FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Jim Hoffman shreds NIST's latest release

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps General Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
stallion4



Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 692

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 5:37 pm    Post subject: Jim Hoffman shreds NIST's latest release Reply with quote

NIST's World Trade Center FAQ
A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
by Jim Hoffman


http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html

Here's an excerpt:

Quote:
On August 30, 2006, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) posted on their website a list of fourteen frequently asked questions (FAQ) and answers to them. NIST should be commended for at least addressing a number of the serious questions that have been raised with regard to its investigation. However, NIST's new FAQ avoids answering the central charges of its most visible critique, Building a Better Mirage.

* That NIST fails to support it's key assertion that "collapse initiation" automatically leads to "global collapse".

* That NIST uses the diversionary tactic of describing some events -- such as the airliner crashes -- in great detail, while almost completely avoiding the core question of what brought the Towers down.

* That NIST's report is internally inconsistent, supposing that steel columns were heated to temperatures hundreds of degrees in excess of the maximum temperatures indicated by its steel samples.

* That NIST fails to substantiate it's implied claim that its computer models predicted "collapse initiation".

* That NIST fails to even address most of the features of the Towers' destruction that are apparently unique to controlled demolitions.


Continued at link.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very interesting. Thanks for the heads up.

That NIST FAQ is a testament to the elasticity of imagination.

It looks as if the battle lines are being clearly defined.

I wonder if they're any where near the vicinity of the war, though.

ps.

Today, the WTC investigation page of the NIST site is down.
Maybe overload, maybe concidence - just thought it was interesting.

pps.
Quote:
NIST Gaithersburg site is experiencing a partial power outage that is affecting some email, phone, and web services.



From: National Institute of Standards and Technology
http://www.nist.gov/


Well, I'm sure there's a conspiracy behind it somehow! Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
stallion4



Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 692

PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Jerry,

Hoffman's reply to the NIST made it into one of Raw Story's front page articles yesterday (Friday). The headline read:

Federal agency releases 'rebuttal' to 9/11 theories

Here's the article in full:

Quote:
Federal agency releases 'rebuttal' to 9/11 theories on the destruction of WTC towers

Ron Brynaert
Published: Friday September 1, 2006


In the face of polls which suggest that many Americans are skeptical about the government's official version of what happened on September 11, 2001, a federal agency has released a "rebuttal" to some prevalent "conspiracy theories" about the destruction of the World Trade Center towers.

A few days ago, as the five-year anniversary of the attacks approaches, the National Institute of Standards and Technology posted a FAQ sheet on it's website entitled "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions", based upon its three-year building and fire safety investigation.

"We get a lot of calls from people who have heard these theories," NIST spokesman Michael Newman told Newsday. "But we conducted what was probably the most complex investigation of a building collapse in history."

"We based our conclusion on the talents of the world's best engineers and scientists, state of the art computer models and 236 pieces of steel recovered from the site," said Newman.

Earlier today, NIST sent out a press release about their FAQ sheet.

"When the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released the final report in October 2005 from its technical investigation of the fires and collapses of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers on Sept. 11, 2001, many in the building design, construction, fire, rescue, safety and legislative communities praised the three-year effort as the authoritative accounting of the events that took place and began working with NIST to use the report's 30 recommendations to improve building codes, standards and practices," said the press release.

"However, there have been claims from 'alternative theory' groups that factors other than those described in the NIST report brought the towers down," the release said.

'Controlled demolition' theory

Much of the fact sheet deals with the "controlled demolition" theory, which the agency never actively investigated or pursued because they couldn't find any "corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses."

Brigham Young University physics professor Dr. Steven E. Jones, a founding member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, "a non-partisan association of faculty, students, and scholars, in fields as diverse as history, science, military affairs, psychology, and philosophy, dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11," believes that NIST is wrong to dismiss other theories about why three WTC buildings "completely collapsed" on September 11.

"In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges," Jones writes in the abstract of his paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"

"I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings," Jones writes. "And I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, and can be tested scientifically, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government."

