I haven't seen any evidence that supports the theory of intentional demolition. There were signs of structural degradation throughout the day (bulges, creaks and groans, partial internal collapses) before the building finally collapsed completely. Fire can't melt steel but impacting debris can cause damage and fire can weaken structural integrity especially when burning out of control on almost every floor for many hours. One critical column finally collapses and the rest can't make up for that and fail. I mean if they were going to intentionally demolish the building, wouldn't they go out of the way to NOT make it look intentional? Wouldn't it be rather difficult to keep such a conspiracy a secret given the number of people that would have to know about an intentional demolition? I went to download the report you linked and they want a name and e-mail address. Give me a break.

Edit:

If anyone once to see this report without having to provide a name and e-mail address, it can be downloaded here: http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

This study was funded by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and completed by a 3 man team at University of Alaska Fairbanks. This study doesn't prove much except that the way they modeled is different than the way other organizations have modeled. And it comes down to a matter of inches. E.g. NIST says one particular girder would have been displaced 6 inches while this study says it would have only been displaced 1 inch. This study is currently only a draft and it has just been opened up to public comment. It will be interesting to see what results from that and peer review (assuming there is some). To be taken seriously it's going to need it. Otherwise it's just three guys and their model.

What none of the studies say or seem to take into account (certainly not this one) is what damage was done to girders and/or columns as a result of impacting debris. Maybe it was none but then again maybe it wasn't.