Was Building 7 Supposed to be Hit by a Plane?

a reply to: Mianeye
at :45 at least one explosion.
at 5:38 witness says he heard what sounded like a clap of thunder, saw a ripple go through the building and then it collapsed.
at 6:56 another witness says "one, two and now number 7 that have come down from this explosion."


at 3:55 two explosions, at 4:02 another


at 1:30 just before it came down.



I

at :45 at least one explosion.

That's the sound of the building collapsing! What's more, you can hear the people recording the video remarking: "I told you that sucker was gonna go!" These are not the words of someone taken by surprise by a sudden and unexpected explosion.

at 5:38 witness says he heard what sounded like a clap of thunder, saw a ripple go through the building and then it collapsed.

Accurate, but misleading, although the witness could hardly be expected to understand what had happened. A ripple did go through building seven prior to its observed collapse. Because upper floors collapsed downward when a critical column failed. The weight of the penthouse collapse (which you can see in footage of the building's collapse is the first thing to go, while the rest of the building is still standing) pulled other columns away with it, and then the entire building shuddered and collapsed almost immediately.

The short version of this was that there were really two collapses, one which wasn't visible from street level since it was largely inside the building, but it was audible and did sound like an explosion, and that (hidden) collapse led to the inescapably-obvious collapse seconds later.

at 6:56 another witness says "one, two and now number 7 that have come down from this explosion."

If you're taking this literally, the witness is actually saying that all three buildings were knocked down by one explosion! Not several. And we can all agree that that is not what happened. This quote is just a panicky and fearful witness explaining that three buildings have come down and not choosing his/her words very carefully. Which is understandable, given the circumstances!

From the map, Flight 93 looks like it was headed to Washington DC. I would theorize that Building 7 wasn't meant to be hit by a plane, but was intended to collapse and disappear while concealed inside the dust cloud after 1 and 2 fell. But something went wrong and it took crews a few hours to correct the issue and proceed with demolition. Flight 93 was probably meant to hit the Capital or something else in DC but was shot down or whatever happened to it.

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

Or this one..

Funny how this 5 story buildings debris pile is as large as building 7.

Not the same conditions, ground gave away underneath.

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: Reverbs

That guy would fit well in here, but you got me, he says he heard an explosion and the building came down.

Just weird that only one guy come forward, where is all his colleague...

Scared for their lives ?

I know a firefighter who was there, he is still scared and will not talk much about it, to this day, and he is dying of lung issues caused by the "smoke".

a reply to: audubon

That's the sound of the building collapsing!

there are two sounds.. the explosion and then the sound of collapse. listen carefully.

Accurate, but misleading

How? the rumbling from a building collapsing may sound like rumbling thunder. a thunderclap however, is not a rumble.

A ripple did go through building seven prior to its observed collapse. Because upper floors collapsed downward when a critical column failed.

ahh..that darned ole "critical column" failure that brought the whole building down. uh-huh..please explain in detail HOW that is possible

If you're taking this literally, the witness is actually saying that all three buildings were knocked down by one explosion! Not several.

um..no. in context he is saying that 1 and 2 came down and NOW 7 from this explosion.

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
there are two sounds.. the explosion and then the sound of collapse. listen carefully.

Neither of those sounds is an explosion. The first is the penthouse collapsing down through the building and taking several floors with it. The second is the collapse of the building itself.

How? the rumbling from a building collapsing may sound like rumbling thunder. a thunderclap however, is not a rumble.

Well, you've watched the same video as me, so you can make a calm judgement about the noise that the witness couldn't be expected to make in the heat of the moment. Thunderclap or rumble of thunder? Your call.

ahh..that darned ole "critical column" failure that brought the whole building down. uh-huh..please explain in detail HOW that is possible

I already did. You've edited it out.

um..no. in context he is saying that 1 and 2 came down and NOW 7 from this explosion.

