The problem with "theories" like Chris7's is that you need an ENTIRE NARRATIVE, not just a series of "possible" isolated events. As soon as you attempt to construct a narrative with the isolated events, you get something that doesn't make any sense.
Take WTC7. It's wired for demolition, and now the plan is to depend on the collapse of WTC1 to do some damage and start some fires, which can later be blamed for the "collapse". How do you control that? Won't there be a problem if there is no damage or fire from WTC1? What if there is TOO MUCH damage and it falls down right away? After the damage is there, you get an engineer to lie and tell the FDNY that there is a risk of collapse.
Then, some of the fires go out, and you don't feel like there is ENOUGH fire to "blame" so you have some guys run in (after threatening the FDNY with guns) and start some more fires. Even though you already have some pretty good damage that NIST can easily "blame" for the collapse. Then you tell NIST to find some excuse and they take 6 years to come up with some rather esoteric idea of thermally expanding girders, which they completely fabricate.