Science is public; it’s not hidden. Well, there are problems with private research; Goldacre’s written a whole book about distortion of research in the pharmaceutical sector. But it’s individual results that get distorted, not the principles, the cutting edges of which are thrashed out in the scientific journals and discussion forums, which are public.
The collapses of the Twin Towers are among the most studied building failures in history, and the technical community essentially all agree; structural failures started progressive collapses. The American Society of Civil Engineers alone has 150,000 members. Even A&E9/11Truth has far more architects than engineers. Twin Tower demolition theory just looks dumb in the technical community.
Try starting at the link below and look around. The collapses were and are publicly discussed and debated by the global professional community, and virtually everyone agrees it was structural failure and progressive collapse, all discussed and agreed in public journals:
http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/06/some-journal-papers-about-wtc-on-911.html
On the other hand, WTC7 was a mystery from the start and has been ever since. FEMA said so, NIST said they were “having trouble getting a handle on 7”. Two technical reports for a court case and appeal which contradicted each other, and now the UAF report. The bewilderment started almost immediately:
http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/engineers-are-baffled-over-collapse-of.html