The Usurper:No evidence?

Is not Silverstein's use of a common phrase in controlled demolition, "to pull it," not circumstantial evidence?

No it's not.  You are speculating on what he mean and in the context of the entire conversation, "pull it" doesn't sound to me like "blow it up."  They were talking about the inability to control the fire and the fact that the building was unstable.  Enough people had died fighting 911 as it was.  Pull it!  Get them out of there.  It's just a building!  That's what he meant.

He was the building's owner, after all. Is not foreknowledge of 7's immanent collapse also circumstantial evidence?

No.  They knew it was going to fall because the fires were out of control, it was structurally damaged to the point where it was clearly unstable, and the fire fighters testified they heard creaks and moans from within. 

Indeed, they knew exactly where to put the perimeter.

Yeah, they are professionals and have experience fighting tall building fires.  These guys study this stuff all day long.

But where do firemen get experience with total collapses of this nature?

Safety parameters are standard when fighting out of control fires.  Based on the building size, lean ratio and other factors, they can determine what is a safe distance and what is not. 

How could they, when such a collapse is unique in history?

They could because even I could have established a safe perimeter.  They have standards they follow.  But if I were there, I could have done it.  It's not that hard to imagine.  The building is unstable.  How far away should we move?  Well, depending on the building height, it would be easy to establish a reasonable perimeter plus a safety cushion.  

Is not pulverized concrete direct evidence of explosives?

No.  The concrete was weakened due to intense fire and heat and by sheer weight of the building collasping in on itself, it's not questionable that the concrete was pulverized.

Is not molten metal in the sub-basement direct evidence? Are not the speed & type of collapse direct evidence?

I don't know why it would be.  There are several explanations for this.  One is the intense heat. 

Is not the presence of sulphate in the dust direct evidence?

Not if parts of the building had that substance on it.  I'm not an expert but I read somewhere that some construction material did in fact contain sulphate.

Are not the dust-clouds themselves direct evidence?

Of course not.  When a building falls, you're gonna get dust clouds. 

Are not the squibs direct evidence?

There were none.  This is a strongly debated point.

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?

No.  Unless of course they included every other building but left out 7.  Then I'd wonder why. 

Or are all these questions improperly insinuating in the very nature of things?

You can ask all the questions you want but simply asking a question doesn't mean that your conclusion necessarily follows.  Look, I don't trust the government any further than I can throw them.  But I also don't trust that men could remain silent on a conspiracy of such magnitude.  It's just not possible.  Someone always talks.  Always.

Artful Dodger: Nice post. Actually, many people have talked. People in the FBI, people in the FAA. Even people in the military, but the records of their speech was erased (i.e., ignored) by the 9/11 Commission. There have been additionally many "slips of tongue" disapproving the official theory. And WTC-7 is not by any means the strongest leg of the argument. It is one leg, pretty strong I think. But not even the tip of the iceberg.