He says 'that have come down from this explosion'. That's 'have' plural, the singular (if he was referring to WTC7 alone) would be 'has come down from this explosion'.

They have, he has. Basic grammar.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Reverbs

Yeah, so WTC 1 and 2 started falling from where the plane had hit, how did they know where the planes were going to hit them, to place the explosives?

What made building 7 bulge? And it also appears to collapse from near the bottom, was the third plane meant to hit it at the bottom??

How was a big commercial jet going to do that?!

Building 7 was bulging from all the bombs and incendiary devices destroying every shred of paperwork and computer servers on those levels.

Ever notice how odd and weird those fires were, the smoke that came out was DEFINITIVELY like that of computers being burnt at extreme temperatures, odd, since nothing could have started those fires except for purposeful self-destruction type of fires.

originally posted by: samkent
This is incredible.
After 15 years and thousands of threads the conspiracy religion lives on.
In a way it reminds me of the beliefs of radical Islam.

Nah, Islam is way more like the beliefs of those who believe everything the government media gods tell them....

And following the scared and dominated "scientists" who investigated, is much like believing the IMAMS....

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish

originally posted by: DigitalVigilante420

That's some pretty impressive collateral damage.

You can see that it's already on fire. You can also see it bending over as it goes down. Definitely not a controlled demolition.

Not surprising that it fell, considering it had been struck by lumps of burning debris for several hours.

Bending over ?

Exactly like a controlled demolition, too bad they didn't use the same obliteration technique as they did on the towers, many people would not be questioning this if it had disappeared into thin air like the towers.

And what lumps of burning debris are you talking about ??

No burning debris was seen after the towers fell, somehow all of the fires got UNDER the debris and raged for over half a year !!

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: elementalgrove

I'm well aware of Barry jennings, seen it countless of times, and yes he hears explosions but those are not demolition explosions.

Just to be clear, when i'm talking about explosions, i'm talking about the clear distinctive sound that happens just before the collapse or during the collapse when demolition explosives go off, not the various explosive sounds that could be anything in the fire raging, neither the explosions heard when the plane hits the towers .

Noone cares about your narrative that it MUST FIT how you see everyday demolitions.

These buildings were not empty, which reduces sound dramatically, and most of the videos we see somehow had all the sound edited out, and have been edited out since 2003 at the very least.

What makes you think it is not possible to make things sound a lot less loud anyways ?

Talk about living inside a presented box,, "Gotta be my way or NOOOOOO"

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: texasyeti

Of course their new explanation is the entire building collapsed from "OFFICE FURNITURE FIRES?!" Putting to rest all of the "CONSPIRACY THEORIES". Its so blatant they are lying to us. How many more fairy tales can they fabricate.

According to your theory ALL the members of the NYFD are covering up the lack of fires.
Even after 340 of their best friends were killed by the evil government.

Walk up to one of their fire houses and accuse them of that and lets see if you can walk back home.

You are on some serious intoxicants.

Way to go with some wild statement that only a lunatic would come up with.

They never covered up the lack of fires, they SPECIFICALLY STATED ALL ALONG the lack of fires.

I bet it is you who wouldn't get back home if you talked to any of the firefighters who lived through that day.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: firerescue

Yeah right....and here I was thinking that the fuel was burned higher up in the building to make the heat needed to make the buildings fall yet you say the fuel flowed away.....hmmmmm

The fuel started the fires. The burning contents of the buildings provided the heat.

Provided the heat to explode into powder and throw half vaporized steel beams weighing many tons a 1000 feet to the side ?

How is it, that we have never witnessed anywhere near this level of pulverization in ANYTHING in history .... not even the bombing runs of the military have accomplished this level of total ANNIHILATION.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
How is it, that we have never witnessed anywhere near this level of pulverization in ANYTHING in history ....

Yes we have.

not even the bombing runs of the military have accomplished this level of total ANNIHILATION.

Absolute nonsense. Look at Dresden in WWII: 1,600 acres of the city centre destroyed in just four bombing runs.

