I agree. The official conspiracy theory needs to be backed by real peered review science. Not computer simulations where NIST doesn't publish the assumptions that went into the model.
Here' s a peer reviewed paper on residue of explosives found in the 9/11 dust:
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Then the comments will be that journal is not good enough. Well, here's the problem with peered review papers on 9/11 science:
“Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals,” Richard Smith, former editor of The BMJ (previously British Medical Journal), lists a host of deficiencies in the process, stating that “… [peer review] is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time,
highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.” In conclusion, he writes: “… peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review [
47,
48].”
The problem with the official conspiracy theory put forth by NIST is there is no science to support it. WTC 7 wasn't even hit by a plane. Buildings do not collapse from fires. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A computer model is not evidence. If NIST published the model for other engineers and experts to study it would be more credible in my opinion. When I watch the NIST animation of the collapse from their model it doesn't look like anything in the live video. The video evidence for WTC 7 supports controlled demolition as the most plausible explanation.
Newton's 3rd law of motion just can't be ignored by NIST and their official conspiracy theory.