Artful Dodger: In a case like WTC 7, one cannot avoid examining the opinions, in detail, of the so-called experts themselves. An opinion written by a scientist does not therefore make it scientific. Some are scientists-for-hire, who prostitute themselves. The government surely has the means of providing this kind of "expert opinion," if it is in its interest to do so. So again, one cannot avoid research, and using his/her own judgment.

The collapse of WTC 7 displays all the signs of controlled demolition. It collapsed into its own footprint. It fell at nearly freefall speed. "Squibs" can be seen shooting from lower floors. It imploded, i.e., the middle fell first, and the walls caved inward.

On the other hand, there is no evidence that the building was a raging inferno, as claimed. Quite the contrary. It hadn't even been hit by a plane. Add to this, the historical truth that every building collapsing this way, before & since, has done so as a result of controlled demolition, and never as a result of fire. Controlled demolition also pulverizes the concrete, whereas fire never has, in any other case. Nor does fuel fire, or other common fires, create molten, liquid steel, which was found weeks later still running beneath WTC 7. But explosives do burn hot enough to do this.

Scientific experiments, in trying to get buildings to collapse by fire, have shown they do not. Even NIST admits its experimental attempts failed to produce a collapse. NIST also admits its theory about WTC 7's collapse has "only a low probability of success."

But there is more evidence. Fireman testify they were told it was going to collapse before it did. Silverstein, the building's owner, basically admitted on camera the building was brought down by demolition. All of these facts are available to those who research the issue. In short, a broad examination of evidence provides enough information for a rational conclusion on this question. The many different "opinions" of experts, can rightly be seen then as a smokescreen designed to cause confusion, or better, to convince idle observers who do not look into the matter for themselves, but take expert opinion as gospel.