Steel Piece Proves Lie - NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel

reply to post by twitchy


It DID become much more easy to melt, as they say themselves, but only because of the tiny size of the particles, that preferentially (their word, not mine) allowed them between the grain boundaries in the steel. This is stuff conventional thermite can never even do.

[edit on 20-8-2009 by bsbray11]

I've been through this arguement before with Howard Roark on this thread and while I'm no metallurgist, sulfidation and what have you in a coventional fire, seems to me, would normally cause scaling on the surface, not new alloys or pools and flows of molten steel.
Good to see you on here bsray, I'd rather argue with an old schooler anyway :-)

reply to post by twitchy


Ohh man, lol. I wonder why Howard stopped posting, lol. Did he even give a comment on FEMA app. C on that thread you linked, because I don't even see one? Sometimes I would have to ask him the same question 4 posts in a row, finally putting it in huge bold letters, before he would even acknowledge that I even asked a question.

Forget all of the molten metal, and what may have happened in the lower levels. The video shows the buildings failing at the level that the planes hit them. Nothing below was going down until the failed structures above smashed everything on its way to the ground.

Many angles, no bomb shocks, nothing on video that would suggest any other helper detonations.

So, to make your conspiracy have legs, you have to explain why that is so, and nothing more. It does not matter if you found a nuclear bomb in the basement, as it would have nothing to do with the buildings failing at the level they were struck, and science proves beyond a shadow of any doubt that the jet fuel fires and massive kinetic destruction at those floors would cause structural failure. Period.

And, if that is so, you do not need anything more to cause total collapse, so everything else becomes a moot point when trying to find root cause.

reply to post by charlyv


If the core structure were compromised, and all its loads redistributed to the perimeter columns, guess what would happen? The perimeter columns would fail by themselves at their weakest point.

And we know it all came down simultaneously, at the very least for WTC1, because all 4 of its corners and its antenna (supported directly by the core) dropped simultaneously with the perimeter columns. Also you would not necessarily see the core destroyed since it is all internal structure.

[edit on 20-8-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


My point exactly. The core could not hold up the top structures by itself with the massive failure of everything around it. It failed Longitudinally as the top of the building smashed down. To attempt to destoy such a thing from below, well windows would have been blown out underneath, and there is no evidence of that until the top of the building compressed the floors beneath at the collapse line. Again, it would not be needed since it was shown in model that the core could not maintain the integrity of the building with that fuel fire and peripheral structure failure caused by the aircraft. That core was just as dependent upon its peripheral support as those supports were dependent on the core. Together they were a rigid structure and the massive failure of either one would be the buildings demise. One or the other, both an overkill , and we know about the planes.

Originally posted by charlyv
My point exactly. The core could not hold up the top structures by itself with the massive failure of everything around it.

No, you were just talking about the perimeter columns failing where the impacts occurred, suggesting the global failure was because of that damage. I am just telling you this is not necessarily the case. The core could have been brought down from a much lower level and the outer structure would still fail first where it is weakest once the loads are redistributed onto it. The fact that the perimeter failed first around its weakest point therefore means nothing as far as what failed first or what the failure mechanism was internally. The fact that the core fell simultaneously is actually something that most debunkers have traditionally tried to debunk because there is no good explanation for it, especially for anyone who is working off of what NIST published. Are you familiar with NIST's hypothesis?

The plane impacts severed less than 15% of the core and perimeter columns. This is in FEMA chapter 2 for the perimeter columns, which images and diagrams, and NIST modeled worst case scenarios to the core and took several liberties to maximize the damage, including changing Flight 175's impact angle. This damage was not enough to cause a global failure, obviously. What happened after that to cause the global collapse is what we are here talking about right now. There is not a consensus.

Source
Open Letter to NIST by Richard Gage, AIA Posted on August 20, 2009 by JF Ranger...
NIST has eliminated the evidence of melted steel documented thoroughly in Appendix C of the former FEMA BPAT report: “rapid oxidation, intergranular melting, sulfidation… evaporation of steel”. The temperatures required for these processes are simply not possible with “normal office fires” which of course the NIST report cites as the cause of this building’s unprecedented catastrophic failure.

Michael Rubin is NIST's Chief Legal Counsel, and apparently claims to have collaborated in the report by Gross, other than being a really strange job for an attorney to be performing, I wonder is he advised him to claim he knew of no witnesses to the molten steel, when there are numerous and well documented witnesses, photographs and videos of this phenomenon. Down here, we call that hawg washin. Heh, we could always just ask them if they know what hawg washin is...
I found this as well, thought it might be of interest..

