The third tower to fall on September 11 2001
Watching a documentary on BBC2 last night, I was reminded about this little mystery. There's also a very good website about it:

wtc7.net

For the uninitiated, I'll try to summarise it as succinctly as I can:

-Three skyscrapers came down in New York on September 11 2001, WTC1 & 2 we all remember, but WTC7 was the third one.

-The cause of the collapse was attributed to fire weakening the steel-framed structure to the point of total, simultaneous catastrophic failure of more than 80 enormous steel columns.

-It was (and remains to this day) the only skyscraper in the world to suffer total collapse as a result of fire damage.

Those points on their own merit further investigation, but then there is all the gumph added by our conspiracy theory friends...

-The building's fire alarm system was put into 'test' mode on the morning of September 11, which meant that the fires which broke out later that day could not be located and isolated.

-It housed several government agencies, including FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) whose role was to manage a response to precisely this kind of disaster

-The collapse resembles a controlled demolition in every way. It collapsed at approximately the same speed as freefall under gravity. It appeared to show no resistance to lower floors on the way down, and the destruction of the building was absolute - nothing recognisable was left at the end.

-The media reported that it had collapsed a full 20 minutes before it actually happened, then they blamed it on 'confusion, and simple human error'... As one commentator has put it: "To report that a building had collapsed before it had done so would be an odd sort of error, wouldn't it? A bit like reporting that the Lord Mayor's trousers had fallen down before they did so."

-As with the twin towers themselves, the debris from the collapse was recycled within 6 months, leaving very little evidence to examine.

And many, many other interesting snippets.

I have no particular judgement to make on this and I won't add my own opinion, as it is irrelevant. However, I would ask if anyone can offer explanations about why WTC7 came down in the way it did. I'm sure most of the other points raised can be answered one way or another, but it seems to be an inconvenient problem that the entire building suffered total collapse, without any surviving structure whatsoever. I would have expected a building that suffers major fire damage to have some parts totally destroyed, other parts totally surving and everything in between, just like every other similar event in the past.

The NIST report is due for publication later this year, but I suspect it will gloss over many of the more unusual aspects of the collapse in favour of detailed models of fires, much like the report on the twin towers themselves. There are so many valid, unanswered questions which could presumably be tackled by any willing scientific organisation given the time, it makes me rather uneasy to find that so many people are willing to accept the official explanation, which makes no sense when examined.

So, fellow QOTWats, can anyone shed any light on this intriguing matter?
( chart cat has an itch, Mon 7 Jul 2008, 18:02, 24 replies)

Why does it matter?
The building was heavily damaged by falling debris from the collapsing Twin Towers, and had a weird lower steel structure that mean that a catastrophic failure was indeed possible. Firefighters didn't bother saving it, because the whole place was evacuated anyway - and a smaller, unoccupied building falling when thousands had been killed next door seemed neither here nor there. And in the echo-chamber of 24-hour news, one person saying that a building will fall can easily mutate into reports that a building has fallen. (Remember all the other wild, unsubstantiated tales going around that day? The skies were full of imaginary, hijacked aircraft...)

But why is it an utter lynchpin of the conspiracy theorists' tall tales that this building was demolished in some impossibly complicated government plot?
(Happy Idiot Talk now has an alibi for, Mon 7 Jul 2008, 18:38, closed)

@Happy Idiot Talk
I'd say it matters for lots of reasons. I enjoy reading the conspiracy theory stuff, but I'm also sane enough to know that there are more reasons why a conspiracy *couldn't* be possible than the reverse.

For me, I work in tall buildings. If my building suffered catastrophic fire damage, would a fire response team be willing to enter it and rescue me and my co-workers any more?

The fact that this building collapsed completely relatively soon after catching fire sets an unpleasant precedent for high-rise buildings the world over.
( chart cat has an itch, Mon 7 Jul 2008, 18:46, closed)

.
I have no comments either way on the WTC7 as I don't know enough about it. I am however so skeptical about the whole 9/11, and while I'm not inclined to believe all the madcap conspiracy theories, there are a couple of films by Loose Change that provide some interesting information/theories on the situation.

