Jim Hoffman Critiques the NIST Report on the WTC Collapses

Here.

Abstract:

In June of 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'. This Report and a separate one on the case of WTC 7 represent the culmination of NIST's three-year 20-million-dollar investigation of the collapses of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers.

NIST's investigation is often cited as proving the official theory that the plane crashes and fires caused the collapses. Yet the Report makes no attempt to explain 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. And, in contrast to the Report's voluminous detail about the plane crashes, fires, and loss of life, it makes no attempt to characterize -- let alone explain -- the demolition-like features of the collapses, such as their explosiveness and nearly free-fall rapidity.

NIST simply avoids these troublesome issues by placing them outside the scope of its investigation, claiming that "global collapse" was "inevitable" after the "initiation of collapse."

NIST's Theory

Remaining strictly within the confines of the officially prescribed theory, NIST crafts an explanation for the "initiation of the collapse of each tower" that avoids faulting the Towers' construction: The aircraft impacts dislodged insulation from the steel, and the exposed steel succumbed to the fires. Sagging trusses pulled in portions of the perimeter walls, causing a rapid spread of "column instability" in perimeter columns, which in turned strained the fire-weakened core columns. The "tremendous energy" of the floors above the collapse zone led to "global collapse."
Challenges

In this critique I challenge NIST's explanation on two levels:

* Its theory about the effects of crash and fire damage is deeply flawed.
* Its presumption that "collapse initiation" will automatically lead to "global collapse" is unfounded.

Whereas the Report attempts to pre-empt challenges of the first type with the voluminous detail of its observations and models, it does not even address challenges of the second type. Yet it must have been aware of such challenges. NIST's lead investigator Shyam Sunder is extensively quoted in the Popular Mechanics article attacking "conspiracy theories." Respected theologian David Ray Griffin detailed evidence of controlled demolition in an April 18, 2005 address to the University of Wisconsin at Madison, which was aired twice on C-Span's BookTV. Griffin's remarks included:

* The buildings collapsed straight down, and at virtually free-fall speed, as in controlled demolitions, and then the rubble smoldered for months.
* Many people in the buildings said that they heard or felt explosions.
* Virtually all the concrete of these enormous structures was pulverized into very fine dust.
* Much of this dust, along with pieces of steel and aluminum, was blown out horizontally several hundred feet.
* Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections about 30 feet long, conveniently ready to be loaded on trucks.

By truncating its investigation at "collapse initiation" NIST avoids having to consider and disclose the subsequent evidence of controlled demolition.