Don't you fin it odd that it is not mentioned in the 9-11 commision report?
Although not a main point, 7 WTC is mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. The reason it didn't get as much play is obvious: the building wasn't directly attacked on 9/11 and collapsed only as a result of the Towers collapsing.
How did the fires get so hot. Do you know that untill 9-11-01 a steel framed building never collapesed. 8 hours of fire, hell I've burnd my wood stove for 8 weeks, I still own it.
It wasn't just fire that brought down 7 WTC, it was also structural damage from falling debris. And anyway, I doubt your wood stove burns anywhere near as hot as jet fuel.
This photo shows the First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles. Iklim Ltd. described the damage as follows: "In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans."
Once again...no jet fuel involved. The Aon Center fire was an internal blaze that was neither as hot as the fires burning on 9/11 nor was it accompanied by massive amounts of falling debris.
Modern buildings are built to withstand normal fires. They are not built to withstand airplanes hitting them, nor are they built to withstand having burning skyscrapers dropped on them. The collapse of 7 WTC is hardly surprising.
As for watching the collapse itself, yes, it does resemble a controlled demolition. However, the videos that I can find of 7 WTC fail to capture a specific collapse point - that is, the floor where the structural damage was finally too much and the structure collapsed, resulting in the "free fall" of the building.
Watch the videos of the Towers collapsing and, if you look closely enough, you can see which floor the collapse starts on. Look above that floor and you can see that the floors above the collapse remain intact as they fall. Were it possible to see that point in any of the 7 WTC videos we probably wouldn't be entertaining all these conspiracy theories about it.
So, according the evidence videos presented, we can't conclusively state that 7 WTC was felled by controlled demolition (and, in all fairness, we can't conclusively state that 7 WTC was felled by fire and falling debris). So, let's look at the "W's" of the situation: When, where, what, why, who and how.
: Controlled demolitions take a lot of time to set up. Non load-baring walls are generally removed and charges have to be set into the walls on all floors - that's how they make sure the buildings fall straight. When did whoever was behind the "cover-up" have time to remove walls and set charges? Seems that there'd be a lot of people out there who would have seen it happening if it was going on for a couple of weeks, or even a couple of days, leading up to 9/11.
: Pretty self-explanatory.
: Possibly the main debate: was it falling debris and fire that brought down 7 WTC or were explosives used in a controlled demolition?
In order to get to the heart of the issue I went looking through a couple of Demolition websites. Here's a tidbit from Controlled Demolition, Inc, the people who brought down what remained of the Murrah Building after McVeigh's attack on it:
Preparation operations for the implosion were more sophisticated than those required for a "normal implosion operation." When a structure is imploded, the contractor relies on the structural integrity of the building being demolished to assist in the control of the fall of the structure. In the case of the Murrah Building, the structural integrity of the building had been compromised by the terrorist blast, therefore, reconstructive operations had to be conducted to augment the structural integrity of the building in order to control its fall away from the adjacent parking garage.
In other words, in order to bring the building down safely, they needed to augment its weakened structure before imploding it. The same would have been true of 7 WTC - even if the contention that all the falling debris from the Towers wasn't enough to bring down 7 WTC, there still would have been significant structural damage to the building and they would have had to augment its structural integrity before attempting a controlled demolition. Otherwise it could not have been a controlled demolition.
In addition, 7 WTC had a very strange structural makeup. The building was built on an old electrical substation that was designed with a foundation that would allow a building to be built on top of it someday.
The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a building covering a significantly larger footprint than originally planned when the substation was built. Between floors 5 and 7, the building had a system of transfer trusses and girders to transfer load to the smaller-sized foundation.
In other words, take out enough of floors 5-7 and you destabilize the base of the building.
: Why would anyone conspire to destroy 7 WTC anyway? To examine this, we must look at two things: who benefits and who loses.
First off, who was there? From Wikipedia:
At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq. ft. (64% of the building) including floors 28–45. Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft). Smaller tenants included the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft), and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft). The smallest tenants included the New York City Office of Emergency Management, NAIC Securities, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group, Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared floor #25 with the IRS. Floors 46–47 were mechanical floors, as well as the bottom 6 floors and part of floor #7.
About what you'd expect from a large office building: financial institutions and a few government offices. A much more in-depth analysis than I have time for here would be required to really look into who our government might have had a grudge against on that list.
What about benefits? If anyone knows of any beneficiaries of the collapse of 7 WTC I'd love to know who they are.
: Another question that makes the controlled demolition theory a tough swallow: who did it? This applies to all facets of the theory. Who masterminded the whole thing? Who administered and organized the plot? Who set the charges and prepared the building for demolition? Who has been paid to present false evidence as true about the collapse? As the questions mount it becomes apparent that for the controlled demolition theory to be true there would have had to be hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of conspirators involved.
:Refer to everything above. Everything from the unlikelihood of demolition experts assessing 7 WTC and setting it up for demolition without anyone noticing to the necessity of a strong structure not present in 7 WTC on 9/11 for demolition to the lack of a reason for destroying the building to the sheer size of the conspiracy were it true makes the controlled demolition theory extremely unlikely. Possible, yes. Likely, no. Remember, neither theory is fully proven - therefore it makes logical sense to go with the most logical, well-supported theory: 7 WTC collapsed on 9/11 as a result of falling debris and fire.