...

originally posted by: ParasuvO
What made building 7 bulge? And it also appears to collapse from near the bottom, was the third plane meant to hit it at the bottom??

"Appears" is the operative word. Take a look at this video. It clearly shows the penthouse as it collapses downward and disappears inside the building. There's then a pause in which nothing appears to be happening.

But during this pause, the interior structure of the building is undergoing progressive collapse. The interior collapse is like an avalanche, only quicker and smaller. By the end of the interior collapse sequence, a huge amount of rubble has suddenly fallen down through the now-hollowed-out shell of the building. This huge delivery of rubble (i.e., the whole of the rest of the building) destroys what's left of the lower floor walls, which were never built to withstand such pressures.

Suddenly, what is left of the hollowed-out building has had the 'rug pulled out from under its feet', and it goes more or less straight down.

a reply to: gmoneystunt


I just think its a bit strange that it was covered so meticuously in the News,its like some one gave them a tip off that it was going to happen, then it was like worldwide in no time .How much arranging and preperation is required for this to happen.? Was it just a lucky shot that caught the plane going into a skyscaper.Its like a one in a million shot.

I just think its a bit strange that it was covered so meticuously in the News,its like some one gave them a tip off that it was going to happen, then it was like worldwide in no time .

Let's see. The biggest and most visually-spectacular peacetime terrorist attack in history occurs in a major city in the most technologically-advanced nation on the planet, during an age of unprecedented live global communications and broadcast industries along with world-spanning media organisations.

Nope, I can't think of a single reason that this might be worldwide news within a very short space of time. Could it be because Tuesday is traditionally a quiet day for current affairs programming and they needed to fill some airtime?

How much arranging and preperation is required for this to happen.? Was it just a lucky shot that caught the plane going into a skyscaper.Its like a one in a million shot.

Quite a bit. First you have to find a couple of dozen jihadis willing to die in suicide attacks. Then you have to smuggle them into the US, equip them with ID, send them undercover so no-one realises what they're up to, get them to train as airline pilots, then on the day of the attack itself, you have to...

...oh, you mean how much media preparation. Well, almost none, except for people to be doing their jobs properly. And if the media were tipped off in advance, it was pretty flamin' careless of them to miss the shot of the first plane impact, which no-one saw till long after it had happened. I think (without checking) that it was filmed by a total of about 20 bystanders (including one professional TV crew that was shadowing the Fire Department that day). It would have been filmed by many, many more if smartphones had been invented earlier.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: firerescue

Yeah right....and here I was thinking that the fuel was burned higher up in the building to make the heat needed to make the buildings fall yet you say the fuel flowed away.....hmmmmm

The fuel started the fires. The burning contents of the buildings provided the heat.

Provided the heat to explode into powder and throw half vaporized steel beams weighing many tons a 1000 feet to the side ?

How is it, that we have never witnessed anywhere near this level of pulverization in ANYTHING in history .... not even the bombing runs of the military have accomplished this level of total ANNIHILATION.

No steel exploded into powder. the beams were not "half vaporized" in the collapse. The dust was pulverized concrete and drywall. If the beams were thrown 1000 feet to the side, the old "collapsed in its own footprint" claim kind of goes by the wayside.
The phrase "we have never witnessed anywhere near this level of pulverization in ANYTHING in history .... not even the bombing runs of the military have accomplished this level of total ANNIHILATION" sounds as though it was written by a drama queen. It was a gravity collapse because structures are not "blown UP" contrary to Hollywood special effects. What happens is that the supports are removed and they collapse by gravity.

originally posted by: anonentity
I just think its a bit strange that it was covered so meticuously in the News,its like some one gave them a tip off that it was going to happen, then it was like worldwide in no time.

Apparently you've never heard of TV, radio, or the internet.

I live in Australia. I was online when the attack happened. I was able to follow it via the BBC News website.