WTC 7 and the Missing Plane

If we are told that Building 7 could collapse without a plane having hit it, why then must we believe that towers 1 & 2 came down as a result of planes hitting them? Can you say “contradiction?” Could the towers have collapsed without planes hitting them or for some other reason as did Building 7?

Theory: Building 7 was supposed to be hit by Flight 93 but Flight 93 was shot down by a pilot who was doing his job and was not in on the plot. The planes hitting the towers were the cover story for the cause of collapses.

Do you remember Donald Rumsfeld’s little slip of the tongue when he spoke about the events of 9/11 and about the plane that was “shot down” over Pennsylvania? What if that was not misspeak? What if that was just a Freudian slip where the truth mistakenly came out?

Let’s assume that the part of the goal of the attacks was to destroy all 3 main WTC buildings; WTC 1, 2 & 7. Let’s assume the plan was to crash a plane into each of the 3 buildings and then at a later time set off charges that had been placed throughout the buildings by people who appear to be doing routine or special building construction or reconstruction projects.

Here is where things might have gone wrong. Towers 1 & 2 were hit directly by aircraft. Even if the visual & scientific evidence indicate that the collapses were NOT the result of the collisions or of the pursuant fires caused by the collisions, it is quite understandable how a trusting public can accept the official explanation for the collapses of the 2 main towers based on the planes crashing into them.

Building 7 is different. Building 7 went down in what can only be described as a perfect controlled manner where all supporting structures gave way at precisely the same time resulting in a perfect vertical drop. The building did not tilt, it did not start to lean, it did not show signs of stress, it simply dropped to the ground with the inside dropping before the shell (standard procedure in controlled demolitions so that the walls fall inward and create a small footprint). Had a plane hit this building the unanswerable questions regarding why it fell would at least have an explanation that is somewhat plausible. With no plane hitting the building the government was unable to formulate any kind of explanation for the collapse of Building 7. As a result of the government’s inability to come up with even a partially realistic explanation for the collapse of Building 7 it has chosen to deal with this situation by completely erasing it from official history. Building 7 is not even addressed in the Kean Commission report. Therefore it is my suggestion that perhaps part of the plan was to have flight 93 hit this building lending some credence to the notion that the buildings collapsed due to the collisions.

What is quite clear and is NOT theory is the fact that there has been no explanation for the collapse of Building 7 and that its collapse has been erased from reality by our media and by our government. Even the most ignorant among us who blindly accept the official conspiracy theory, with all its omissions, contradictions and right our falsehoods, have to have some doubts when it comes to the collapse of Building 7.

Building 7 collapsing without being hit by any object validates completely the plausibility of the claims made by the independent research community that the main towers did not collapse as a result of the planes hitting them or of the pursuant fires. Of course the destruction of building 7 only proves that it is possible that the towers could have collapsed by means other than the planes and fires since neither a plane nor a significant fire did damage to Building 7 but it collapsed anyway. While the collapse of building 7 simply sets the precedence for the claims that the main towers were taken down by controlled demolition, the volumes of video evidence showing explosions at the base of the WTC prior to the collapse and showing that the towers did not collapse rather they exploded from the top down followed by charges going off in advance of the fall line, surely solidify that claim.

While we do not know for sure what happened that day we do know several things:
1. Members of the Bush administration were in a position to prevent, permit or conduct the events of 9/11/2001 and these same people openly professed how a new Pearl Harbor (which took place on 9/11) would help advance their agenda. As a result, these people turned out to be the greatest beneficiaries of the events of that day.
2. We do know that to date no official explanation has been given for the collapse of Building 7.
3. We do know that our corporate media have ignored every aspect of the collapse of Building 7.
4. We do know that the Bush administration expedited the destruction of all evidence related to the collapses of the towers and of Building 7, which we all know is not only suspisious but it is a crime.

What we do not know is why Building 7 collapsed.

Had Flight 93 slammed into Building 7, then the collapse would have had an official explanation. In essence the official conspiracy theory would be fairly complete. Without explaining this event the official conspiracy theory is invalid. The government’s solution: ignore the event. Our media have ignored it and most of the public have ignored it. However ignoring something does not always make it go away and it it surely does not change reality. The fact that Building 7 collapsed without being damaged by any significant outside forces puts into doubt the entire official explanation for the collapses of towers 1 & 2. That my friends, is a fact. If we are told that Building 7 could collapse without a plane having hit it, why then must we believe that towers 1 & 2 came down as a result of planes hitting them? Can you say “contradiction?” Could the towers have collapsed without planes hitting them or for some other reason as did Building 7?

I suggest that a plane was supposed to hit Building 7 as the cover reason for its collapse. The building was set to come down by controlled demolition which is obvious by the videos of its destruction. The plane was part of the cover story. Somebody slipped up and that last plane was not allowed to reach its target. The government and the media did not have a fall back story to tell the public if the operation did not go exacly as planned so they did the only thing they could have done, they pretend it did not happen. They ignored Building 7 and thanks do the controlled story telling by our media most of the public did not even notice. The corporate media just pretended Building 7 never existed and the public just swallowed the story without even chewing.

Do I know for sure if this theory is true? No; that is why I call it a theory, or better yet it is a reasonable suggestion based on what we know. This is also why I published this on my blog and not on the main site. This is a theory but it a reasonable and plausable theory at that.

Well folks, Building 7 came down and to this day your government did not tell you why and your news media did ask why. What else haven’t they told you?

Think about it!
Jesse - Editor,


  • Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition
  • 9/11 – US Complicity: Implausible, or Very Probable? - Questions for the People Who Believe the Official Conspiracy Theory
  • Books on 9/11
  • Videos on 9/11
  • Discuss 9/11
  • WTC
  • Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Bad Behavior has blocked 232 access attempts in the last 7 days.