Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

New HOFFMAN Interview on KKFI in Kansas City

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
graphixtech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-06-06 02:46 PM
Original message
New HOFFMAN Interview on KKFI in Kansas City
Three brief video parts of Jim Hoffman of,
Sept. 2 interview by Sharon Lockhart of KKFI radio.

Formal Invitation Challenge to KC Area Structural Engineers,
Physicists, and Political Science Professors:

Jim Hoffman's Examination of the NIST Final Report of the National Construction
Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers:
NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century

Hoffman quotes on the NIST Report:
"On June 23, 2005 the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) published the draft of its 'Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers', and in September it released its Final Report). This Report and a separate one on the case of WTC 7 represent the culmination of NIST's three-year investigation of the collapses of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers,
funded with an initial budget of $16 million and subsequent appropriations from taxpayers' money."

"NIST's investigation is often cited as proving the official theory that the plane crashes and fires caused the collapses.
Yet the Report does not explain why or how the buildings totally collapsed, despite the lack of a single historical
precedent for a steel-framed skyscraper totally collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition."

"The Report mentions "progressive collapse" 16 times, mostly in sections describing recommendations. It defines progressive collapse as when "a building or portion of a building collapses due to disproportionate spread of an initial local failure" but does not mention how rare the phenomenon is or that there are no examples of total progressive collapse of steel-framed buildings outside of 9/11/01."

On the rooftop rescue issue:
"Apparently, any structural component estimated to have been damaged to any degree was removed from the model -- as if it contributed nothing to the structure. In other words, if NIST's crash simulation predicted that a column had lost 10% of its load-bearing capacity, it was treated as if it had lost 100% of its capacity."

Hoffman on the NIST Report lack of sourcing:
"The Report does not contain footnotes. It is filled with claims, the basis for which the reader can only guess. It leaves the public with no way to compare its conclusions with the evidence on which it was purportedly based."

"Assuming the premise of the official explanation, the total collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 were the largest, most unexpected, and least understood failures of engineered steel structures in the history of the world. NIST's Report, like FEMA's 2002 report, presents the appearance of explaining the collapses of the Twin Towers, but in reality it doesn't explain them at all. Flatly asserting that "global collapse"
inevitably follows "collapse initiation," the Report implies that the only issue worthy of study is how the jet impacts and fires led to collapse initiation -- an issue to which it devotes well over one hundred pages.

Thus, the Report makes two fundamental claims, the first explicit
and the second implicit:
* The impact damage and fires caused the tops of the Towers to lean
and then begin to fall (collapse initiation).
* Once initiated, the collapses proceeded to total collapses.

(Source article: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC