• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Quick Question about NIST Report

jproudj

Student
J
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
44
Hey, this is my first post, I've been lurking for a couple of weeks and I appreciate the forum being here, it's a sanctuary from the 9/11 madness on the net.

I'm replying to a 9/11 Truther on a forum. He quoted an article from here rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/expert-blows-the-cover-on-911-inside-job/1619/
I know this stuff been covered on this site, but I've searched the forum for the answer to a question and I can't find it.

Why did NIST remove '40% of the structural support' to make their test work'? In the NIST report I couldn't find what he was referring to. Is it explained by the specific goal of the investigation? To find a design flaw? Is this simply trial and error?

Forgive me if this is totally obvious, I'm a fledgling debunker :)
 
Mr. Wolf has been discussed -- well, perhaps exposed is a better word -- here before.

I can't tell what he's going on about in that excerpt. NIST's models are described in NCSTAR1-6D, and you can check them for yourself. There was a good chunk of flooring removed from the models, but this removal corresponds to predicted impact damage from the planes, and was partially visible.

Also, the NIST core hypothesis is that floor pull-in is required for collapse initiation, so taking out 40% of the floor would actually inhibit their collapse model.

It's also possible he's making some vague reference to the component models assembled prior to the global model, but I honestly can't tell. I gravely doubt he's read, let alone understands, the NIST Report. I encourage you to read it yourself.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. I thought as much. I'm in the process of reading it and couldn't work out what he was talking about.

And to Wildcat, I couldn't work out his crazy 43 second, 0.5 second a floor theory either... ah well.
 
jproudj said:
Thanks. I thought as much. I'm in the process of reading it and couldn't work out what he was talking about.

And to Wildcat, I couldn't work out his crazy 43 second, 0.5 second a floor theory either... ah well.
Click to expand...
It comes from the "9/11 Mysteries "movie. In it, a truther claims that a floor can only collapse as fast as you can say "clunkety-clunk", therefore it should take longer than it did since you can't say "clunkety-clunk" 110 times in 15 seconds.

You can't make this stuff up!
 
Welcome to the forum, jproudj. I am not all that familiar with Torin Wolf, but his presentation in the website you pointed out consists of pretty much the same goofy and unsubstantiated stuff put forward by other more notable notorious figures in the twoof movement. David Ray Griffin seems to preach pretty much the same sermon (forgive the pun) :p ...and R.Mackey has written a great paper exposing the faults in one of his latest publications about the WTC collapses (there is a link to that paper in my signature below)
 
WildCat said:
It comes from the "9/11 Mysteries "movie. In it, a truther claims that a floor can only collapse as fast as you can say "clunkety-clunk", therefore it should take longer than it did since you can't say "clunkety-clunk" 110 times in 15 seconds.

You can't make this stuff up!
Click to expand...

We can't make this stuff up. They most certainly do.

Its closer than Judy Woods saying that each floor could not collapse faster than 0.866 seconds(free fall through 12 feet - 1 storey) and that 0.866 times 110 is 95.25 seconds for a minimum time of collapse.:D

At least 'clunkity-clunk' would have the collapse acellerating whereas Woods assumes an average acelleration of zero.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom