I appreciate you taking the time to reply.

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.

Perhaps that is what happened. Perhaps there isn't anything sinister about the events of the 9/11 but wouldn't you agree that we need an independent investigation to get to the bottom of it?

Assuming a small group could do the same thing is an assumption too.

If you go back and read the full paragraph you'll see that I was not making an assumption but providing an example that could fit in the story since you're play around with potential scenarios of what actually happened. In context, I said: And who's to say that 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? I don't really believe that, I'm just speculating to show you that there might be avenues which we cannot see since we don't have the full picture.

As I mentioned in my original post "...if true the questions whom, why and how would have vast consequences on how we believe the world works. However if we don't jump to conclusions and simply try to look at some of the questions which make some people to stop and research..."

I think trying to come to a conclusion at this point, it's counter productive, it's what generates conspiracy theories and creates friction because everyone will come up with their own idea of what happened. I am glad that we agree that something isn't right with the way building 7 collapsed. Maybe we can also agree that it grants a new investigation?

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.

I agree that entertaining all the theories in general is counter productive. That's why I'm trying to focus on facts, you keep bring up theories, which is I think a natural process of how we try to fit fragments of what we know into our view of reality. I admit it's not an easy task to ignore possible outcomes and focus on facts.

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

That's a good point. If there weren't 2200 Architects and engineers raising the alarm, I would have no problem with the official story. When the first 9/11 conspiracy theories started coming out, sceptics claimed that they were not experts and therefore should be given no attention. Now that we have actual experts, people (like b_b) still dismiss them as "experts" and don't give them any credit. At what point do we take people seriously? Which amount of credentials does someone have to have to be worthy whistle-blowers?! It appears that in today's day and age we give more weight to credentials and channels of information than information itself. I think it is naive to put our common sense aside and blindly and solely believe what comes out certain channels of authority. If we look at history we see example after example of authority abusing its power in order to aggregate more power and wealth. But I digress...

In every argument for controlled demolition, it's assumed that a building couldn't possibly collapse the way WTC7 did, ergo yadda yadda.

It isn't assumed. As the architect said, no steel frame building has fell like building 7 did due to only office fires. Hence the controversy.

So what is the collapse supposed to look like? This?

Haha, thanks for the laugh, I needed that : )

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.

I don't know, I'm not an architect. I'm listening to what the experts are saying. 2200 architects & engineers have a better background to make a better informed decision than me. Are all of these people out of their mind?! All that I can see is a building falling at free-fall speed without any resistance and onto its own footprint. To paraphrase what they say, if gravity was the only force, each floor would offer residence to the fall. Then there is the testimony firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."

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.

It's possible the explosion sounds first responders heard were gas explosions. Still if this was the case, the rest of the facts still don't match the official story.

By the way, I have no intention of coming across confrontational or harsh. The written word can sometimes be interpreted as blunt but I do really appreciate you taking the time to look into this.