In my architectural office, we use the spare time normally left over at the end of lunch to see what kind of nutty things the CT'ers are coming up with . . . usually, I either end up here or at the Screw Loose Change blog. So that's 4 more architects and 1 structural engineer who think the controlled demo theory is rubbish (small firm, yeah I know).
From a visual standpoint I can see why any expert might speculate that WTC 7 was demolished by professionals after looking at a quick video clip. It failed at / near the bottom, like a standard demo, and it's nowhere near as recognisable a building as WTC 1 and 2 so you don't necessarily consider what else may have caused it, at least in that little 9-second video clip that is shown so often. Especially if shown the WTC clip after video of the Twin Towers collapsing, since those don't even look similar to any demolition that would ever be performed, one's "gut" reaction might be, "Yes, this is what a CD is supposed to look like, not from the top down like the other 2."
And, you would be right in your observations but wrong in your conclusions if you thought that. It does look a lot more like a conventional building implosion than the other collapses. That's only because it failed in a similar way. And, as far as I have heard, the experts who initially said that it looked like a demo originally have ammended or clarified their statements as more evidence has become available to them.