As for why it matters; 9/11 certainly didn't harm Bush's later 'war on terrorism' and invasion of Iraq - remember the illusive 'weapons of mass destruction'?
(Madam Cholet, Mon 7 Jul 2008, 19:26, closed)

Re: premature reports of collapse
I must admit, that I've never commited mass murder myself, but I think that if/when I do, then the one thing that will be entirely absent from my 'to do' list is: "inform news channels of plan in advance (because journalists sure know how to keep a secret)". I just can't see how this piece of information can in any way support the idea that this was an inside job; nobody capable of such an act would be that stupid!
(silene, Mon 7 Jul 2008, 19:34, closed)

You haven't by any chance...
...been watching Zeitgeist have you?

Just a thought. I'm in your camp, I think there are a lot of unanswered questions.
(refuse_to_follow More metal than your mother's tea-kettle!, Mon 7 Jul 2008, 19:48, closed)

...
@silene: The conspiracy gang use the "advance" media reports to support the notion that the entire event was orchestrated, and that the media was being strung along (unaware, of course) to report whatever was put onto the newswire, to mould and reinforce public opinion about what was going on.

I too don't think this particular anomaly stands up to scrutiny, but when viewed in the context of everything else that happened that day, it is yet another very strange coincidence in a sea of unexplained, interesting things.

@refuse_to_follow: I think I've seen all the documentaries available now. Last night's one was a BBC report (the Conspiracy Files, I think) and for once, it had lots of balance, offering some good scientific explanations.

That's all I want really, some proper critical analysis of why the building came down the way it did. If a team of renowned architects can't agree why it happened, or even suggest one plausible theory, no matter how unlikely, then there are plenty of reasons to continue investigating...
( chart cat has an itch, Mon 7 Jul 2008, 20:41, closed)

There is no conspiracy. The stuff that's in our faces is bad enough.
Also, Occam's Razor anyone?
( idonthaveafunnynickname Drink-Aware? Sure. I'm aware I want another drink., Mon 7 Jul 2008, 20:44, closed)

I blame the wogs
.
(Ktulu O'Ryleh float like a turd, sting like chlamydia, Mon 7 Jul 2008, 20:55, closed)

Occam's Razor...
... is purely applicable to natural phenomena. The fundemental assumption of the method of parsimony is that nature is not trying to trick us i.e a simple explanation is more likely to be true than a complex one. A successful conspiracy (by definition) will always have a false explanation that is simpler than the true explanation.

Regarding the news channels. I think my point still stands; only a fool would issue a newswire about an event that they had planned but had not carried out yet. Why bother when the news outlets would find out by themselves in short order? I just can't see what they stood to gain.
(silene, Mon 7 Jul 2008, 21:01, closed)

@silene
You are of course correct, assuming that the conspiracy of which the fans speak was perfect. In such a case, any error like this would be impossible...

However, consider that all conspiracies (real or imagined) need to involve fallible humans, then you suddenly have the potential for errors to creep in.

In a universe where the attacks were scripted, it's plausible to suggest that while reading the "script" somebody screwed up. If you take that viewpoint for this event, it's also easy to see how leaps of logic enable other anomalies on the day to reinforce this belief.

I think that's how conspiracy theories get their fuel. Mainly though, I just liked the quote about the Lord Mayor's trousers...
( chart cat has an itch, Mon 7 Jul 2008, 21:21, closed)

The twin towers
I think the conspricy theories are just that theories

Now explain this
1.the twin towers had substansual structural mods in the mounths leading up yo 9/11
2.the whole sites insurance cover was greatly increased shortley befor the event..
(roadkillontoast, Mon 7 Jul 2008, 21:47, closed)

People keep talking about this programme
I've not seen it. What was it called? I want to see if I can find it on the iPlayer.

edit: Nevermind, I found it. Think I'll watch it sometime in the week.
( Thinker, Mon 7 Jul 2008, 22:20, closed)

