Daniel,
Thanks for sending me a link to your article, "Incontroverti-Bull". I appreciate you taking the time to lay out your arguments so clearly, especially as you make it clear that you regard the collapse of WTC7 as a simple matter of structural failure, and any claims to the contrary as a simple matter of intellectual failure. I've taken a few days to think about what you have written, and also to read more widely around the subject, and I find that my original doubts remain. I'm sure that we both have better things to do than to get into a lengthy correspondence about this, but I'll outline here some of the reasons for my ongoing scepticism.
The NIST report is widely cited in the mainstream media as being the sensible "scientific" explanation of what happened to WTC7, whereas the claim that the building fell due to a controlled explosion is universally ridiculed. But the NIST report is simply a hypothesis as to what might have happened, and depends on many factors that cannot be verified scientifically. The rubble from WTC7 had been cleared many years before NIST commenced its examination, so there was no physical evidence for them to examine (other than some video footage). Therefore, with the best will in the world, the investigators from NIST could only suggest what might have happened to cause the collapse, not what necessarily did happen.
If you look at NIST's own FAQ page,
https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation , you'll see that they only refer to their hypothesis as the "probable collapse sequence", they don't assert it as incontrovertible fact (unlike many of those who have since cited the report). They also acknowledge that, if their hypothesis is correct, it would be a unique event in the history of high-rise steel-frame construction (which has been with us since the 1880s). They accept that the fires burning in WTC7 were not particularly severe (individual fires ranged from the 7th to 13th floors, but there were none at all on the 10th, so the building was not completely engulfed in fire as - for example - the still-standing Grenfell Tower was). And (as I understand it) their hypothesis depends on a central column having been free-standing, when the building's plans show that it was actually firmly secured. Perhaps the builders failed to follow the plans correctly, and the building regulations officials failed to notice that the builders had not secured the column, but that appears to be pure speculation by NIST, for which there is no evidence at all. It's just a supposition.
Interestingly, NIST did also investigate the possibility that the building's collapse had been caused by an explosion, but rejected it because they say there was no aural evidence of explosions immediately prior to the collapse. However, if you watch the latter part of "Incontrovertible" (the section from 1:49'15" onwards), you will see an audio analysis of an interview that was being conducted near the WTC when the building collapsed, and that recording (according to the analysis) has captured a series of spikes indicative of a rapid series of explosions, immediately after which the building collapses. Another eyewitness who was interviewed by a US news network in front of the WTC immediately after the collapse (11'10" into the doc) said that they had seen "a big flash, and then I seen the building coming down". Part of that collapse (as NIST acknowledge) was at the speed of gravity (a period of 2.75 seconds).
Incidentally, many people (including NIST) reject the idea of a controlled explosion, because it would have required explosives to be placed throughout the building days or weeks in advance, and (as you say) "How did they do that in a building occupied by 50,000 people on a daily basis?" That strikes me as a rather naive objection, if I may say so. It's precisely because there were 50,000 people there on a daily basis that it would have been so easy. Who would question the right of a team of people wearing maintenance uniforms to move around a building occupied by 50,000 people, and to go wherever they wished? If this was an "inside job", it would have been simple to issue the correct paperwork to satisfy the security staff, and send in an undercover team.
I've noticed that many people say that the NIST report has been "peer reviewed" by many eminent architectural and scientific bodies, and that is half true. The report itself has certainly been endorsed by many august bodies. But (as I understand it) NIST have not made public the raw data on which they based their conclusions. Much of this came from experiments that were conducted (at their request) at Underwriters Laboratories, and former employees at UL have claimed that NIST tampered with the figures, in order to get the results they wanted (particularly in regard to the amount of warping in the central steel column). I have no means of knowing whether those claims are true, but it strikes me as odd that NIST will apparently not make their raw data generally available (not least because, if they are so confident that their figures are sound and their hypothesis is correct, surely it would finally make all those conspiracy theorists shut up?).
