First I will show that the Flight Path of United Flight 93 was directed towards New York City during the final minutes before it's destruction in Shanksville.
Second, I will show that the flight path was directed to NYC because it was meant to hit WTC7.
Thirdly, I will show that WTC7 indeed was demolished due to it's collapse which observably fell at free fall which only occur's during controlled demolitions.
Fourth, I will show how the government is pushing propaganda to keep the public swayed toward the government's story via movies and having silverstein clarify his words.
Then you will finally come to the conclusion that United 93 was mean't for WTC7, and thus the reason for why WTC7 was strapped with explosives ready to be detonated.

Below is a picture of the flightpath of the hijacked planes on September 11th, 2001. Here is a link to the original from BBC's website. [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/day_of_terror/the_four_hijacks/flight_11.stm]http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/day_of_terror/the_four_hijacks/flight_11.stm[/url]
[img]http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/4476/2zj7.jpg[/img]

Here's the kicker. If you take the slope of the path that United Flight 93 is taking during it's final minutes before crashing in Shanksville, you will observe that the slope of the line is directed to no other than New York City. The slope of the flight path of United Flight 93 can be observed in the picture to be almost straight and visibly sloped toward NYC.
[img]http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/5881/561651qj0.jpg[/img]

But why was United Flight 93 heading toward the NYC area you ask? World Trade Center 7 was the only other World Trade Center building to fall on 9/11. It fell in the same style as building #1 & #2, which fell in "free fall." I believe United Flight 93 was headed to collide into WTC7. That would explain why WTC7 was wired with explosives, why Silverstein even said the words "pull it", why he is covering it up in the year 2006 with a unbelievable lie, that he meant the firefighters when he said the words pull " IT ". Anyway when Silverstein says " You know we've had such terrible loss of live, maybe the best thing to do is pull it.", I believe what he really meant at the time was that he was speaking to the commander in charge of 9/11. Silverstein ask'ed the commander of 9/11 that it would be a good idea to pull WTC7 even after no plane's ended up hitting it. If it was exposed that WTC7 was strapped with bomb's it would blow the whole official story lid off. It would raise questions asking if wtc1 and wtc2 were also strapped with demolition bombs. That is why they Silverstein was suggesting to pull WTC7, to cover up the fact that it had bomb's. What better way then to destroy the evidence, I mean United Flight 93 didn't reach it's target, something happened that caused that flight to crash instead of reach WTC7. It could have been that the pilot's got control of the plane, it could be anything, but that doesn't matter because using my the slope I have made we KNOW for a fact that it was headed toward NYC.

Below is the link to a video on Youtube.com called "WTC 7 Free fall", the video show's that WTC7 fell at free fall speed.
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U[/url]
If WTC7 fell at free fall, that mean's it was demolitioned, there is no other force that could do that to a building, not even jetfuel. The government wanted this to look like a professional job, something that impressive terrorist's could carry out and it would make the threat three time's more than the present. However something went wrong, it wasn't the ultimate terrorist attack because United Flight 93 failed to achieve it's objective. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U[/url]

Now for government propaganda to cover up they're sloppy job on 9/11.
1. Silverstein was asked to clear up why he said "pull it" when referring to World Trade Center 7.
- His response. [quote]"citing a comment by the property owner that he had decided to “pull it.” The property owner was referring to pulling a contingent of firefighters out of the building in order to save lives because it appeared unstable."[/quote]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U]http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/09/silversteins-first-public-pull-it.html[/url]
- He's lieing because he's a property owner, he knows exactly what "pull it" means. And it does NOT mean pulling the firefighters out. He would of said pull out the fireman.
- Silverstein saying best thing to do is "Pull it!":[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7he_sAVs0A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7he_sAVs0A[/url]
- We'll the term "pull it" is used when speaking of demolitions. The fact that this man is the owner of the WTC show's he know's all about buildings, even the fact that they get demolished. In fact he make's his wealth demolitioning old buildings, and building new one's in it's place. Guess what, he made a fortune of the 9/11 attacks.
- Recently, in 2006, Silverstein released to the public that what he meant when he said "pull it" was that he wanted the "fire chief commander" to tell the firefighter's to get out of the building. Why would he try to clear up what he said to the public in 2006? Is it because he was caught spilling his guts and didn't mean to pull it because that would imply that there were demolition activities involved.
- It is very important to understand why WTC7 was pulled. If the public found out that WTC7 had bomb's strapped to it. It would be easily believable that wtc1 and wtc2 were also strapped to explosives and would make the controlled demolition theory valid to many Americans. However they're plan was to use airplanes to disguise the fact that it was a controlled demolition. So why did WTC7 fall the same way as 1 & 2? Because a plane was meant to hit it and thus it would be remotely detonated just like the other two. However the plane failed to reach WTC7 and so the executioners of the plan "pulled" WTC7 anyway to hide the fact that it was strapped for detonation.