Have you seen the South Park episode on this?
"The 9/11 conspiracy... is a government conspiracy."
( Bob Todd whee, Mon 7 Jul 2008, 23:04, closed)

and as well as...
I was working in my professional capacity as a rozzer (in the UK) on the day in question, and for whatever reason I can't remember to this day I ended up in a hospital A+E waiting room - (probably collecting a prisoner or something but to this day I can't remember)anyway having caught snatches of news reports throughout the morning I remember a chap comming up to me and asking what was going on as we were all stood around around watching the news reports on the tv in the waiting area, I can remember specifically telling him that 'terrorists have hijacked planes and flown them into the twin towers, and that the americans have shot one of the planes down' - Now I can't to this day now remember where I heard they had shot a plane down, but I doubt I invented it out of my own head so its always cast a doubt whenever I hear about flight 92.

And on a side note theres a bloke going around somewhere saying how the rozzers told him flight 92 had been shot down!!
(Titanix, Mon 7 Jul 2008, 23:17, closed)

I often think that
these theories are a by-product of the TV and movie generation.

'The story MUST be better than what we have seen. There MUST be some other level to it. That's what happens in movies so this MUST have a twist'

9/11 was pretty spectacular but STILL not movie-like enough for some.

I think only sharks with frickin laser beams would have satisfied the tinfoil hat brigade.
( BadBadman saw an incorrect comma placement on, Tue 8 Jul 2008, 0:20, closed)

OK OK OK! You want a documentary? Here's your freakin' documentary!
Everyone calm down. Although we may never know what happened on September the 11th and the days leading up to it there IS alot of evidence that would point to the United States government playing a part in the disaster.

Dont blast people who suspect a conspiracy until you have watched the film "Loose Change" (availabe in various places on the web but I could only be bothered to look it up on youtube)

(2nd Edition)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yx9NRX37SM&feature=related

This film contains alot of information regarding the attacks and the parts of it that just dont seem to add up. Before I watched the documentary I assumed everything was as it seems and although I will probably never know if the attacks were a set up or not this film has certainly changed how I look at the event.
(chrisdood Why yes, I am the shizzle, Tue 8 Jul 2008, 0:40, closed)

I must enter a subject.
Did the government do it? This is a government so devious that they smuggled weapons of mass destruction into Iraq to justify the invasion. Oh, wait.

(Not that I am defending Bush in any way)

Watch Loose change, and then read this:

www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

WTC7 fell down because a building hit it, and it was on fire, and they weren't fighting the fire because it had been evacuated and the risk was too great.

Saying the collapse resembled a controlled demolition in every way doesn't make it so. The collapse was not simultaneous in the sense of a controlled demolition.

This was a building that had sustained impact damage, had massive fires burning within, and was bulging and creaking for hours before it finally collapsed. Hardly a controlled demolition.
(Tomble Underground, overground, Tombling free., Tue 8 Jul 2008, 2:08, closed)

Not a conspiracy.
Look, you lose two major skyscrapers and a couple of other buildings in a matter of minutes in one of the most important cities in the world, and there are bound to be some extremely bizarre coincidences.

But here's almost all you need to know about WTC7. www.debunk911myths.org/topics/7_World_Trade_Center

But it's not really that surprising that a small building, hit by large pieces of debris from multiple collapsing adjacent buildings, with sprinklers that had been destroyed when the water pipes were sliced by falling debris, with large quantities of diesel fuel inside on multiple floors, would ultimately collapse entirely.

When you mention "similar events in the past", do you mean that you've studied the records of OTHER buildings being struck by debris from multiple collapsing adjacent buildings that have been hit by major airliners, weakening the structure, destroying much of the sprinkler systems, and causing much diesel fuel to leak, then catching on fire?

Conspiracies are fun, but unlike science, they start with the conclusions, and then seek to prove them, and thus, can only generate more confusion.

I love the way people can say "the official explanation makes no sense when examined."

That's as dumb as saying "Sodium chloride is a deadly poison, as it is the combination of two deadly poisons, sodium and chlorine."

