Ok look at page 5 of that article, it deals with WTC 7 collapse. Their "FACT"- their evidence to the contrary of an implosion- is in fact...not a fact...at all.

"With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated."

"NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research."

"But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse,"

"There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation:"

This is hardly concrete evidence that debunks anything. The NIST have no 100% proven conclusions, just theories like everyone else. But we're supposed to blindly accept this "science" because it is in a Popular Mechanics magazine? Don't think so. I think there is evidence somewhere that the author of this article has ties to the Bush administration, I want to say Chertoff for some reason, but I'm not sure. Draw your own conclusions but also use common sense, that building falling looks an awful lot like the old Vegas casinos coming straight down very neatly.