As horrific as it sounds it is more possible than the impossible.
All the theories are more probable than impossible yet the NIST findings are infinitely more probable than any of the CTs which have been floated by the 9/11 CT Movement since 9/11.
The trick is to apply the same level of skepticism to those CTs that you apply to the NIST report.
NIST has finally released their final report into the collapse of Building 7, which collapsed inexplicably on 9/11. The New York Times quoted Sunder who said, "[The] reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery... It did not collapse from explosives or fuel oil fires.” Earlier, Sunder was scratching his head, saying, "We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7." Similarly, the collapse baffled FEMA who lamely concluded, "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” In other words, despite the fact that FEMA claimed a diesel fuel explosion would have been improbable, NIST is now asserting that mere "fires" knocked down WTC 7? As NIST admits, this would be the "first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building."
Arabesque: 9/11 Truth: NIST Concludes "Fire" Caused WTC 7 ?Collapse? when FEMA Report Concluded Fuel Tank Explosion had "low probability? of Knocking Down Tower
That NIST report was "finally" released 5 years ago and in all the time since, no evidence of a CD or a conspiracy to rig any WTC building has been uncovered. Are you suggesting GWB and a Girl Scout troop did the nasty deed during a weekend jamboree?
Last edited: