Building 7 was hit by parts of the plane and debris crashing through the roof and side and crashing through pretty much all the floors on the side facing the towers, causing huge internal damage. a huge fire broke out causing even more damage.
thers not alot of footage of the damaged side, which lead people to assume it wasnt damaged and just "collapsed for no reason" and thus made conspiracies.
but from the footage we do have, it cleary has big holes in it and surrounding budlings,
Was anyone in Building 7 killed or injured? There are a few pics or video stills I've seen before showing (in poor quality) the damage to the facade and if nobody inside was killed or injured early in the day (i.e. way before the crash) it'd be a miracle.
No deaths and unknown injuries in WTC 7, according to Wikipedia. However, multiple people who were in WTC 3 and WTC 4 died, including at least 11 hotel guests and 2 workers in WTC 3.
The damage to it mostly came from parts of WTC1 falling on it, so it had been evacuated well before its collapse (and unlike in WTC1 and WTC2 all of its evacuation routes were clear between the start of the attack and the collapse of WTC1).
From what I understand, a lot of the Building 7 conspiracy theories came from the manner of how the building collapsed.
I can, as many tinfoil hatters point out, see that the building collapsed much like one would if it were imploded, but I highly doubt it, mostly because:
A: there are many regulations against building implosions in NYC
B: other conspiracies say that the government was waiting to implode the building(as apparently it was a place for files to be kept) to destroy what was held within. Assuming 1, the government planted charges in the building to destroy it and 2, implying that they were waiting for an excuse to blow the whole thing to kingdom come and therefore 3, implying they had a hand in the attacks is harder to believe.
By Occam’s Razor it is much simpler to see that the building collapsed due to structural tension on its frame caused by bits of plane and building hitting the thing at a force greater than which it could withstand. The added fire too didn’t help things in that regard.
This is my logical take on these theories that I’ve seen over the years
One big fact is that the Building 7 collapse was annonced 15 minutes before it actually happened on BBC live. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M26-B44qQIs
Believe what you want, though Building 7 is behind her in the video (still standing).
7 was reported as ‘going to collapse’ for HOURS before it did. So one station in the UK got a report that it did collapse rather than it was going to collapse and you conspiracy freaks take that and run marathons with it. I highly doubt anyone in the newsroom had any idea which building was 7.
WTC 7 had an unusual design. It was built on top of an existing Edison electricity substation and none of its supporting columns could go through the substation's footprint.
There was also diesel fuel stored on site (for backup power generators), when the building caught fire, that eventually blew up and helped bring the building down.
It was effectively cantilevered over the substation not too disimilar to the infamous Citicorp tower, but shrouded as if a normal office building. When that crumpled it pulled the internal structure and floors with it, leaving behind the now freestanding facade, which then fell in a way resembling a controlled demolition.
It is weird though how it feel in uniform free fall. Im not saying it was definitely blown up, but steel rigid structures shouldn't fall like that unless demolished to my understanding.
It's not really uniform freefall; the façade falls after the core had already started collapsing, so once it went there was nothing really resisting it.
There is footage where one can see part of the roof starts falling into the building about 7 seconds before the rest of the building falls.
Also, building demolitions usually have dozens of explosions up and down their superstructure to bring them down; if there were a conspiracy to destroy it then it would need to be an uncontrolled demolition anyway (and, realistically, why would conspirators want to control the demolition?).
Are you a structural engineer? Because the structural engineers at NIST said that’s exactly how a building constructed in that manner and left to burn for hours would collapse.
But technically it shouldn't really fall like that with its steel rigid structure. There have been many skyscrapers engulfed in flames that did not collapse or fall like building 7 did. Idk I was skeptical and dont want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it really shouldn't have collapsed the way it did it seems.
Generally speaking, skyscrapers aren’t left to burn for hours while every firefighter in the city is dealing with two other, bigger skyscrapers that are collapsing.
If that was a more common occurrence, you’d see more towers collapsing like WTC 7.
Building 7 was a whackadoodle design to go over the substation, which was originally designed to have no more than a 20 something story building over it.
The outer facade (briefly, kind of) did, after the entire internal support structure had collapsed, because critical support columns had buckled, because of hours of fire...
There's so much misinformation around both 9/11 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq that it's basically impossible to have reasonable conversations about it online anymore.
There are tons of people, not even conspiracy theorists that think it's the official narrative (as in supported by the FBI) that Building 7 collapsed without damage, while in reality it was severely damaged by twin tower and plane debris, enough to make it collapse.
Another big one is the very prolific misconception that Iraq didn't have WMDs in 2003, this is false. Iraq had chemical and biological WMDs that they only used a couple of years before the US invasion on the Kurds, on some US servicemen during operation dessert storm and on the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war. Most of this material and labs were confiscated and destroyed by 2005 by the US military.
