Before replying to ozeco and jaydee, I have a proposal.
Can we through the NIST report out the window?
First of all, apparently none of you put much credence in it.
Second, given my post (#587) listing some things that are wrong with the report and I believe I only received one objection to the list about fire on floor five, I am taking it that you (the collective) do not have issue with the list. Is that correct?
If I may, David:
No, we shouldn't throw the NIST report out the window. It's a useful reference with a lot of factual information.
It's a mistake to think that we don't respect it, or give it much credence. What has happened is that most of us who've studied the collapses have independently reached the same overall conclusion that NIST did. Not necessarily for the same reasons NIST did either.
You would be terribly mistaken to assume that the lack of response to your regurgitation of AE911Truth's arguments is a sign that we agree with any of it. Far from it.
It's just that we want you to use your own eyes and brain and come up with your own ideas about it, perhaps in discussion with people here.
For the record I agree with ozeco41 that the collapse of the PH into the building is hard evidence that the main column directly below had buckled.
What exactly caused the buckling is conjecture; NIST has provided a reasonable model to explain how it might have happened, but another model might find something significantly different.
I wouldn't mind if a university were to take on the task of doing a model of either WTC 7 or WTC 1 or 2. I think it would add something of value to the understanding of the collapses.
But I remain highly doubtful that any thorough and competent investigation would ever support the CD hypothesis, as there is just too much other evidence which supports the fire-induced collapse hypothesis which can not be waved aside.
Well, it can be waved aside by fools, but fools make bad judgements, so that doesn't sway me either.
One fact which really helped me to see the collapse as 'natural', ie unassisted, was the various testimony from FDNY on the day. By mid-afternoon on 9/11, seasoned and responsible members of FDNY were starting to think that WTC 7 was going to collapse as well. Nobody ordered them to think this, nobody censored them afterwards, I'm certain of this.
I find their correct observations very compelling in this case.
Also I've come to appreciate that no explosive CD could have taken place without the telltale explosions at the time of collapse; I simply do not buy into the idea that the explosions could take place hours earlier, it defies history, experience, physics and logic.
I've personally looked at most of the video clips which contain audio, listening for any evidence of CD - there simply is none. In that case I feel confident that explosive CD can be eliminated as a probable cause.
As to the notion that the steel was quietly melted away with thermite, there just isn't any evidence for it, so why bother spending a lot of time? The fires were present, and cannot be denied; without hard evidence of thermite it's a dead-end theory as well.
I've made a number of videos on the subject using my own research, and borrowing others' as well. I haven't done much with WTC 1 and 2 because I don't feel comfortable looking at the footage and watching thousands of people die. It's just too horrible to think about for too long - for me anyway.
But I have done my own research on them as well, mainly to measure collapse times and debris behavior. So I don't rely on the NIST reports for my conclusions, but find them useful and relevant.
E&OE) what I mean to write - nothing more - nothing less. 
