I am sure I read it in the action that was taken to make NIST revise their description of the collapse of WTC7 or alternatively explain the basis and present the facts to support their theory? As I remember ….. this group asked NIST to revise the description and if NIST did not do so within a certain period of time then they had to explain how they came to their conclusions. The time they had to do this expired without NIST complying. If they had actual evidence then surely they would be able to publish it? If they didn’t publish, which was the case, then they clearly do not have any evidence to present. I understand this to be an admission that NIST have no evidence to support their claims. If I misunderstood the explanation in the article …. then please accept my apologies.