Jim Hoffman rebuts the NIST - FAQ

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


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...

It is firstly noted that

It is firstly noted that NIST have refused continual invitations to debate these issues, but instead choose to answer their own interpretations of the many unanswered questions. But even in doing so it is apparent that their story is falling apart like an old suitcase.

Nist have ruled out pancaking, but they seem to forget that one part of their story, the "squibs", is dependent on another part, the pancaking................ Continued on the link given.
Gordon Ross

Well done

best answer so far, muchos gracias.

http://wtc.nist.gov is down?

Since yesterday I can't enter their web page http://wtc.nist.gov
Is it my problem only, or everyone experience so?

Ok, it's up now

i wonder what has happened

The CIA wants YOU

Off topic here, but - did anyone else catch the "CIA commercial" that's running on Discovery Channel?

A recruitment drive for the CIA, with campy 3D cartoonish graphics, and spiels about the "high tech toys" they play with. So cool "they're classified."

Has this been out a while, and I just missed it? I'm still scraping my jaw off the floor.

Los Gatos High School

Both Mark Bingham and Todd Beamer went to Los Gatos High School!

In the days following the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C., family and friends of Los Gatos High School graduate Mark Bingham struggled to mourn his death amid a barrage of media requests. Bingham was 31 years old when he went down aboard United Airlines flight 93 in one of the most horrifying days in American history.


Los Gatos High School graduate Todd Beamer was remembered as a person of integrity and an outstanding athlete following his recent death. Beamer was one of the passengers who perished when United Airlines flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania after it was hijacked.


Another Hit Piece


Just a quick notification from the fringes of society:


"Conspiracy fans are viewed by most people as gullible, opportunistic, disgruntled or simply suspicious. It's widely believed that conspiracy theorists emanate from the margins of society, that they're a combination of paranoid, powerless, undereducated and desperate (at least desperate to assign blame)."

Mr. Curiel just got a nice

Mr. Curiel just got a nice email from me letting him know who the true desperate and undereducated folk are.

Its So Frustrating How They Always Accuse Us

Of doing exactly what they do.

"Some conspiracy theories are fantastical (CIA agents orchestrated the attacks; Israel planned them.) -- the epitome of preposterous beliefs that start with a conclusion and work backward to find evidence"

Additional critiques are being posted at st911.org . . .

Responding to NIST's Official "Questions and Answers"

NIST and the World Trade Center: Official "Questions and Answers"

NIST's World Trade Center FAQ: A Reply
Jim Hoffman

Why NIST hasn't Answered its own Questions
Jim Fetzer

Why the NIST "Fact Sheet" Just Won't Do
Sean Glazier

NIST and "The Foot Of God"
Robert Rice

Additionial additional critiques posted at st911.org . . .

Responding to NIST's Official "Questions and Answers"

NIST and the World Trade Center: Official "Questions and Answers"

NIST's World Trade Center FAQ: A Reply
Jim Hoffman

Why NIST hasn't Answered its own Questions
Jim Fetzer

Why the NIST "Fact Sheet" Just Won't Do
Sean Glazier

Responses to NIST's FAQs
Kevin Ryan

NIST and "The Foot Of God"
Robert Rice

Experiments to test NIST "orange glow" hypothesis...
Steven E. Jones

Mike Malloy Audios

I just found this link to the Mike Malloy firing. http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=104192;show_pare...

Audio download.

Hoffman Event is Kansas City


Jim Hoffman gave a presentation to two Kansas City audiences yesterday, for the Science Applied to The WTC Collapses. Our own attendance count was approximately 55 for the 1 pm show and 65 for the evening presentation.

By and large, the audience paid rapt attention. Additional speakers included Chris Emery of OTR Films. Photos and video clips from the event will be released soon. Hoffman conducted two popular radio station interviews.

These numbers are a relative success for an event which only had a tiny window of two weeks for promotion, and which occured through personal networks and last minute volunteer energy and committment. A wide variety of representatives from community and national groups were in attendance and helped promote the event.

