Thanks zebra2. Which questions do you feel are unanswered?

With regards to the building collapse? I would be inclined to agree that office fires don't quite tell the whole story of why WTC7 dropped. For that to happen, I would think WTC7 would have had some serious integrity issues before 9/11, and that may be the issue that's not being investigated.

That's an assumption you're making.

Assuming a small group could do the same thing is an assumption too. I made my assumption because, as b_b notes, that's just how all demolitions have been done in reality.

Now we can continue making assumptions like

every modern high rise isn't already pre-wired during the construction phase just in case it needs to be brought down in an emergency

but that would be positing that all these theories should have even weight. We can humor all the theories we like but that won't change the fact that some of them are just plain garbage. Entertaining every avenue without discrimination isn't productive or insightful, it's just naive.

But since we've mentioned the topic of assumptions, why not challenge the assumption that the building's form of collapse was "unnatural"?

In every argument for controlled demolition, it's assumed that a building couldn't possibly collapse the way WTC7 did, ergo yadda yadda. But really, there are very few examples in all of history where a building of similar size and construction has collapsed. And I don't think any of these examples happened in circumstances that are truly comparable to 9/11. So what is the collapse supposed to look like? This? If it were brought down by an earthquake then you might think it would topple, but in an earthquake there are lateral forces driving the collapse. There are no lateral forces in this case, thermite or not. To challenge assumptions and not challenge the one at the crux of the controlled demolition argument is intellectually dishonest.

Fun fact: there are more than a couple cases where building collapses were preceded by loud explosion sounds. So that aspect of the demolition argument may sound convincing until you dig a little bit.