Skeptic Project

https://www.facebook.com/peterjosephofficial/posts/710854452285046

I hope the cult of "anti-911 truth" can see through the fog and recognize the safety merit of this. It is a viable need since NIST clearly worked from a political angle - not a scientific one... but what if NIST was right?
Remember what NIST said about WTC 7 in 2008? It was "the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires."
So, for the first time in history, a modern, structurally reinforced, steel frame high-rise came down at near free fall speed, in the path of most resistance, due essentially to fire.
(NIST also stated the structural damage that did occur from WTC 1&2 collapsing, along with the fuel stations existing in WTC7, had no real relevance to the collapse. Just "fire".)
They actually said at the main press conference: "WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings".
911 Truth aside, if fire DID do that, then there are a whole lot of extreme fire-based building hazards out there today and having a new investigation would be a public health imperative.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/26/911-truthers-nyc-ballot_n_5535344.html
***POST UPDATE*** ( the day after!)
Since posting this, it's amazing how the droves of off topic stuff flys right in and no one actually reads anything properly.
The point of this post? Appeals for a new technical investigation of the collapse of WTC7. Why? Because if what NIST said is true, hundreds if not thousands of high rise steel frame buildings of the same structural nature need to be renovated and/or reinforced because fire alone can take them down. Period. Seem rational? I think so.
Some people here have reacted exactly the way I explained the post didn't need to be interpreted: as a 911 truth thing. It isn't, even though the title is misleading.

Doesn't make sense. If the NIST report was right then it wouldn't need reinvestigating. Rather, other steel structures would need to be verified if they were in need of reinforcement if they could be shown to have the same inherent weaknesses to fire damage as WTC 7 had. It would be like a lecturer saying my calculations for something are exactly correct, however I have to do them again because they may be correct. Derp.

NIST clearly worked from a political angle - not a scientific one.

Derp the science in it is how it explains the collapse scenario accurately.

NIST also stated the structural damage that did occur from WTC 1&2 collapsing, along with the fuel stations existing in WTC7, had no real relevance to the collapse. Just "fire"

Yes the structural damage caused by debris would not have made the building collapse on it's own. The building would have eventually been pulled down for safety reasons later if there had not been widespread fires, however.
The fires that did spread were the reason the building became unstable, since it weakened and damaged its structure further.

There are two sets of damage caused to the building from different causes, which both have separate effects on the same building.