(more about event later)

Jim Hoffman Is Awesome

I was waiting for him to respond to the NIST FAQ. Thanks alot for this Jim Hoffman!

Actually, it's the opposite

Jim Hoffman, an amateur investigator, is in a desperate position without the support of those who are true believers.

Every thing he has written has been debunked on the most basic of facts. Of course, the guy has found a cash cow and will continue to milk it with your help.

It's too bad Hoffman has not been able to refute the evidence for those of us who respect the scientific method and the truth. If you want to see how Hoffman was debunked before he even started read here:

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

The End of The "Controlled Demolition" Theory

And don't send Hoffman any money.

"trained in science"

I've just wasted several minutes of my life reading the drivel on the sites listed above. The only aspect that was worthwhile was viewing the classic line, "I am trained in science." Laughable.
I also note that these sites want people to send money, so I take it that when you say, "Don't send Hoffman any money", what you mean is "Send it to me instead" Hypocritical.

If you are "trained in science" you will know that it is necessary to account and acknowledge all of the evidence. You have signally failed to do so. Perhaps you would like to use your "training in science" to "debunk" the site mentioned below. But whether you would like to or not, I'm willing to bet that you can't,
Gordon Ross.

Mike King's Response to Jones

I've read through Mike King's site, and to his credit, he makes some compelling points. There are multiple mistakes that I can find, and I'm not even (fully) trained in physics or engineering. I do have a good idea of the scientific method. A few of the things that I noticed:

Mike King makes a criticism here based on what Jones says:

To sum up, it is a tough job to for the CD hypothesis to account for the stream of molten metal as iron produced from thermite reaction because (a) the choice of thermite requires the conspirators to be incompetent, (b) pooling of the molten iron would require the odd concentration of thermite on a given floor in one location, and (c) the quantity needed (22-220 tonnes) would be hard to smuggle in and hide in the building. This quantity increases by two tonnes per every tonne of molten steel estimated to be in the basements.

a.) He claims that thermite would be a bad choice, true, that's why Jones claims that thermate was the demolition use of choice.
b.) Pooling of the molten iron does not require this, as King actually implies with his IF theory that I will point out later.
c.) This comment is non-scientific and has nothing to do with evidence. This is off-topic, used merely as a point to further his hypothesis without a scientific basis. That is BAD science.

I'm not even going to quote most his WTC7 arguments. Suffice to say that he spends a large amount of his time showing that six words that Jones says ("no major persistent fires were visible") are false. This can hardly be a large fault as pictures of WTC7 burning were and are difficult to find. This goes the same for the assertion that extensive structural damage, i.e. a large hole going up 1/3 of the north face of the building. He claims this as extensive structural damage but how can we know this as true? Pictures of this hole are not allowed in the public sphere because of national security. However, apparently, it was entirely okay to show these photos to the writers and editors of Popular Mechanics, a privately owned magazine. There is more, but I'll move on for now.

Here is an obvious point to show his non-objective intent.

King: The CD theorists draw a lot on eyewitness testimony from non-experts [firefighters and policemen].

King: But in any case why should we accept from Jones that “no major persistent fires were visible” even if this has become the mantra of the counter-orthodoxy? Wouldn’t the eye-witness testimony of experienced New York firefighters count for more?

This is a bit of a cheap shot (if one knows the context).

Here are a couple of interesting quotes from section 2.8:

King: This ejection is not caused by explosion but by the huge pneumatic overpressures of the descending building(all in italics).

Later in the paragraph he says this:

King: While explosives could have caused this, so could the pneumatic pressure of descent of the upper floors.

Why does he rule it out explicatively(without basis, mind you) in one sentence and cover his ass in the other? More bad science.

Okay, that's enough for now. If you need me to elaborate more, I could dissect the entire thing. I'm a bit tired now, however. Too many fallacies to carry on.