We've spent many threads outlining how the official theory fails. I openly invited anyone on Babble to counter that information with facts or some kind of acceptable scientific principle explaining the obvious gaps in logic. No one has been able to explain the lack of resistance in the within-seconds-of-free-fall descent of the towers. Far more science and engineering professionals have now spoken out against the official explanation than the few who still stand on record as supporting it.
With all due respect, if you're not actually paying attention to the content of the threads, how can you make the claim you're making about burden of proof? You're making an uninformed and personal value judgment about what theory is acceptable.