Rather than cite dozens of further anomalies and oddities about the technicalities of the collapse, perhaps I could just make one further observation? If NIST's hypothesis is correct, then (as they point out) hundreds of thousands of buildings around the world urgently need to be examined, to ensure that they are not potential death traps. Yet in the years since the report was issued, there seems to have been no action taken - at national government or at international level - to modify the construction of such buildings, or to demand that existing high-rise steel-frame buildings are all checked. Why? I would suggest that it's because nobody involved in construction or safety thinks that the WTC7 hypothesis could ever happen in another building, so while they will happily endorse the NIST report (because professional bodies have a natural inclination to support the regulatory government bodies and institutes that oversee their profession), they won't spend any time or money in acting on its findings, because they don't actually believe them.
Even if one can accept all the coincidences and peculiarities noted above, the question of why the building's collapse was being reported half an hour before it actually occurred raises various issues. You note that "According to the fire department, by 2 p.m there was a strong possibility the building would soon collapse, so its imminent demise was picked up by reporters." That is true, and of course - by highlighting it - you are directly contradicting the NIST report hypothesis, which says that the building collapsed suddenly and without warning, due to a central column giving way. To reiterate, no high-rise steel-frame building in history has ever wholly collapsed due to fire, yet reporters on the scene that day were widely reporting (for several hours) that WTC7 was likely to collapse. Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? Or at least as being wholly at odds with the findings of the NIST report?
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not for a moment think that the BBC or the excellent Jane Standley were part of any conspiracy. There was great chaos that day, and I don't suppose most people could have even identified WTC7 on the Manhattan skyline amid the wreckage of the Twin Towers. The BBC themselves rightly dismissed the idea that they had been part of a conspiracy as "ridiculous", and say that they simply picked up the story from Reuters. They explain this at
"On September 11, 2001, Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Centre, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen."
Here I think we approach the essence of the problem. The BBC have exonerated themselves, by passing responsibility back up the chain to Reuters. And Reuters have vaguely blamed the error on "a local news story", but they show no interest at all in finding out precisely how such a report came to be circulated in the first place. Surely only a mainstream news organisation could be so lacking in curiosity as to the precise origin of a report which (as it turns out) accurately predicted the unique and sudden collapse of a high-rise steel-frame building thirty minutes before it happened? I suggest that this lack of curiosity is because they don't want to know the answer, they just want the story to go away. And that's what interests me.
This is already getting longer than I intended, so I'll finish with a general point. I don't believe that the world is controlled by ten-foot lizards, or that Elvis lives on the moon, but I do think there is something seriously wrong with the official explanation of the collapse of WTC7, which is why I issued the tweet that started this whole discussion. And interestingly, most of the replies I received agreed that the footage had made people question the official story of 9/11, while most of the contempt and ridicule I received came from people involved in the mainstream media. Interestingly, I suspect that if I were still earning my living as a full-time newspaper journalist (as I did for twenty-odd years), I too would have ridiculed any suggestion that the collapse of WTC7 might have been due to anything other than fire. Why? Because to be employed by the mainstream media, one simply has to accept the broad news narrative as it unfurls each day. One might question details, or argue about angles, but to reject the broad brush strokes of our day-to-day global history is a sure-fire way to be regarded as "weird", and to receive a P45 at the end of the month. On such major issues, it's better for journalists (who have mortgages and families to support) to be wrong and in the majority, than to be frozen out for asking awkward questions. As Upton Sinclair famously said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." WTC7 is not simply about what made a building fall, it's a litmus test for one's acceptance or rejection of the mainstream media narrative, because - if WTC7 was an "inside job" - then what does that say about the US government's global conduct over the past sixteen years, about its attitudes to its own citizens, and about the true origins of the War On Terror?
I'm sure I won't have convinced you, and that's fine. But I hope you'll at least concede that there are some legitimate questions to be asked, which have not yet been answered.
Best,
Victor
