New HOFFMAN Interview on KKFI in Kansas City

[graphixtech]

Three brief video parts of Jim Hoffman of 911Research.com,
Sept. 2 interview by Sharon Lockhart of KKFI radio.
http://www.digitalstyledesigns.com/pages/event.htm



Formal Invitation Challenge to KC Area Structural Engineers,
Physicists, and Political Science Professors:
http://www.digitalstyledesigns.com/pages/lettertoscience.htm


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
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index_0.98.html

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."

Conclusion:
"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)
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index_0.98.html