WTC 7 investigation finally released

Many 9/11 conspiracy theorists have always pointed towards building 7 as supportive of their case. This building supposedly fell not due to impact from an airliner or massive amounts of debris, but simply due to fire. This would be the first time a steel-framed building ever fell due primarily to fire. Building 7 housed a variety of government agencies, most notably the SEC and the CIA. It fell even "cleaner" than WTC 1 and 2, directly into its own footprint (I would like to point out that WTC 1 and 2 were not by any means "clean" collapses). At least one structural engineer has said that he had no doubts that the building's collapse was a product of controlled demolition. One news agency on 9/11 claimed that the building had fallen before it actually fell, despite no information from officials on the scene that they believed the building was going to fall. The WTC's owner mentions in an interview that they decided to "pull" building 7 (a common term to mean a controlled demolition), although he later said he was referring to the firefighter units who were battling the fire.

Well, on August 21, 2008, the NIST has officially released their conclusion of their investigation: NIST WTC 7 report. I guess it takes a long time to find a model that plausibly simulates physics while still achieving the result you want it to. I find it funny that it took them 7 years to come to the exact same conclusion that was given the same day as the attack.

Well, is the NIST, a bureau of the dept. of commerce, going to gain or lose by causing people to doubt the 9/11 commission, supported by a consensus of elected officials, especially the Bush administration? They are uniquely unqualified to handle this case. Who watches the watchmen?

That's not to say that I support any conspiracy theory blaming the gov't for 9/11. It would make sense for the CIA, SEC, and whoever else operated in WTC 7 to make it capable of destroying itself in a fire, when unauthorized agents would have to have access to restricted areas. That's a separate conspiracy theory.

Then again, it is well-known that Bush and co sought to go to war with Iraq before this event and chose to avoid any possible methods of preventing it, including Cheney issuing a stand-down order in the middle of the attack.

Maybe it's just me, but does it not seem that poor defense against terrorism actually subsidizes the defense industry and the Bush administration? In the political short-term, it allows us to initiate foreign wars and their high costs. In the long-run, this subsidizes new weapon technologies, as well as creates terrorist blowback, leading to more foreign wars.

When it comes to 9/11, there are far more things that I know aren't true than I know are true. I don't know if the government was complicit or even involved, or if there were sub-conspiracy theories that were accurate. I don't know what ultimately caused WTC 7 to fall. I do know that government bureaucracies are self-serving, for themselves and the government in general, over we the people. They should not be trusted, especially in cases where their bosses might be suspect to inappropriate actions. I also know that the airplanes that hit the twin towers were not computer-generated holographs used to cover up missiles.