I hope this video was informative and you enjoyed it. If you can support us on Patreon, that will be a great help for our educational team - https://www.patr...
What bugs me about this is the basic story: why would someone want to bring down WTC 7, seven hours after the towers fell, with no casualties? Unless the report is really strong I'll probably end up concluding that they just failed to account for something and the fire and tower debris damage still caused it. Real buildings, structure fires, and structure collapses are more complicated than theoretical descriptions and computer models. For one thing, buildings can have construction defects that design documents do not attest to.
Wikipedia lists some conjectured motives people have put forward:
Some proponents of World Trade Center controlled demolition theories suggest that 7 WTC was demolished because it may have served as an operational center for the demolition of the Twin Towers, while others suggest that government insiders may have wanted to destroy key files held in the building pertaining to corporate fraud. The WTC buildings housed dozens of federal, state and local government agencies.[68] According to a statement reported by the BBC, Loose Change film producer Dylan Avery thinks the destruction of the building was suspicious because it housed some unusual tenants, including a clandestine CIA office on the 25th floor, an outpost of the U.S. Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and New York City's emergency command center.[68]
But like, is it really easier to rig an occupied building to blow than to just delete some files? Is it that hard to clear out an operational center and keep a light footprint? Why would an operational center need to be in WTC 7 in the first place? And for that matter, the operational center argument means you also need to believe the towers were a controlled demolition, and that's a whole other case that I'm not convinced of. Letting terrorists fly multiple passenger planes into buildings seems like casus belli enough.
Page 3 of the report you linked (page 16 of the pdf) has a nice little summary of the arguments, but I'd need to read more to understand them.
There's also a nice summary at the very end, on page 109 (page 122 of the pdf), of how they think the collapse must have happened.
Columns 79, 80, and 81 did not fail at the lower floors of the building. Instead, they needed to have failed at the upper floors of the building all the way to the penthouse. Yet there were no documented fires above Floor 30. Therefore, fire did not cause the collapse of Columns 79, 80, and 81 nor the collapse of the east penthouse.
Maybe debris damage from the falling towers?
The simultaneous failure of all core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns over 8 stories produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of the collapse. The collapse could have started at various floors starting at Floor 16 and below and produced the same behavior.
This seems like it could have been caused by fire, but I'd need to read more of the report.
Anyway, I've saved the link and I'll dig into it when I have time, thanks again for sharing it.
Not sure if y'all know, but an independent study of Building 7 found that fire could not have caused its collapse:
https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
Thanks, I'll take a look at it when I have time.
What bugs me about this is the basic story: why would someone want to bring down WTC 7, seven hours after the towers fell, with no casualties? Unless the report is really strong I'll probably end up concluding that they just failed to account for something and the fire and tower debris damage still caused it. Real buildings, structure fires, and structure collapses are more complicated than theoretical descriptions and computer models. For one thing, buildings can have construction defects that design documents do not attest to.
Wikipedia lists some conjectured motives people have put forward:
But like, is it really easier to rig an occupied building to blow than to just delete some files? Is it that hard to clear out an operational center and keep a light footprint? Why would an operational center need to be in WTC 7 in the first place? And for that matter, the operational center argument means you also need to believe the towers were a controlled demolition, and that's a whole other case that I'm not convinced of. Letting terrorists fly multiple passenger planes into buildings seems like casus belli enough.
https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/A-Structural-Reevaluation-of-the-Collapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March2020.pdf
Page 3 of the report you linked (page 16 of the pdf) has a nice little summary of the arguments, but I'd need to read more to understand them.
There's also a nice summary at the very end, on page 109 (page 122 of the pdf), of how they think the collapse must have happened.
Maybe debris damage from the falling towers?
This seems like it could have been caused by fire, but I'd need to read more of the report.
Anyway, I've saved the link and I'll dig into it when I have time, thanks again for sharing it.