The great philosopher Karl Popper argued that the fallacy of conspiracy theories lies in their tendency to describe every event as 'intentional' and 'planned' thereby seriously underestimating the random nature and unintended consequences of many political and social actions.
All I can say to this is there's no question Popper would have identified things like the WTC 7 collapse report as pseudo-science, as it fails the basic principles of scientific method he thought about so deeply: verifiability and falsifiability, for example. It was a forensic investigation that didn't actually examine a single piece of physical evidence from the building, and based its conclusions on a computer model that can't be verified and in any case is an extremely poor and partial representation of the facts.
Speaking for myself, I do not find it in the least bit comforting that the collapse of WTC 7 is now accepted and thought of as adequately explained by those who were even aware of it. It is disturbing in the extreme that the final report on WTC 7 is considered the last word on the subject by "most people" and I find the world to be more "chaotic" and "rudderless" that this is in fact the case. I don't subscribe to any other "conspiracy theories" and have no idea who "they" are if "they" did it, but I don't find that the NIST WTC 7 report adequately explains the video evidence in the slightest.
There is no rule that if you--or anyone--can come up with scientifically sound refutations of the "final report" that "the government" will not allow it to be considered. It sounds as if you are suggesting a conspiracy behind the acceptance of the report. No one has been silenced, that's obvious. But I, for one, am tired of the constant stream of conspiracy theories that have no scientific evidence behind them and are nothing but mindless blather. Get some scientific support and intelligent people will listen. Or are you suggesting that a majority of respected scientists are in on the conspiracy to prevent a real investigation and conclusion? if so, you still need empirical evidence to draw that conclusion and I maintain that you don't have any.You put too much on empirical evidence. We're not necessarily dealing with purely physical systems here, like a chemist or a physicist would be. For example, there is a video of the owner of WTC7 saying to someone on a phone, shortly before WTC7 went down, to "pull it" (or whatever the phrase is in demolition parlance). That in itself makes any conclusion about the building "just collapsing" suspicious. There are many many other examples, but there's a whole thread on this. My point is, it's easy to say "empirical evidence" as if there's some super duper gold standard of what that is, but in reality things aren't so clear cut.
Which is exactly what every conspiracy theorist says about his favorite conspiracy. No facts, just suspicions and a few ambigious statements. That's all conspiracy teorists need, according to them.
