Artful Dodger: No evidence?

Is not Silverstein's use of a common phrase in controlled demolition, "to pull it," not circumstantial evidence? He was the building's owner, after all. Is not foreknowledge of 7's immanent collapse also circumstantial evidence? Indeed, they knew exactly where to put the perimeter. But where do firemen get experience with total collapses of this nature? How could they, when such a collapse is unique in history?

As to direct evidence:

Is not pulverized concrete direct evidence of explosives? Is not molten metal in the sub-basement direct evidence? Are not the speed & type of collapse direct evidence? Is not the presence of sulphate in the dust direct evidence? Are not the dust-clouds themselves direct evidence? Are not the squibs direct evidence?

Is not the silence of the 9/11 Commission on this incredible event, at least indirect evidence of a desire to hide by ommission, facts not supportive of the official theory? Or are all these questions improperly insinuating in the very nature of things?

I encourage you to look more deeply than you have so far, as I also will continue to do. And I humbly submit to you, that a statement, and a considered statement, are two different things.