Why wasn't WTC7 in much of the news, too? I didn't even know that another building had collapsed until now; that is how ignorant I was of this. The fact that another building just collapsed should have been a much bigger story, even on 9/11. This is not because it is a destroyed building, but because it appears to have happened under such bizarre circumstances. I want to learn more about this, because having just discovered that this happened, it is a mystery to me.
Anyway, I have a lot of electrical engineering experience. I have had jobs designing semiconductors instead of buildings (don't do EE anymore, just don't like it, hah), but the basic principle of unexplained things skewing your on-paper results is the same. Here is the thing about engineering in general: when something that is mathematically impossible happens, it means there is something you did not account for, but that is almost never a conspiracy and that sort of thing happens all the time. Some tiny factor you would never expect can make a big, and I do mean a big, difference.
These are usually wickedly subtle nuances that you would not expect, and the fact that they are hard to find does not mean they do not exist. Is it possible that synergy of the heat and force of the explosion could critically damage the steel, leading to structural failure later? How long would it take for the building to collapse given various extents of structural damage? Could some condition of its age or a chemical have affected the steel's strength? Some other force? What about wind (it was minimal), what about the plumbing, and what about the butterfly that flapped its wings in Africa? Could there have been bombs on the terrorists on the planes? Could the synergy of these forces and other things have done her in? I find that believable as an engineer, whereas the possibility of a massive government conspiracy is hard to measure but still remote.
So, I find it hard to imagine that 9/11 is a conspiracy. I could very easily believe that FEMA or some other group did not show all the evidence mainly to cover its own ass because it screwed up for one reason or another in a failure of prevention, investigation, and / or response to 9/11. This is just much more reconcilable with the way people are. It is much less likely that a lot of American politicians got together and decided to blow up the WTC so they could go to war with someone.
All the same, I'm much more disturbed by the WTC7 collapse than the WTC 1 / 2 collapses. I find it a little more plausible that WTC7 could have been intentionally demolished: first, all of it is too abrupt and orderly, and second, something about the plumes of smoke just does not seem organic. That is just my gut. All the same, if so, it should seem far more likely that someone blew it up out of a desire to protect themselves from looking like a screw up -- not because of some massive government-encompasing conspiracy. In other words, I rationally believe that our government is corrupt, but it's not that sick, and if they knew who blew it up (if it was blown up), the parties would be punished.
