9/11 Blogger NIST "Critique"

[slugmancs]

Someone quoted this to me today and I couldn't find any criticisms of this document on JREF or anywhere else. It lists
http://911blogger.com/node/4343

#10. Their theory is that “widely-dislodged fireproofing” was the primary reason the towers collapsed.
To make this arguement they rely on Kevin Ryan, UL firee and all around liar.

#9. This theory ignores the fact that no steel framed building had ever completely collapsed due to fire in history.
Everyone knows this one, no other plane has been hit by such large planes with malicious intent.

#8. They disproved their own “widely-dislodged fireproofing” theory with a shotgun experiment.
Back to Kevin Ryan's claims of what UL did...

#7. They ignore massive eyewitness testimony.
This really debunks NIST really well.

#6. Their theory ignores a foundational law of physics.
Steven Jones and Jim Hoffman weigh in on how they fell at free fall speed...

#5. Their steel tests contradicted their own theory and showed that the towers should not have collapsed.
9/11 Blogger LOVES Kevin Ryan, don't they.

#4. They “proved” their theory with computer models that they refuse to release.
Therefore the computer models must be inaccurate?

#3. Their computer simulations used exaggerated data.
Can't really answer this one, but how can they figure this out without the computer data?

#2. Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report explains (only in a footnote!), that their theory is a pre-collapse theory—they do not attempt to explain the “structural behaviour of the tower” after the collapse began!
Everyone knows what happened after the collapse began, it fell.

#1. Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report can’t find the space to discuss molten and evaporated steel; outrageously claiming that it was “irrelevant to the investigation”!
Evaporated steel - as in Directed Energy Weapons and molten steel claimed to be present by one person.

This is a little critique I thought of but does anyone have a better one?

[kevin]

Actually the NIST report requires 3 elements to have occured for the buildings to have collapsed:

- dislodged or thin fireproofing. either from misapplication during construction (see pre-destruction photos in the report of bare steel because fire proofing wasn't fully applied), or dislodged by the collison

- fires from building contents.

- destroyed columns from the collision

Without all 3 the buildings would have held longer, and perhaps not collapsed at all.

there is no "primary" reason.

[slugmancs]

Also from the same talk, I told him about Jone's lack of Barium for Thermate and got this gem in response:
The absence of Barium in Steven Jones report (I'll take your word on this for now) doesn't prove it wasn't there. You can't prove a negative.
I laughed for a minute or two then cried at the logic of children these days.

[The Doc]

I'll get to the other ones later, but #7 is absurd.

#7. They ignore massive eyewitness testimonyThis is categorically false. NIST interviewed plenty of eyewitnesses during their investigations. This is clearly outlined in the report:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf - Page 39
To increase confidence in the simulation results, NIST used the visual evidence, eyewitness accounts from inside and outside the buildings, laboratory tests involving large fires and the heating of structural components, and formal statistical methods to identify influential parameters and quantify the variability in analysis results.http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf - Abstract xiii
...conducted nearly 1,200 first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders

[jhunter1163]

Also from the same talk, I told him about Jone's lack of Barium for Thermate and got this gem in response:

I laughed for a minute or two then cried at the logic of children these days.

I think we have a Stundie nominee here.