No... but why are you even asking that question? I've said, and NIST agrees with me (unless you have something to refute it, which I would be happy to consider) that debris hitting WTC7 was not a causal factor in its collapse. Why do you keep referring to the debris as if it matters?
While I find this a little hard to believe, but I honestly don't care all that much. Structure fires have burned far longer in more poorly constructed buildings and yet they did not collapse.
What brand of crystal ball were they using? Where can I buy it? And once again, why are you repeating something that is not backed up by the official sources ("...and damage from debris...")? You think if you say it enough it will poof into truthfullness?
No. I'm saying that was a contingency plan laid well in advance. Probably when such highly sensitive contents were to be stored in the building. Whether through mechanical, incindeary, or a corabination of means, that building was rigged to be able to be destroyed should enemies potentially reach it. In the chaos of 9/11, and with resources running thin, there was no reasonable way to save the building and secure its contents. To keep countless amounts of sensitive physical and digital information secure, the decision was made to destroy the building. It was probably the correct decision, given the treasures inside. You just can't put a dollar amount on the kind of damage a foriegn nation or terror group could do with even a fraction of what was inside those lower floors.
Oxygen-choked office fires could not have brought down WTC7. That's not just my opinion, by the way. Numerous people in the relevant fielRAB agree with me. Did you know the components of thermite contain their own oxygen for the cascading exothermic reaction? Did you know the government rigs all kinRAB of devices to self-destruct rather than be allowed to fall into enemy hanRAB? Thermite is quite safe, since it's basically rust and aluminum powder, and requires intense heat to begin the reaction.
