"i'm sure you must have looked at the rebuttal of conspiracy theories about building 7. they seemed to have a reasonable explanation for that. By the way I seem to recollect that the trade centres used the outside steel cladding to support the building and that is why it collapsed. Not sound building practices." --JohnKeep in mind, the official version of 9/11 is also a conspiracy theory so the question is which one is less believable.
As far as "rebuttal of conspiracy theories about building 7," no one denies the building could be brought down with explosives. The only critique of demolition that I've seen is that it would be difficult to "wire" the buildings without being detected. That's a paper tiger at best. Ask me.
And it would have to have been done prior to 9/11. Which is why no one wants to take a closer look.
On the other hand, as far as the official conspiracy theory, I haven't seen any convincing defense of the quite frankly unbelievable NIST "most probable initiation sequence" hypothesis which, they assert, began with the collapse of Column 79.
And remember, an hypothesis isn't proof, it requires proof.
Let's see what proof they can muster - - -
In fact, I instigated a whole herd of "debunkers" to find even one explicit endorsement of NIST's Column 79 conjecture starting in May, 2016. They're motivated folks and so far (October 1, 2016) they've completely failed in that quest.
On the other hand, just lightly perusing the literature asserted to support NIST, I stumbled on these:
"The Council [on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat -- CTBUH] does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a result of the buckling of Column 79." --CTBUH_NISTwtc7_%20DraftReport.pdf
"Arup's review of NIST's findings and its own analysis led it to conclude that NIST has not satisfactorily demonstrated its main conclusion but that the impact-induced loss of fireproofing was the deciding factor in the collapse." --ARUP Associates, an independent firm of designers, planners, engineers, consultants and technical specialistsAnd this general critique of NIST's 9/11 work:
"I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable..." --NIST's former Fire Science Division head, Dr. James QuintiereChief NIST investigator Sunder tried to explain it during a NIST Tech Briefing like this: "...the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures." In that report you find out that those "lower temperatures" were a paltry 400C.
This completely ignores that steel-framed buildings have been designed to resist high-temperature thermal expansion for over 100 years. With virtually 100% no 9/11 type complete progressive collapses. And in fact, with one exception in Mexico from an 8.2 magnitude earthquake, no such collapses from any cause or combination of causes.
And it was explaining the progressive collapse, not how it started, that was the challenge. And, offering no explanation, NIST shrugs that off.
And they only came up with this Column 79 turkey after a three-year plus delay -- using non-validated computer simulations -- and hiding 74,777 (~80%) of the simulation files, thus making replication of their work impossible.
So to sum up Building 7: Completely ignoring the demolition collapse signature, we have a poorly supported hypothesis, based on non-validated computer simulations, delayed for three years, unable to show how the actual collapse occurred, and hiding the files that would enable replication of it's work. And we have no specific support but specific disagreement from its own community on its main (Column 79) conclusion.
Why not apply Occam's Razor and keep it simple. What's this look like to you?
So, as to which conspiracy theory is less believable, well, that's for you to decide.
Health, happiness, & long life,
P.S. For the BIG picture, see The Strangest Fires Ever Told, by yours truly.
As far as the Towers practicing unsafe construction - - -
With all of its structural redundancies, "the World Trade Center was probably one of the more resistant tall building structures," [Robert] McNamara [president of the engineering firm McNamara and Salvia] said, adding that "nowadays, they just don't build them as tough as the World Trade Center." His statement is bolstered by the fact that the support structures of both twin towers withstood the initial hits of the two kamikaze airliners despite the breaching of many levels of framing. --When the Twin Towers Fell - Scientific American< C:\USR\WP_DOCS\TROLLEY\ARTICLES.NEW\WHYFIRE>