World Trade Center building 7 was not a square or a rectangle, but a trapezoid:
As such, the larger side of the building would be heavier and more massive.
NIST claims that column 79 collapsed, leading to the collapse of the whole building.
Column 79 was located towards the larger end of the building (towards the bottom of the following diagram):
Because NIST claims that only column 79 was destroyed in the beginning of the collapse sequence, and because the same side of the building in which 79 was located was the bigger, heavier side of the building, two different influences should have ensured that the building tilted toward the bigger end.
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
article continues below
Therefore, high school physics shows that – if column 79 had collapsed and explosives did not take out all of the other support columns at once – building 7 should have tipped towards one side.
NIST’s argument that the strong exterior steel held the building perpendicular and didn’t let it tip over is illogical. The forces generated by the two above-described processes would be larger than any dynamic NIST describes. At the very least, the contrary forces would have been visible, and there would have been buckling, swaying or other indications of competing forces.
NOTE: If the collapse had started at the base of the building, then perhaps the wider base on the larger side of the building might have compensated for the greater weight. However, NIST states that the collapse started at the thirteenth floor. The wider base should not have offset the greater weight and failure so high up – from the 13th floor upwards – at least not entirely. In the absense of explosives, we still should have seen substantial deformities, buckling and/or tipping.
I encourage physicists and engineers to estimate how much heavier the larger side of the building was than the smaller side, and to calculate the forces which would have been at play given the hypothetical collapse of column 79.