Sodium chloride is not a poison, it's table salt. WTC7 was not a conspiracy.
(not here, Tue 8 Jul 2008, 6:43, closed)

"facts"
The problem with alol these conspiracy theories is that those who come up with them basically work backwards. They decide what they want to conclude i.e. "building 7 was destroyed in a controlled explosion" then look for facts that support this conclusion, carefully avoiding any that contradict it.

There's a term for this, but I can't be bothered going onto skepdic.com to find it.
(ScousersPet, Tue 8 Jul 2008, 10:39, closed)

I don't know about the WTC towers
but the pentagon? it was hit by a missile
no plane there
no siree
(Freddles, Tue 8 Jul 2008, 10:46, closed)

Loose Change
Has been thoroughly debunked. For starters, take a look at the Screw Loose Change blog.
( Amish Information Systems hates misplaced, commas, Tue 8 Jul 2008, 12:01, closed)

Occam's razor doesn't really apply to these...
... I think the more appropriate one is Hanlon's razor. Which leads to much the same conclusion here, of course.
(julius, Tue 8 Jul 2008, 17:35, closed)

@ not here:
Thanks for that link, it does indeed seek to answer some of the more difficult questions. There's still a few holes, but it's a good start and I'm sure in time those holes will be filled in with answers.

Re: I love the way people can say "the official explanation makes no sense when examined."

I was referring to the tendency of most people to just accept the offical line that "fire brought the building down" without questioning the simple fact that this has never happened before. Up until relatively recently, this was the official explanation, there was no further expansion.

It's good to see a more thorough examination of the process that led up to WTC7's collapse. I think it's important to question things until you get a satisfactory answer, which for many WTC7 questions, that website provides.
( chart cat has an itch, Wed 9 Jul 2008, 10:20, closed)

WTC7
Ok,

Look, we all know that George W Bush is bestest-buddies with Osama Bin Laden's family (did you know Osama's brother was actually standing on the balcony of the White House with Dubya on the evening of September 10th? Or that Dubya's myriad failed business attempts/baseball team, etc, have been porrped up by investement by the Bin Laden family?). Yes,Osama is supposedly "estranged" from his family, but seriously if there is nothing to hide, why did Dubya use NSA flights to get the Bin Laden clan out of the USA and over to Paris to avoid any negative attention, in direct contravention to the "no fly" rules put into action after 9/11 and also preventing the FBI asking them any questions about where Osama might be (this caused the head of the FBI to resign..well, that and Dubya insisting that they find a way to blame Iraq, regardless of the evidence).

WTC7 housed the files relating the enquiry into the Enron fraud case (amongst others), which implicated people such as Dick Cheney and others of Dubya's closest cabal - why is it that the FBI didn't have a single back-up of such evidence outside of this building? In fact, that and the possible Cheney/Halliburton fraud case were all but wiped out by 9/11. Add to that the increased control Cheney, Dubya and their cronies now have over the public (thanks PATRIOT act!), and it's almost like the people who benefitted the most were a President whose ratings were in tatters, a bunch of old-money fraudsters in the Presidents' closest advisory roles and the Right-Wing Neo-Cons who wanted a return to the Cold War era of control and government funded military projects that allow huge scope for siphoning money and international arms sales (as well as power over the populace). Looked at with non-hysterical, non-flag-waving, non"USA!USA!USA!"-chanting eyes, suddenly a diabetic Arab living in a cave doesn't seem to benefit quite so much, especially when a) he was funded by the CIA for years and, b) Afghanistan is now, has alwyas been and mostl likely always will be a war-zone only a short step out of the Stone Age. Whereas the USA's flagging economy and rabid fear of building a car that does more than 20MPG, means that the current situation has got US businesses with a stranglehold on Iraqi refinery infrastructure (Halliburton), a huge amount of funding being pumped into defense (welcome back, Star Wars - have you ever read what HAARP can do to the atmosphere?) and, yay, an escalation of hostilities with the former Soviet Union (and, no, Dubya, Putin is not scared - he's as crazy as you and we're likely to all be glowing in the dark because of it). Happy days are, indeed, here again...
(Chad, Thu 10 Jul 2008, 11:25, closed)