Well, NIST finally did it, put out their report, and in the preamble of the document tried to tie as many organizations as possible along with it.

The disclaimers in the document were a nice touch, that basically say NIST did not analyze any steel therefore current building codes are more than adequate. Now why would be want to analyze the actual building material? With the best of intentions, perhaps there was a problem with the steel itself or evidence. Yet, it wasn't analyzed because evidence of controlled demolition would be found.

What is really amazing is how much analysis was done after "collapse initiation". At least in WTC7 it mentioned that they ran a high school math formula to say it wasn't exactly free-fall speed (yet still falls in less than 7 seconds) with little analysis. In WTC1 and 2, NIST said they did not look at what happened after the point of collapse initiation, as if to say 'the exploding steel in a mushroom like manner' is not seen, therefore the evidence it provides of explosives is unknown to us.

NIST really is adamant on their computer animation to explain what happened since it can be tweaked any way (and even manipulated down to 'the parameters of what the physics are, e.g. what gravity will be ect.). Without being able to verify the computer modeling independently by in a sense looking at the "source code" of the actual data and parameters and for the public to run modeling programs ourselves, the animation is laughable. With that being said, again, it doesn't take a computer model to analyze the steel at the scene of the crime.