to the beach. Incidentally, I have access to an open air cinema on a local beach.
I'm thinking of running "9/11`THE TRUTH"' film evening's there. Unfortunately, I haven't seen the material you guy's talk about on this site. So, if anyone can obtain the relevant DVD's, leaflets etc, and fancies coming out to Cambodia for a FREE HOLIDAY ( grab an air ticket, the rests on me), then let me know. Peak season is after Xmas. We are inundated with impressionable back packers whose neurons need feeding to help spread the word.

Tony --- Life is a Beach --- London.

[Snowygrouch]

Hi,
I'd steer well away from saying 9/11 was all planned by zionists.

However you are quite right, it did NOT go to plan. If it had we would not be here knowing it was an inside job!

Its probable F93 was meant for the white house and that a pilot actually managed to do his job in spite of the excersizes and FAA screwups and shot it down.

I think WTC7 was meant to go later, someone almost certainly lit the fires in the building (if you look at the burning floors the glass in intact), if it had happened with WTC1 & 2 it would have been a bit obvious. At least they could CLAIM fire if it burned for hours.

They also hadnt counted on Saeed Sheikh getting involved in Daniel Pearls murder hence putting the spotligt on the ISI.

Cheerio

C.

[blackcat]

[Snowygrouch]

Cat,
Thats fine, you stick to exposing 911 by shouting the zionists did it and I`ll stick to my methods.

C.

[blackcat]

[Snowygrouch]

Cat,
A little bit of both; all the evidence I`ve looked at suggests 9/11 was a lot more complex than ONE specific group being involved would suggest.
I`m sure there were alot of vested intereests at stake.

I do not believe that currently we have the information to write down a comprehensive list of names of those directly responsible.

Naturally we know some of the names who were INVOLVED; but to say I know exactly who planned it all is a statement I`m not willing to make at present.

The only one at present I`d lock up and throw away the key for (with a clear concience) would be Cheney.

C.

[Mark Gobell]

Hello Tony London, your question is an important one and yet another that remains unanswered.

I have always assumed that WTC7 was supposed to be hit by an aircraft.

Like WTC1 & 2 it was pre wired with explosives and so I think that this is a reasonable assumption to begin with.

I struggle to see the merit of allowing the controlled demolition of WTC7 to be filmed without a plane crashing into it.

If no plane was supposed to hit WTC7 then the only reasonable conclusion for me is that the perps may have reasoned that this building burning for a few hours may lend creedence to the story of fires bringing down the twin towers. This is difficult. 110 storeys fall after 56 minutes of jet fuel fires and WTC7 therefore supports this by burning for several hours of diesel fuelled fires? The second fact doesn't reinforce the first fact so I discount the possibility.

Maybe WTC7 wasn't supposed to be filmed ? Maybe it was ? We could go on and on with all kinds of possibilities.

We know that the lack of precedent with aircraft crashing into steel framed buildings has allowed anything and everything to be claimed because nobody is supposed to know what would really happen.

If WTC7 went according to plan, then the only way I can reason about this is that it was just another component in the massive psy op.

I tend not to think about it this way and so therefore I think that a plane was intended to hit it simply because it wa pre-wired.

Another angle that may be worth considering is the WTC2 first scenario. Why did WTC2 come down before WTC1? Was this planned too or was the timing improvised for some reason, if so what reason?

The chronology only makes physical sense if WTC2 presented a problem or was done to mess with our minds.

56 minutes of burning jet fuel fires doesn't make any sense and could never be explained away satisfactorily. It's hard to see how this was planned. Maybe they were all supposed to burn for a lot longer and something changed that.

Were Silverstein's comments scripted or a gaffe to be covered up with a story about "pulling" non resident firefighters from WTC7 ?

Would he have been allowed to go on PBS and say something so revealing ?

[Leiff]

[Mark Gobell]

Indeed there was Leiff. A third plane is clearly seen in video records.

[Busker]

Patently not.

Otherwise this site would not exist.

[Mark Gobell]

LOL Busker of course.

That was my first reaction. But they obviously intended for us to all accept the media and academia lies of jet fuel fires despite the visual evidence of explosives.

So, we question what they suppose we should accept.

On that one fact I have to agree with you. But I don't think they anticipated such a ground swell.

That's the really bad part in their planning as far as I am concerned.

As I have said before, their arrogance will be their downfall.

[Mark Gobell]

Leiff - you seem to have put on some weight since I last saw you. Everything OK ? Or are you comfort eating again ?

[s1e9a8n5]

I remember many people coming up with the fact that maybe a plane was meant to hit WTC 7. But if that did happen, wouldnt it be more suspicious? I mean 1 and 2 OKAY, but to also knock down WTC 7, a much smaller building.

I do agree that maybe they brough the WTC 1&2 down quicker because the fires were being controlled. They prob saw and heard this and decided to get rid of them. Blame WTC 7 on the fact that debris etc hit the building causing internal fires and damage yata yata nonsense.

And to add "Leiff". Nice nose job... facial reconstruction? Tip- Lay off the sun for a while, your skin looks black. The surgery probably affected your left hand, so thats why you had to use your right in your "confession" video...

[Patrick Brown]

Hmm we could speculate that the speed of the second impact caused more damage to the core columns. But as core columns being cut due to aircraft impacts is official speculation we might like to look elsewhere.

Be interesting to know if anybody has the approximate speeds of the aircraft?

Perhaps the second impact caused the premature ignition of thermite at the core! We do have molten metal dripping from the south tower just before collapse. On a different thread we have speculated as to how the thermite would have reached the outer skin. The only explanation we've come up with so far is the possibility that some how it got into a ventilation shaft which had fallen at one end thereby allowing the molten metal to run to the skin. This blatant smoking gun meant the tower had to be prematurely blown.

To date all attempts to explain the molten metal seen dripping from the south tower have been debunked except the thermite theory. As Steve Jones says in his paper why is it so difficult for the government investigations to at least accept the possibility that thermite may have been used? The only answer is the government doesn't want that possibility investigated!

As the saying goes, keep it simple stupid.


Link

[Patrick Brown]

OK I've figured this one out:

The thermite was moved to the skin by the impacting aircraft. As we watch the original thermite footage we need to orientate ourselves and realise that the aircraft entered the building from behind coming towards us. The aircraft would have pulled the thermite to the skin or at least near enough to run and drip from the tower.


Link

[Fallious]

Aye perhaps. It's just strange because it can't have ignited as a result of the impact, because it definitely would have cooled or dispersed by this point if it had.

[Eckyboy]

Why would WTC7 be a target for terrorists though? How many people actually knew anything about it before 911? WTC1 and 2 I can understand although surely a bunch of terrorist fanatics would have targeted a nuclear power station if they really wanted to hurt America rather than hitting what is described as a symbolic target especially considering the first plane flew over one on its way to New York. Getting back to the original question I believe that some parts of the operation did not go as planned and they either improvised or switched to a back-up plan.