"In particular, the official theory lacks repeatability in that no actual models or buildings (before or since 9-11-01) have been observed to completely collapse due to the proposed fire-based mechanisms," Jones concludes in his paper. "On the other hand, hundreds of buildings have been completely and symmetrically demolished through the use of pre-positioned explosives."

"And high-temperature chemical reactions can account for the observed large pools of molten metal, under both Towers and WTC 7, and the sulfidation of structural steel," wrote Jones. "The controlled-demolition hypothesis cannot be dismissed as 'junk science' because it better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony."

One question from NIST's FAQ sheet asks "How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse."

"The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day," NIST's FAQ sheet says. "Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel."

"No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001," according to NIST.

However, at the conclusion of its FAQ sheet, the federal agency claims that it is "considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse" of the 47-story office building, WTC 7, which hadn't been struck by either of the hijacked airplanes that day.

"While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements," the FAQ sheet says.

A point-by-point reply to the NIST FAQ sheet was written by Jim Hoffman, a software engineer with many published articles in scientific magazines and journals, who has been investigating the events of 9/11 since early 2003, questioning the "official story," as well as debunking some of the more "wild" theories about what may have happened.

"But steel-framed high-rise buildings have been felled by severe earthquakes, and in those cases, the buildings were not pulverized and shredded, as the World Trade Center was, but were toppled," Hoffman writes in response to the aforementioned question on "controlled demolition."

"The exact combination of impact-induced structural damage and fire damage was unprecedented, but in some of the examples of fires in steel-framed high-rise buildings the fires were much stronger and long-lasting than in the three WTC towers, and yet didn't even produce serious structural damage in the buildings," Hoffman continues. "Since NIST's theory of the demise of the Twin Towers is essentially a fire theory, the lack of a single example of fire-induced total collapse of a steel-framed building presents a problem for that theory."

Hoffman's full reply can be read at this link
.

Source:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Federal_agency_releases_911_conspiracy_rebuttal_0901.html



If I remember correctly, Fintan identified Raw Story as one of his "CIA Fakes"? Why would Raw Story run that story if they're CIA controlled? I think it was a fair article to Hoffman and Jones? Am I missing something here? Why does Fintan Lump Raw Story in with the CIA Fakes? Is Hoffman now somehow on that list too, because Raw Story has "promoted" him? Has Fintan ever explained why he put Raw Story on the list? Is there a link to where I can read or listen to what his reasoning behind this was?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Huh.

I dunno much about Raw Story.

IMO, it seems to pander to intellectual liberals stuck in the two party pendulum.

Maybe they push the 'Bush and the Neocons did it and Israel was in on it too' thing a bit hard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
zak247



Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 949

PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting, so what it boils down to it seems to me is that the impact of the crashes is the predominant cause of the buildings collapse, according to the NIST.
Since all their preceding bullshit theories have been shown to be ridiculous, all they are now laying it on is a variable that they think cannot be disproved, because to do that one would have to build a building like the WTC 1 or 2, and then crash a plane in it!

This is highly deceptive in that they have no proof of their theory and are hoping that the scenario of 911 doesn’t happen again, and it probably won’t since they are the ones who did it in the first place and they are the ones who have the power to do it again.

Also, I like Hoffman but I don’t think he should have given these people a bit of praise for answering the FAQ’S: for what? They are lying better!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
stallion4



Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 692

PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

zak247 wrote:
I like Hoffman but I don’t think he should have given these people a bit of praise for answering the FAQ’S: for what? They are lying better!

Yeah, I know whatcha mean. I kinda rolled my eyes after I read that too. But Hoffman probably wrote that to use as a hook to reel in the OCTers a bit. My take is, the comment wasn't directed at an awoken reader.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
destro
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 6:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

has anyone seen jim hoffman's recent video where he lays out his theories and shows how retarded the truss theory is?
Back to top
zak247



Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 949

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

destro wrote:
has anyone seen jim hoffman's recent video where he lays out his theories and shows how retarded the truss theory is?


No I havent seen it, do you know where it is?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps General Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.