"massive amounts of structural damage because it's next to a building that just got hit by a big ass fucking plane going 500mph"

Try again

NIST admits the falling debris did not initiate the collapse. NIST also admits that they have "no evidence" to support the theory that the falling debris caused the fire.

NIST's statements are unproven theories.

Fires couldn't be fought because the water mains were wrecked...

NIST specifically mentions that there have been high rise fires without the aid of sprinklers. And no global collapses.

Proximate cause was found to be long-span horizontal beams on some upper floors that were very vulnerable to heat expansion,

NIST never proved this theory. They released a computer model as "proof" and withheld the data from anyone asking to test it. Also, NIST's peers stated that the information they did release about the creation of the model was "unrealistic." Stating that NIST didn't heat slabs when they should have. This caused tension in the slab. NIST then completely removed slabs from the model once they reached a certain tension. This caused a lack of lateral support for the beams. Causing them to buckle. NIST then completely removed beams from the model once they buckled.

NIST also ignore that the building would act like a giant heat sink, they do not factor this into any model. Absolutely ridiculous

"Unrealistic."

"Regarding the large-scale finite element analysis using ANSYS, it appears that the failure criteria for the slab may underestimate the true performance and be responsible for initiating the failure (although failure limits used for the studs are not clear in the report) Concrete strain limits of 0.15% in tension or 0.4% in compression are applied at the slab mid-depth, after which the slab element is completely removed from the grid. For slab elements near beams, this removes the lateral support to the beam. When the beam subsequently buckles, it is also removed from the analysis. Failure then progresses. This is quite unrealistic."