It was hit by north tower collapse then fire raged on for many hours as sprinkler system had failed etc. I think structurally it still shouldn’t have collapsed but it doesn’t require a grand conspiracy to explain the failure here.
Except that two people who were in that building, both claim a stairwell exploded under their feet before the towers came down. Not that the towers coming down should have anything to do with an explosion inside WTC7 but regardless, something exploded inside corroborated by the only two people who got out of that building.
So something something grand conspiracy...
Also symmetric free falling, from a fire? Has fire become opinionated and decided to consume a steel scraper equally at all floors on all sides of a building all at once?
WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.
>Also symmetric free falling, from a fire? Has fire become opinionated and decided to consume a steel scraper equally at all floors on all sides of a building
Yes, by way of having a hollow center (aka, the elevators) and dumping large quantities of jet fuel down it, essentially becoming massive chimneys.
There are some awful survivor stories you can find about hearing people stuck in the elevators and getting cooked alive.
what jet fuel? no airplane hit WTC7
and to add to that, i believe NIST used the term "regular office fires" (... brought down building 7...) in their presentation.
Once fire weakens multiple individual structural members, collapse is both inevitable and rapid as the loads transfer within the materials to the remaining supports at the speed of sound.
You're assuming the fire would burn all the columns at the same rate at the same time, that's not what empirically is seen at other building fires.
For reference please google Grenfell Tower Fire. Or in China, the Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire.
For gravity to be symmetric such that free fall speed is achieved by the whole building at once at the same time (start of collapse), all the columns would have to suffer the exact same fire made damage at the same exact time. I don't know about you, but i have yet to see nature produce exact results at the same exact time anywhere. Gradual, slow and chaotic describes nature better. Fast, precise and calculated usually is the realm of human beings.
It may if you want your explanation to be correct though. And technically, a grand conspiracy is subjective, and a bit of a false dichotomy. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
The complexity of the problem is such that it is extremely difficult to not make a cognitive error during contemplation, even leaving aside the famous unreliability of the multiple systems this cognition sits on top of.
Think of how hard it can sometimes be to debug a system for which you have the literal source code for, which sits on a highly trustworthy base. Now consider reality, for which you have no source code, but you do know (at least during certain mental states, but not necessarily all) that it is chock full of bugs, indeterminate behaviors, etc.
Here you are not distinguishing between your perception of (or, rhetorical misinterpretation of) the ideas within my words, and the actual ideas themselves (as you also do with the events of that day). I wonder which one it is (maybe a little of both?).
Although the big media outlets of the time (CBS, NBC, etc) have "lost" their footage, I specifically remember a reporter asking a question of a NYC Fire Chief (some borough), after the second aircraft hit.
Reporter: "what about the new that there will be a controlled demolition of WTC 7 because of fear of collapse?"
Fire Chief: "What? What are you talking about?"
Reporter: "There's a rumor that building 7 needs to be brought down due to damage..."
Fire Chief: "Listen miss, I don't know what you've heard, but there is no damage to building 7 and there's no reason to bring it down. If you suggest such a thing to someone else, I'll have you arrested for inciting a panic. We have a high amount of coordination and there is limited information available to the public."
There was more to it, but that was memorable because, as a kid, I realized something. In a real disaster situation, people would be getting conflicting information. During 9/11, it was a real disaster. Nobody seemed to know wtf was really going on or going to happen and the reporters were, notably, just in the way of the real work. Later, when building 7 fell, I thought...well...that's quite a coincidence. I don't feel it was a coincidence anymore.
One of my vivid memories of 9/11 is my sister's panic over the car bomb at the National Mall. We had some visitors staying with us that week, and 9/11 was the day they were going to go down to see the National Mall (needless to say, that was aborted).
Yet, in trying to find more information about it, I have found absolutely no mention about such a car bomb. It's not on any "false rumors that got started during the day" lists; it's not picked up even by the most insane of conspiracy theorists as suppressed information. I'm actually kind of curious where the idea got into my sister's head--the closest I can figure is that the original attack on the Pentagon was reported as a blast in an unknown area to the southwest of the caller, and the National Mall was suggested as a possible site by the reporter.
This goes to show two things. One, it's very easy to specifically remember facts (including reporting of facts) that never actually happened. Two, in a day of hectic reporting, it's very easy for wrong information to spread very quickly.
I think you might find this interesting, because someone else was fearful of national mall bombings enough for FEMA to act that day (among other organizations)
Also, the BBC specifically says it was notified beforehand about the plans to take WTC7 down. I feel like small confirmation about some of the details.
The archives you linked are almost all Washington DC area archives, showing none of the majority independent (and minor station) journalists that west coast channels had to leverage for coverage. I did comb through them for quite awhile. Thanks.
