To sort all this out would be an extensive discussion requiring much patience, probably impossible patience, from all of us.
I admit that NIST may have given us dishonest, incomplete, unbelievable, and unscientific reports in an attempt to give a thousand conspiracy theories room to bloom. I have always suspected that the government's refusal to provide the video evidence of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon was an effort to engender conspiracy theories that could then be easily slapped down by releasing the videos. Maybe, given increased computer power, NIST could release a credible report explaining the collapse of the skyscrapers. As it is, they claim they did not analyze the collapses of the towers. How can you explain the collapses of the towers without analyzing them?
Since one of NIST's lead writers, Dr. John Gross, was one of the world experts in progressive collapse--and he surely had access to ALL of the world experts on progressive collapse--it's kind of surprising that he would not address the issue of collapse. So right there we can reasonably suspect that he did in fact analyze the collapse, and could not provide an explanation satisfactory to the government, and so chose to bow out.
My college studies of physics and chemistry and architecture, my experience in construction, and my experience as an employee in high rise buildings makes me take note when serious and courageous and educated people (a dozen AIA Fellows, 40 highrise architects, 80 structural engineers, 3 PhD structural engineers, 11 Stanford engineers) are not satisfied with the NIST report.
When you glom these worthies together with believers in earthquake machines and overunity, you are doing a disservice to them directly analogous to the disservice of those who sneer at the 9/11 widows, claiming that they reside in Area 51 to ask the questions they do.