You operate under the assumption that there is a scientific explanation

Sigh.

I got the assumption that there is a scientific explanation from you saying that there is a study which explains (or at least claims to explain) the collapse. From the context, one could deduce that it was written by people with a science background - presumably, if it was completely unscientific and obviously written by people with no background in engineering, you wouldn't have bothered mentioning it at all. Therefore it was presumably a scientific study.

When I say "scientific study", I don't mean that it would have to be correct. Obviously there is, and has always been, lots of scientific research that is outright wrong. Being scientific doesn't mean you're always correct, it means you employ the tools of science and therefore hopefully minimize your chances of being wrong. But if a layman says there is a study and the context implies that the study was made by people trained in the field, then that study has a higher prior probability of being correct than that same layman when he says the same study is wrong (because the layman cannot employ the scientific tools of the field that the experts are trained in). Especially if the layman in question supports his own case only by a video of an implosion and nothing else.

I see a contradiction. You cannot claim to be undecided and at the same time write "The official story is supported by science."

The official story seems to be supported by a scientific study, but I do not have the expertise to determine whether the science in that study is actually correct.

What are you sorry about?

The fact that you seem to have spent some effort digging up material in an effort to convince me of the conspiracy point of view, but I probably won't give most of it the attention it might deserve.