But NIST has their own theories replete with colorful computer generated graphics showing fires spreading (asymetrically) and girders falling in their complicated report. But wait.... I saw the video of the building falling and I saw what appears to be a classic controlled demolition. I hypothesize controlled demolition as the primary hypothesis - but NIST doesn't. I wonder why? Richard Gage from AE911truth begs to differ with NIST especially since tons of molten metal were found 21 days after the attack. We also know that building fires don't respond to verbal commands such as "Pull it" on cue as you can see in the video below. Oh, that brings up another problem - Silverstein Properties (collected large insurance payout due to the attacks of 911) was one of the contracters NIST depended on to get to the truth in the investigation. Look at the NIST report here on page vii for contributors to the investigation. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse. Can you say "conflict of interest?" And how about all of NIST's precious recommendations for future building safety? How useful will those recommendations be when they build the replacement for WTC7 ? Would you believe NOT AT ALL since the building was replaced with a shiny new one back in October 2004 ? I wonder why nobody was concerned about what happened to the old building before they designed and built the new one?