Was Building 7 Supposed to be Hit by a Plane?

A friend brought this subject up recently... and we got into a little tiff

It got me thinking back on that day... and i starting thinking about that untouched building

We all saw the towers fall... then hours later the third building fell like a rock...

Sure... the third time in history buildings fell out of the sky at free fall without a "Planned demolition"... ironically all on the same day




Flight 93 turned back towards New York... but this was the flight they made the movie about... You know where the passengers attempted to thwart the pirates effort to take over, and they ended up crashing in a field or something?

My question is... Did building 7 fall because it was supposed to be hit by a plane like the other two?

Said plot failed... but it fell anyways... though its interesting that said flight turned back towards the WTC

Perhaps we're talking about a timed demolition?

Whacha think everyone?

originally posted by: Akragon

Flight 93 turned back towards New York...

your diagram shows flight 93 flying towards Washington more than New York...

a reply to: choos

yes but this was the flight that didn't quite work out the way they'd planned...

Twas headed in that direction before it crashed

a reply to: choos

It appears it may veer left after washington , heading north to NY

a reply to: Akragon

I found a related thread
United Flight 93 was supposed to hit World Trade Center 7

I think building was intended to fall earlier in the day;

Similar to this possible scenario

The building was not intended to be hit by a plane but was supposed to be collapsed while covered with the dust cloud generated by the fall of the adjacent WTC1 North Tower. The charges failed to detonate perhaps due to radio interference from the dust cloud or some other technical malfunction. Therefore the building had to be demolished later in the day.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Was 10:45 a.m. the Originally Planned Demolition Time of WTC 7?

At 11:07 a.m. in the morning of September 11, 2001, a CNN correspondent in New York reported that a third tower had possibly collapsed. While this report was incorrect, it is interesting to note that the reporter's description could have applied to World Trade Center Building 7. This huge skyscraper was indeed the third tower to collapse on 9/11. However it did not come down until late in the afternoon, more than six hours after this report.

Heres the video of CNN reporting possible third collapse on 9/11 of a 50 story building earlier in the day

a reply to: Akragon

well...since there were 4 planes...3 of them had hit buildings...apparently. It only stands to reason that the fourth plane was also bound for a building. WTC 7 is as good as guess as any...even more so.

Building 7 was nothing but collateral damage, it wasn't part of any plan IMO...

bare in mind these large buildings are MEANT to take a plane hit so they dont fall over ans squish other on plane-strike buildings [cough B7] and stay upright for evacuation and fire suppressant.

My uncle has what i think is one of the best jobs around, demolitions expert but it doesnt care for USA hubbub - i just showd him a video of 7 fallign with zero kinetic impact or jet fuel - hes a blunt man, he simply said "thats a bunch of bollocks" and went about his day.

Whgat makes him a good candidate for this of conundrum, is that hes a hard rock blaster at heart and no so much building demo, he says it TAKES ALOT of carefully drilling holes into the rock segment and packing the explosive rope and detonators.

So ramble over is this: Building 7 fall, done in a perfect colaspe ion on inside, MAGICLY and with no planes or AVIATION FUEL ANYWHERE NEAR IT.

Oh he added, if that was his job to rig and fell building like that, his boss would give him a tidy bonus

a reply to: gmoneystunt

Nice... that thread got no attention eh... almost 10 years ago!

Perhaps people are thinking more these days

This certainly wasn't copied from that... said person did far more research on this then i...

the Idea just never crossed my mind... seems to be more evidence that there were internal detonations

a reply to: Akragon

The third fell, more and more evidence shows it was a controlled detonation. The last plane was probably suposed to go there. Makes sense to me.

This building was not hit by any plane it collapsed anyway free fall speed into it's own footprint.



Or this one..

originally posted by: Akragon
A friend brought this subject up recently... and we got into a little tiff

It got me thinking back on that day... and i starting thinking about that untouched building

We all saw the towers fall... then hours later the third building fell like a rock...

Sure... the third time in history buildings fell out of the sky at free fall without a "Planned demolition"... ironically all on the same day

Flight 93 turned back towards New York... but this was the flight they made the movie about... You know where the passengers attempted to thwart the pirates effort to take over, and they ended up crashing in a field or something?

My question is... Did building 7 fall because it was supposed to be hit by a plane like the other two?

Said plot failed... but it fell anyways... though its interesting that said flight turned back towards the WTC

Perhaps we're talking about a timed demolition?

Whacha think everyone?

Being that practically every 'ABC' agency had an office in that building, I'm personally of the belief that building 7 was the command center for the controlled demolition of all three buildings. 7 was destroyed to destroy evidence.

Just my take anyway..

a reply to: Mianeye

LOL

except thats 5 stories high... probably built on a sink hole or some unstable ground in some Russian suburb

We're talking about man made megaliths here...

a reply to: reldra

I have 3 trains of thought in my mind.

1 is that the last one was detonated on purpose so it didnt fall over and cause more deaths. Possibly 'they' saw the foundation was compromised and decided to destroy it from the bottom. Mabe they do this for all skyscrapersa and we just don't know. Who would want to tell us that?

2 there was enough time to detonate the 3rd one, knowing there was evidence in it people didn't want to come out. That seems less likley if 1 is true. If it was just to not have a building not fall over, would they have the time? Would that building have fallen over?

3 It was all planned.

I find a mix of 2 and 3 to be more likley I have read every single 9/11 thread on this site.

originally posted by: Mianeye
Building 7 was nothing but collateral damage, it wasn't part of any plan IMO...

I have the same kind of denial in my life i believe none of my girl friends have ever cheated on me...does that mean they haven't ?

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Mianeye
Building 7 was nothing but collateral damage, it wasn't part of any plan IMO...

I have the same kind of denial in my life i believe none of my girl friends have ever cheated on me...does that mean they haven't ?

lol

I have seen enough to know that 7 did not fall naturally.

Demolition requires explosives, explosives make loud sounds, there were no such sounds in New York when the buildings collapsed.

The sound of demolition.

a reply to: Mianeye

Demolition requires explosives, explosives make loud sounds, there were no such sounds in New York when the buildings collapsed.

Pretty sure if i remember correctly those that were close to all of those buildings would disagree with that

a reply to: Akragon

Prove it...

a reply to: Akragon

The thought of a plane (any plane not just specifically flight 93) intending to hit it building 7 had not cross my mind. By the way I added more to my post above. What are your thoughts about that scenario? This thread actually helped me to find that video I posted, I couldn't find it for years.