No. The question is what EXACTLY you would want them to do. "apply the scientific method" is laudable, but what exactly do you want investigating?
As I've said, a new investigation begins by taking previous investigations into account (something the NIST report failed to do with FEMA's 2002 study of WTC7 steel, of course: another factor that undermines its credibility).
NFPA 921 specifies exactly how investigations of this kind should proceed -- it even specifies what I've said above: that any previous research must be fully accounted for by the investigating authority as part of the process.
One of the mysteries of the NIST investigation is how NIST was able to claim to have followed the scientific method without following the NFPA 921 code. To me, this claim is a meaningless contradiction. Certainly, a new investigation should not be dogged by contradictory claims of what the scientific method means or what it should actually entail. In fact NFPA 921 exists precisely to give clarity on questions of this kind.
In the past, people such as Landru have responded to my observation that NIST's published excuse for not following NFPA 921 is meaningless by superciliously copying-and-pasting NIST's published claim to have followed the scientific method -- the very claim I have been saying has no meaning -- as if such circular logic explains anything.
As an excellent example of question-begging, this has been frustrating. If NIST has indeed been able to meaningfully observe the scientific method while ignoring the process specified by NFPA 921, then I want to understand how. In terms of the topic of this thread, it seems that NFPA 921 may not be the "gold standard" of fire investigation practice after all, and Landru knows why.
Now Landru has yet again referred to NIST's meaningless claim to have followed the scientific method while ignoring NFPA 921 and I have called him out on it. I doubt he will return here to explain what he thinks it means, because I think the abject meaninglessness of NIST's claim makes it indefensible.
If the substance to NIST's claim to have followed the scientific method while ignoring NFPA 921 could be explained by the people who accept this claim -- like Landru -- then this would inform a hypothetical new investigation immensely.
Sadly, I do not think we will see him return to this thread to do so.