2. Government propaganda via Hollywood
- [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469641/]World Trade Center (2006)[/url]

- [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475276/]United 93 (2006)[/url]

- Why choose the name United 93 before the other 3 more interesting flight paths.
- Peculiar that in the year 2006 Silverstein makes a comment to cover up what he said on 9/11
- Peculiar that in the year 2006 Not one but two movies are feed to American public reinforcing governments "Official story about 9/11"
- Peculiar that this covering up took place in 2006, in a year where more and more individuals don't believe the "Official story"
- Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 - 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks.
[url=http://calltodecision.com/sp84.htm]http://calltodecision.com/sp84.htm[/url]

3. Government propaganda via new's channels. They have monopolized on the media new's outlets and are all now feeding the coverup down our throats.

impeachbush.com domain name is for sale.

http://cgi.ebay.com/IMPEACHBUSH-COM-premium-domain-name-IMPEACH-BUSH_W0Q...

We have received numerous inquiries and offers over the years for this premium, highly recognizable domain name, but an open and public online auction seemed the most fair and democratic approach to its sale.

On the exact day this auction ends, two full years of George W. Bush’s presidency will still be ahead of us. This domain name has never been developed or associated with any group, website, product, or movement, though its applicability as a focal point for fundraising, awareness raising, or commercial development is self-evident.

The “dot.com” domain name format has long been the gold standard. With no previous web development effort, “impeach bush” apparently generates millions of hits on major search engines:

Google: 1,600,000 hits for “impeach bush”

Yahoo: 3,930,000 hits for “impeach bush”

Impeachbush.com has never been used in connection with any other site, product, or movement. It would be yours to define and apply.

We are only selling the name.

Transfer would go through a mutually agreed upon escrow company.

If enough people contact the washington Post, Maybe, Just maybe they might cover this event.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/mediacenter/html/about_contact.html

I just wanted to remind people that this is a Peace Rally, as opposed to an "Anti-War" rally. Some may think there is little difference, but intention is everything. Those that are aware of "Law of Attraction" will know what I'm speaking of. It's the same reason Mother Teresa said she would never attend an Anti War rally, but would be at a Peace Rally in a heartbeat. It's all about your focus... Thank God it's called the 911 Truth movement and not the "Anti 911 commision movement". See you all there at the doors of congress.

:-)

I still say: BURN THE 9-11 COMMISSION REPORT IN PROTEST, preferably in front of wherever the TV News is pointing a camera. A thousand copies, from a thousand people, would make quite a statement.

Joining an antiwar rally will not make a dent. The focus and message will be about Iraq, period. Not 9-11.

Related:

Not even Kucinich gives the slightest shit about high treason on September 11th. Asking people to kindly ask their representatives, is bunk. It will not work.

=====================
From: Kyle Hence kylehence@earthlink.net
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

Dear friends, colleagues and supporters,

In my five years working as an advocate for full investigation of 9/11 I've never been so disgusted and outraged by what I just heard from the Communications Director in the office of Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) who
I have lobbied directly and personally on a number of occasions since he last ran for the Democratic nomination in 2004.

Prior to his re-election to Congress last November Rep. Kucinich mentioned "9/11" on his own website as one of the areas that needed to be investigated by a new Congress exercising its power and responsibility of oversight; in fact it was first on a long list. Well, it now appears he is not planning to walk his talk...unless of course he
hears from enough of you to make him change course.

Not a half hour ago, I hung up the phone after talking with Mr. Auke
Mahar Piersma, the representative's Communications Director. After identifying myself as Director of 9/11 CitizensWatch and briefly
describing my efforts to bring the case for hearings to the attention of his boss, he told told me that his offices' priorities had been set, that 9/11 "is passed" and that it was not on their list of priorities. Nor would it be in his capacity as the newly appointed Chairman of a new Subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform.

The email I sent to his office and posted on his website at kucinich.us follows this message.

The status quo of our elected government ignoring the proven cover-up of 9/11 must be overturned.

The status quo of ignoring the will of the people, the majority of which support a new investigation much be reversed.

The status quo of elected officials stuck with their heads in the sand, ignoring the proverbial elephant at their rear, must be eclipsed by a new commitment to hold hearings to review the findings of the 9/11
Commission.

To date not a single hearing has been held in Congress to review the first and most important mandate given the 9/11 Commission ("To provide
a full accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the attacks of Sept. 11th), to review a Commission that has fallen precipitously in the eyes of the public who now by an overwhelming majority suspect some kind of cover-up.

According to a report produced by 9/11 widows Lori Van Auken and Mindy Kleinberg [http://www.911pressfortruth.com/file_download/11] the 9/11 Commission failed to adequately answer roughly 70% of the questions posed it by the 9/11 Family Steering Committee
.

The status quo must be overturned, and not just on Iraq, wiretapping or torture; but on 9/11 as well. The Democrats will be put out in '08 if they don't effect such a sea change. The tide has already turned with
the public relative to the official story of 9/11, now it's time for the
elected representatives who are legally bound to serve and protect the people to do so by conducting a simple but thorough review of the 9/11 Report.

Please join me in calling on Rep. Kucinich to personally repudiate the comments of his Communications Director and re-commit to his Constitutional duty to provide oversight; in this case to the travesty of the increasingly discredited 9/11 Commission and it's deeply flawed and deficient findings of fact. Surely, Mr. Mahar-Piersma words don't reflect the true sentiments of Rep. Kucinich. Let us hear from Rep. Kucinich himself to assure us his commitment is there. Let's see his leadership redeem Congress and set the record straight on the 9/11 Commission.

Sincerely,

Kyle F. Hence
=====================

Crimes of the State
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/