The NIST investigation was about the collapse of WTC7, so if you want to judge their work, you really want to look at "collapse investigation protocols" (if those exist). Fire investigations are primarily about identifying the cause or culprit of the fire, collapse investigation is about cause or responsibility for the collapse: the owner using the building for a purpose it wasn't designed for, the engineer who delivered a faulty design, the architect who didn't consult a structural engineer, the contractor who didn't comply with engineering drawings and specifications, or shortcomings in the existing building codes. With different focus and objectives, the protocols of fire investigations have limited relevance imo. BTW: fire-proofing an explosive charge while still allowing radio signals to pass is relatively easy, a protective layer of vermiculite or asbestos (of sufficient thickness) will do the trick; you might even use refractory material to isolate the thermite from the column in such a way that upon ignition the molten iron would flow towards the column, make contact with the steel and melt it. Should be a piece of cake for the genius able to foresee a six hour blaze caused by a plane crashing in another building. And low frequency signals (few hundred kHz) will pass through a few inches of water. It's easier to debunk a theory by pointing out one specific technical detail that is impossible, than to show the impossibility of the total event, but apart from the Sci-Fi scenarios with energy weapons, CGI in the sky or nano-nukes, most of the details, like muffle the sound of an explosion, use thermite to cut a column, keep explosives cool in a six hour blaze.. they all could probably be achieved on their own (given enough resources), when they are the only imposed condition. It's the combination of all of them that is impossible.