The 9/11 Forum

Does anyone have a copy of the NIST NCSTAR1-9 draft report for public comment on-hand? I know I have one laying around somewhere and it may still be on their site, but it escapes me at the moment.

The claim is being made now, at JREF, that NIST accounted for the alleged period of freefall in their draft. The exact quote, from Ryan Mackey, is:

NIST also provided (before Chandler's outburst) an explanation of why there was a period of "near free-fall."

I don't recall seeing such an explanation. I don't recall any acknowledgment of freefall or anything remotely close to that prior to that 'outburst' nor is there anything resembling a explanation that I can find even now. I could be wrong about this, but it's worth examination. Is there really an attempt to revise history going on? If so, it wouldn't be the first time, but it would be a new low.

Excellent, thank you!

Yeah, I need to be sure, but this one stinks. There is such a thing as an honest mistake; like, I might've missed seeing the acknowledgement and explanation and that's an honest mistake. Making up an explanation that wasn't there? Hmm.

metamars wrote:

OneWhiteEye wrote:Does anyone have a copy of the NIST NCSTAR1-9 draft report for public comment on-hand?

David Ray Griffin says, in an interview about his WTC7 book, here, that an AE911Truth member found a stark lie in the final report, compared to one of the drafts.

I must check this out.

Dr. G wrote:The Draft version of NIST's report on the collapse of WTC 7 had Section 12.5.3, which discussed collapse times and tried to show the collapse was much slower than free fall. The discussion starts on page 595 of NCSTAR 1-9 (Draft version).

The Final version of 12.5.3 starts on page 600 of NCSTAR 1-9 and adds a whole bunch of new stuff, including a statement on page 602, (that appears to contradict the Draft version), that the collapse was at free fall for 2.25 seconds.

That's what I thought. Thank you.

I know boloboffin was pushing the idea that Chandler's work confirmed NIST's finding. Now, Mackey is bordering on the same. It's rewriting of history; it either betrays an incredibly deep-seated bias to 'remember' an explanation that wasn't there, or is a deliberate falsehood, or is something I can't fathom.

The only time I remember NIST addressing freefall prior to the final report was Shyam Sunder's stutter-fest.