There's a legal expression that goes
res ipsa loquitor, which translates into "the thing speaks for itself." It's applied when the preponderance of evidence is overwhelming in one direction.
There's always a risk in applying a concept developed for one sphere (in this case law) to another (science and engineering), but in this case I think it's applicable. Consider:
- WTC7 was hit and severely damaged by falling debris. This is a proven fact.
- WTC7 burned out of control for some 7 hours. Another indisputable fact.
- Firefighters on the scene, experienced in this sort of thing, predicted the building would collapse.
- No one can come up with an even remotely plausible reason how WTC7 could have been rigged with explosives while no one noticed, or even why anyone would want to do it in the first place.
For most of us, the preceding facts speak for themselves, leading overwhelmingly to only one reasonable conclusion. If you remain unconvinced, that's certainly your perogative. But consider this: do you really consider it more likely that someone rigged WTC7 with explosives, and then patiently waited until the adjacent towers were hit with planes, until debris fell on WTC7 and set it ablaze, waited another seven hours, and only then set off the explosives? I'm finding it hard to conceive how anyone can seriously consider that scenario as even remotely plausible, never mind more reasonable than the "official" version which, for most of us, seems self-evident.