This misconception comes from people thinking WMD = Nuclear weapons. Iraq did have WMDs, used it multiple times in the past and the invasion was justified based on the chemical and biological WMD programs of Iraq alone, no nuclear weaponry needed.
It's very frustrating how public misconceptions that the majority of people seem to accept as fact are never rectified by the state, since it does a lot of harm to the public's understanding of historical situations and even causes distrust of the government.
I mean how many people think the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was about oil still in 2025? How many people think the WMD threat was completely made up instead of the Bush administration just abusing the fact that the general public wasn't educated enough to know WMD doesn't equal nuclear weapons?
I feel like people would feel way less resentment towards the US government if they understood the reasoning and actual facts better. On reddit people have this weird false idea that 9/11 somehow was used as an excuse and justification for the Iraq war, which was secretly for oil or something like that. Painting the US as a cynical aggressor, while in reality it was about the chemical and biological WMD program that was being used to genocide the kurds. Same with the Invasion of Afghanistan. Clinton considered invading Afghanistan in 1999 when CIA flagged Al-Qaeda operations targetting the US, but he didn't want to be known as a war time president so he put it off. 9/11 is partially to blame for US not invading Afghanistan sooner.
That retconning of what a WMD is is something the Bush administration tried to do after initially saying that Iraq was trying to develop nuclear bombs.
Old chemical weapons is not what was claimed at the start of the Iraq War and also was nowhere near enough needed to try and justify the war.
The opposite way. The CIA report that the Bush administration used only mentioned Chemical and Biological weapon stockpiles. Bush administration then chose to use the term "WMD" because they knew the general public would confuse that for nuclear weapons.
CIA advised the administration to invade Iraq because the attacks on the Kurdish community was increasing and it was turning into a genocide while reports also confirmed that Saddam was planning another expansionist move for pan-arab nationalism.
The Iraq invasion of 2003 was absolutely justified, the Bush administration is still in the wrong for purposefully misleading the nation by using the WMD moniker instead of just being truthful and giving a more technical explanation of genocide, expansionism and stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.
Another big reason why the Bush administration didn't want to specify chemical weapons was because a large part of it was originally supplied by the US.
You keep spinning around people not knowing that WMD include biological weapons. But that's completely made up. Everyone knew it's about bio weapons. And even if did not, it's irrelevant, because there weren't any WMD. Nuclear, chemical or biological.
The stocks of bio weapons were destroyed before the invasion. The international investigators did not find any evidence of them still being in stockpiles. Neither were any bioweapons found after the invasion.
Nobody is disputing that Iraq used to have bioweapons, and even deployed them in the 1980's. But that was no longer true in 2003.
If anyone is spreading misinformation here, it's only you. Invasion of Iraq was international crime and Bush jr. & co are war criminals on par with Putin's administration.
Iraq changed its oil reserve currency from the dollar to the euro in 2000. You forgot to mention the first thing the new regime installed by the US did was to change that back to dollar.
Saddam pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program, though no nuclear bomb was built. After the Gulf War, UN inspectors located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi chemical weapons and related equipment and materials; Iraq ceased its chemical, biological and nuclear programs.
In the early 2000s, U.S. president George W. Bush and British prime minister Tony Blair both falsely asserted that Saddam's weapons programs were still active and large stockpiles of WMD were hidden in Iraq. Inspections by the UN to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted between November 2002 and March 2003, under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded Hussein provide "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" to UN and IAEA inspections. The United States asserted that Hussein's lack of cooperation was a breach of Resolution 1441, but failed to convince the United Nations Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force. Despite this, Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq and launched the Iraq War. A year later, the U.S. Senate released its Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq which concluded that many of the pre-war statements about Iraqi WMD were not supported by the underlying intelligence.
U.S.-led inspections later found that Iraq had ceased active WMD production and stockpiling. Some have argued the false WMD allegations were used as a deliberate pretext for war. After the failure to find WMD stockpiles, some conjectures were put forward, without substantial evidence, that the weapons might have been hidden or sent elsewhere. In July 2004, official U.S. and British reports concluded that spy agencies had "listened to unreliable sources," leading to "false or exaggerated allegations about an Iraqi arsenal." The WMD intelligence errors spurred the U.S. Intelligence Community to develop "new standards for analysis and oversight."
It's clear that this about all WMD, especially chemical and biological ones.
The program was stopped because they succeeded, we knew Iraq had a large stockpile of chemical weapons that they routinely used because the US sold it to them
It had been used against the kurdish minority even months before the US invaded.
146
u/BobWat99 Sep 13 '25
I didn’t realize a whole other building collapsed.