Today the NIST released their final findings in the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. Apparently their report on WTC 7 which was initially to be released in December has been pushed back to spring of 2006. It is also worth noting that they plan to make all of the 500+ public comments received during their review period public on their website soon. I hope that will include mine, Jim Hoffman's and a bunch of others who do not find their report to be conclusive or fully encompassing.

Here is the email they sent out today:

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) today released the final reports from its building and fire safety investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center towers following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The reports, which were released at a hearing held by the House Science Committee on the NIST investigation, feature 30 recommendations to improve the way people design, construct, maintain, and use buildings to increase building, occupant, and emergency responder safety.

The reports on the towers consist of 43 individual documents and some 10,000 pages, with one summary report (about 250 pages) that contains the principal findings and recommendations. The reports as well as a news release will be available on the NIST WTC Web site (http://wtc.nist.gov) after 11 a.m. on October 26, 2005. Next spring, NIST plans to release an additional five reports on the investigation of WTC 7 (a 47-story building that fell after the WTC towers) as drafts for public comment.

Based on nearly 500 comments from 80 different entities (22 organizations and 58 individuals) that were received during the six-week public review period following the release of the draft WTC reports on June 23, 2005, the reports, including some of the recommendations, were amended and clarified. The complete set of public comments will be posted on the NIST WTC Web site in the near future.

You can find the 4 new documents on their site at wtc.nist.gov.

At a quick cursory glance it appears they still decided to not address the actual collapses of the towers but only up to the point of 'global collapse' (which is never defined). I would assume that this article by Jim Hoffman would still suffice as a worthy rebuttal to their final report.

Take a bit to look it over, and keep your fingers crossed that they do indeed post the rebuttals sent in.

Thanks to Jon Gold from yourbbsucks.com for the heads up!
-----