Although the big media outlets of the time (CBS, NBC, etc) have "lost" their footage, I specifically remember a reporter asking a question of a NYC Fire Chief (some borough), after the second aircraft hit.
Reporter: "what about the new that there will be a controlled demolition of WTC 7 because of fear of collapse?"
Fire Chief: "What? What are you talking about?"
Reporter: "There's a rumor that building 7 needs to be brought down due to damage..."
Fire Chief: "Listen miss, I don't know what you've heard, but there is no damage to building 7 and there's no reason to bring it down. If you suggest such a thing to someone else, I'll have you arrested for inciting a panic. We have a high amount of coordination and there is limited information available to the public."
There was more to it, but that was memorable because, as a kid, I realized something. In a real disaster situation, people would be getting conflicting information. During 9/11, it was a real disaster. Nobody seemed to know wtf was really going on or going to happen and the reporters were, notably, just in the way of the real work. Later, when building 7 fell, I thought...well...that's quite a coincidence. I don't feel it was a coincidence anymore.
One of my vivid memories of 9/11 is my sister's panic over the car bomb at the National Mall. We had some visitors staying with us that week, and 9/11 was the day they were going to go down to see the National Mall (needless to say, that was aborted).
Yet, in trying to find more information about it, I have found absolutely no mention about such a car bomb. It's not on any "false rumors that got started during the day" lists; it's not picked up even by the most insane of conspiracy theorists as suppressed information. I'm actually kind of curious where the idea got into my sister's head--the closest I can figure is that the original attack on the Pentagon was reported as a blast in an unknown area to the southwest of the caller, and the National Mall was suggested as a possible site by the reporter.
This goes to show two things. One, it's very easy to specifically remember facts (including reporting of facts) that never actually happened. Two, in a day of hectic reporting, it's very easy for wrong information to spread very quickly.
I think you might find this interesting, because someone else was fearful of national mall bombings enough for FEMA to act that day (among other organizations)
Also, the BBC specifically says it was notified beforehand about the plans to take WTC7 down. I feel like small confirmation about some of the details.
The archives you linked are almost all Washington DC area archives, showing none of the majority independent (and minor station) journalists that west coast channels had to leverage for coverage. I did comb through them for quite awhile. Thanks.
Reporter: "what about the new that there will be a controlled demolition of WTC 7 because of fear of collapse?"
Fire Chief: "What? What are you talking about?"
Reporter: "There's a rumor that building 7 needs to be brought down due to damage..."
Fire Chief: "Listen miss, I don't know what you've heard, but there is no damage to building 7 and there's no reason to bring it down. If you suggest such a thing to someone else, I'll have you arrested for inciting a panic. We have a high amount of coordination and there is limited information available to the public."
There was more to it, but that was memorable because, as a kid, I realized something. In a real disaster situation, people would be getting conflicting information. During 9/11, it was a real disaster. Nobody seemed to know wtf was really going on or going to happen and the reporters were, notably, just in the way of the real work. Later, when building 7 fell, I thought...well...that's quite a coincidence. I don't feel it was a coincidence anymore.