Debunking is subjective. It really has nothing to do with this subject, regardless. You can't debunk what has not yet been proven. You either prove it, or you prove otherwise. Read the NIST report with an open mind (don't fill in the blanks).

What we do know is that a proper investigation was never considered reasonable or even desirable by the administration at that time. They assumed the planes crashing into the towers were the cause, and that assumption was never to be questioned in the open. Obviously the buildings didn't just decide to fall, and the planes didn't knock them over. But what was the trigger? What was the initiating event or events that caused the total collapse of these three buildings?

Most of us are taught to select from a given set of answers in order to come up with the correct answer. It's how we pass the test to get an A. We are easily fooled because we trust that the correct answer is included in the multiple choice selection. It's very difficult to convince us of our gullibility. I heard about the conspiracy theories and chuckled to myself, but one day I was watching a demolition video and *snap*, it looked an awful lot like the pancake I saw on the news the morning of September 11, 2001. So I decided to have a look for myself.

The NIST was given a mission to prove the towers collapsed as a result of planes (following the initial impacts of the aircraft) striking the WTCs. What's interesting is that no mission was given to prove the actual cause of the collapse, only to prove the collapse given the first statement, that planes striking the towers triggered the collapse. It is semantics of course, but it reads just so.

MY question concerns whether NIST was tasked to find the cause. Instead, it was indirectly tasked to prove the planes crashing into the buildings caused the collapse. Read the NIST report with a neutral perspective to see for yourself.

Notice: No link provided here because understandably, if you don't know where the NIST report is already, you should find it.

I would provide excerpt from the .pdf of the NIST final report, but it is protected, so I can't copy and paste.

But a short quote from the report NIST Final Report on Collapse of World Trad Center Building 7 referring to collapse of WTC1, "This was the first known instance of a total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires."

(notice primarily due to fires is assumed -- they didn't even bother with the plane story,since now it is primarily due to fires)

Another about WTC 7, "...the fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings did not collapse, while WTC7 succumbed to its fires."

So what does this mean? Since no planes crashed into WTC 7, the building just succumbed, like it had a choice to continue or throw up its hands and give up. Not really. These quotes are from the introduction of the report, the Executive Summary.

Also included in the Executive Summary:

"...the building and the records kept within it were destroyed, and the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before congressional action and funding was available for this Investigation to begin. As a result there were some facts that could not be discerned, and, thus, there are uncertainties in this accounting. Nonetheless, NIST was able to gather sufficient evidence and documentation to conduct a full investigation upon which to reach firm findings and recommendations."

I'm challenged to find a more compelling reason to read the report. I want to know those facts and document are, and what the firm findings and recommendations are.

The predisposition to assume that airplanes crashing into the towers, or debris falling from those towers, affects the study by imposing those factors as the initiating event that caused the rest. A less biased investigation would arise from a mission to determine the cause for the collapse of those buildings, omitting the initial premise that the event was triggered by a plane crash or debris falling.

If you say explosions caused failure and are asked what type, the logical conclusion would emerge from the predetermined cause effected by the planes crashing into the towers -- jet fuel. The use of demolition explosives [Thermite] is not considered logical in the argument because it has already been determined that planes crashing into the towers were the triggers as stated in the objectives of the study by NIST.

From the NIST web site:

The specific objectives were:

•  Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;...

If the statement omitted the following the initial impacts of the aircraft, a different objective is stated. In other words, they never proved that planes crashing into the World Trade Centers caused the collapse because that part was already assumed.

Also from the .pdf:

"...due to the construction of the WTC buildings, NIST could not verify the actual (or as-built) construction, the properties and condition of the materials used, or changes to the original construction made over the life of the buildings." Bold added for emphasis.

That's a pretty explicit disclaimer. Kind of makes the report seem pretty much like conjecture.

Too many people saw at least one plane crash into the buildings. We can only guess as to whether or not those planes caused the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, a thing which has never happened in the history of tall buildings. WTC 7 didn't even get hit by planes.

The real Conspiracy Theory lies with the government and its NIST report, the rest is investigation and study using answers not provided on the government multiple choice test.

I'm asked why I believe this government is so horrible it would actually lie to me, and I ask you why you don't.