There is a bias towards the government, the authority. If the answer is unclear, it's being assumed that they're the ones to believe. The general perception is that it is more likely done by terrorists than the government: "Governments don't do bad things, terrorists do."
There is no rational basis for such thinking. Not in today's world, no.
Here is a double-example for bias: SkepDic on 9/11 Conspiracies
Even if they're right about all of their points, they're only skeptical of the so called conspiracy theorists, never of the government. They don't analyze the official story, they focus only on debunking other theories.
The government is the good side by default. If you're skeptical of people questioning the orthodox views, then you're a skeptic. Once you start questioning the orthodox views yourself by becoming more skeptical, then you don't become a better skeptic in the eyes of the majority, you become too skeptical; A Conspiracy Theorist. And never mind that the orthodox views change with every generation...
Been through that myself apparently... But the reality is that even if you don't think that it's an inside job or whatever, no matter what you believe in, then still, you are a conspiracy theorist !
Anyway, one reason for this biased perception is -as in the Milgram experiment- the obedience to authority I suppose. People tend to be on the side of the powerful, the side of the majority, when they have to take sides. They feel comfy knowing that since they're doing -together with the rest of the majority- what their government tells them, the responsibility belongs to the government. And if any "enemies" were to challenge these people, their government would support them and the enemy would be crushed, while the people can still benefit from the protection under their government's wings. They also feel safer knowing that they got the support of the majority -or a community that they're attached to-, they are a part of a whole. This was also confirmed by Asch's Conformity Experiment. (Notice that these effects can also occur if a person is too deep inside the so called "truth movement", not just with non-skeptics and communities of biased skeptics. A little more here: Groupthink)
The other reason is more naive: The governments are supposed to work for the people and people want to be able to trust them, to believe in them. It's very much like the need to believe in God, an almighty force that will protect you. If you can even consider the possibility of such a treason by your own government, then this would mean you're in big trouble; it doesn't only mean that there is no God to help you, it means that the God is in fact Satan themself. So understandably people can easily ignore many significant questions while trying to convince themselves that their government couldn't possible do such a thing, also called confirmation bias. If they're right, that's good. But if they're wrong, then they become a part of the problem and make it even bigger.
So in short, don't assume the official version is more likely to be correct, don't try to defend it, be objective, skeptical, open minded.
Look at the footage alone and ignore the rest of the debate.
Ask objectively which is more probable:
Without explosives or with explosives?
Fire alone or with support from explosives?
Answer = With Explosives
Explosives mean only extra power, they would raise the probability of such a collapse significantly.
But still, there certainly was fire without doubt. Is there any evidence for explosives?
Is there any evidence contradicting the possibility of explosives?
Then go on...
BUT... also know that it's partially a waste of time, because it's impossible to know for sure just by researching and thinking. Even if it was an inside job, everybody involved might be dead already. Besides it's not all about how it happened, it should be more about the result and who's responsible for it. Even if it were really organized by Bin Laden -which seems more unlikely to me- there are enough signs to conclude that it was led happen by the US administration, so they are responsible for the result in either case. And even if somehow they were not, they abused this incident to an incredible degree and they still keep doing it, which is the most important point. So there really are more useful things to spend your time with...
(Spending time with this subject still makes more sense than to play WoW and stuff like that I guess; it's a nice thought exercise at least and it's about the reality we're currently forced to really live in...)
I personally tend to agree with the former Italian President* after doing some intensive research. With or without explosives? I don't really care... But if I were to make a guess, I'd say: With. At least WTC7... Firstly because it certainly looks that way. My primary, logical reasons are that the whole thing involved too much secrecy, was too suspicious. Some evidence has been quickly removed for example... If you inspect the entire debate surrounding 9/11, you'll definitely have enough reasons to be skeptical about many of the official claims...
P.S. Now to think, I think it's better to use the the word "Misfortune" instead of "Conspiracy" -which implies involvement of evilness- as I don't believe in evil, or good either... And of course "misfortune researchers" or something like that, instead of "conspiracy theorists"...
Irrelevant but amazing video: Miami Police Shot Protester, then laugh about it
UPDATE: Criticisms on FaceBook from William Mount and my replies
And I found this guide to be fairly reasonable and objective:
How Conspiracy Theories Work
Might be useful if you tend to dismiss certain claims without giving any thought...