Hi Bart,
No, there have been some questions about tenants but I prefer not to go into the whole cloth conspiracy realm (not that i'm saying you do).
It is simply that there are numerous technical questions about the events of the day but the collapse of WTC 7 remains the most utterly inexplicable. The idea that a steel frame skyscraper would collapse directly into its own footprint at a half second from free fall speed from some fires and some external damage is a hard one to explain. The NIST report that came out in 2008 attempts to but you can do your own reading on that.
Nobody knows what a steel framed skyscraper collapsing from fire would look like because there has never been one. However the issues of speed (conservation of energy), synchronicity etc. would strongly indicate it wouldn't t like that. If a massive, massive amount of damage was done, then you might expect failure in single points, twisitng, parts sliding off, tipping over from some hgher point etc.
And of course Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder, told PBS in 2002 that the NYPD came to him on the afternoon of 9/11 and told him they needed to pull the building.
Perhaps they did, maybe Larry couldn't have gotten the insurance by admitting to those circumstances, I don't presume to know.
But thinking further, if NYPD is so supernaturally competent that they could perform the highly technical work involved in preparing a building for a perfect controlled drop- in a few hours- in the middle of the fires and the chaos of that day- then they're pretty good.
Anyway, no mention of that in the official reports.
Simply not nearly enough explanation of the events of that day for policy to have been driven by it.
Best, h
