So about this new investigation then....
How should we structure it to be trustworthy?
How much do you think it will cost?
I think all that could be done now is a focused and transparent examination of multiple samples of dust, with the objective of eliminating the explosives/accelerants hypothesis. The problem with the NIST report is it doesn't address the controlled demolition hypothesis directly, as if it could falsify the fire/damage hypothesis.
You accept that the collapse does resemble a controlled demolition, so are you genuinely persuaded that this possibility was scientifically eliminated by NIST?
You may say this is one of my pet questions but that is not in fact the case. It is merely that I repeatedly take this approach because I think it is something "meta" to the adversarial polarisation of the truthers/debunkers debate that Metabunk is a part of, and it not something that I have seen directly addressed in the time I have been posting here.
A simple thought experiment would involve moving the WTC 7 event to happen on a day other than 9/11. A skyscraper in your nearest city catches fire, and completely collapses in a sudden, swift and symmetrical fashion. The investigation takes seven years, loses all the physical evidence, tests no residue and asserts that fire alone was the cause while producing a dodgy computer animation.
Cue endless and exhausting debate because the obvious impression of controlled demolition was not properly confronted. Microspheres? Thermite? Freefall? None of these should ever have ended up being argued over in forums like Metabunk. NFPA 921 just states the obvious: accelerants must be tested for in cases like this.
And that's what would be required this time. Multiple independent studies of dust and multiple independent expert conclusions: ideally an international effort involving scientists from the Muslim world, where skepticism is rife, and Israelis -- followed by a scientific summit
/hopelessidealism