Reply #141: Not enough to collapse it?

[jwtravel]

In all seriousness, on what basis do you make this statement? There was a LOT of damage, there were some unique structural aspects (Con Ed power station within building, which required a break in the structural "pattern" of the building) to #7 that exacerbated that damage, and to top that off, the NY FD and other emergency responders saw that damage and predicted its fall. Those folks who were closest to the building, some of whom were experts and were responsible for assessing building damage, saw bulging in major load bearing elements which indicated compromised load paths. Buildings may have more redundancy than an airplane (since weight as a decision factor is less important for something on the ground), but they don't get built with infinite redundancy. It would cost too much.
I am not a structural or civil engineer. However, I am a mechanical engineer and had some Statics/Dynamics in my schooling. Nothing that I saw that awful day aroused my "spider sense"; I was surprised that all 3 buildings lasted as long as they did before collapsing. That's my take on it.
One thing that continues to irk me is people saying that #7 collapsed into its own footprint. Balderdash! The debris from that building was all over the place on the ground, some of it ending up piled against adjacent buildings. In a CD, the only thing the adjacent buildings worry about is light debris and dust causing cosmetic damage.