The Role of Metallurgy in the NIST Investigation
Conclusions of the Analysis
Floor sagging and inward bowing of an exterior wall were necessary but not sufficient conditions to initiate collapse. In both WTC 1 and WTC 2, significant weakening of the core due to aircraft impact damage and thermal effects was also necessary. The National Institute of Standards and Technology considered the observed performance, evidence, and analysis results for each tower, and reached two conclusions. First, in the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001 likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower. Second, the towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the subsequent multi-floor fires encountered on September 11, 2001 if the insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.
The existing thermal insulation, had it not been stripped off in the impact, would have been sufficient to keep the steel temperatures low enough to minimize deformation. Also, the investigation team neither found nor invoked any extraordinary events, beyond the terrorist attack that damaged the structure and removed the insulation, that led to the collapse of the towers....
Neither high-rate tests nor recovered components gave any evidence of brittle failure.

Pay close attnetion to the section entitled 'High-Temperature Mechanical Properties', they basicly tell us that fires don't burn long enough to do it, but it's ok in their model cause, well just cause.
It looks to me that their own conclusions seem to debunk their own report... crazy stuff man. Also bear in mind the steel was hauled off under the heaviest security ever given to scrap metal in the history of modern construction, one driver was fired for stopping to eat a sammich. The steel that was tested by these guys was hand picked and given to them in order to support a prefabricated conclusion, there has been NO Investigation, and really, if you boil it down, that's all the hell we're asking for.

Edit:
We're all familiar with the pics of the angular cut colums in the debris pile, it just occured to me, if they were cut with a torch, then why is the slag on the OUTSIDE of the box column, right there on the front of it? Is it normal to crawl inside the box column and cut outward, or does slag run against the torch pressure? I'm not a welder so it's an honest question.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by twitchy]

reply to post by twitchy
Yea, you have that right, if had been thoroughly inspected piece by piece, they would have discovered where large mass of moltel metal had come from.
They would not want to know this, it would of shown what really happened.

What about the Architects, they want to know because this is what they do, to keep them from info ,shows it was inside job.

The only thing missing from the initial posting was the unquestionable proof of molten concrete, which has a similar melting point to steel. I'd suggest people look into the unquestionable photos of the molten concrete. While I have not personally seen a photo of obviously molten steel, I've definitely seen a photo of molten concrete which was without a doubt at the 9/11 bomb site.

Anyone who sees this evidence who isn't convinced there was additional explosive power placed in the building is simply denying a proven reality. The thermal imaging shows extreme temperatures. The molten concrete is photographed. And nobody at the NIST would dare investigate those facts or they'd lose their job.

posted by charlyv
Forget all of the molten metal, and what may have happened in the lower levels. The video shows the buildings failing at the level that the planes hit them. Nothing below was going down until the failed structures above smashed everything on its way to the ground.

Many angles, no bomb shocks, nothing on video that would suggest any other helper detonations.

So, to make your conspiracy have legs, you have to explain why that is so, and nothing more. It does not matter if you found a nuclear bomb in the basement, as it would have nothing to do with the buildings failing at the level they were struck, and science proves beyond a shadow of any doubt that the jet fuel fires and massive kinetic destruction at those floors would cause structural failure. Period.

And, if that is so, you do not need anything more to cause total collapse, so everything else becomes a moot point when trying to find root cause.

And to make your conspiracy have legs, (id est the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY conspiracy theory) you need to explain how 110 floors can crush and pulverize each concrete floor pan in mid-air, break all those bolts and welds connecting the outer wall structure and trusses and cross-trusses and floor pans to the core structure in the NIST official collapse time of 11 seconds for WTC1 and 9 seconds for WTC2. (The LaMont-Doherty seismic signal showed 8 seconds for WTC 2 and 10 seconds for WTC 1)

Assuming an average of 42 core columns seal-welded together to form one single unit from 7 sub-basement levels to the 110 floor as seen in core Column 1008 (number 47 core column) would require 42 welds connected to the column sunk into the bedrock.

Core Column Data NIST

42 welds times 47 core columns would equal 1974 super strong seal-welds which needed to be sheared in the core structure alone in order for the tower to collapse at near free-fall speeds. It did look like a portion of one side of the core structure did not shear as desired. Maybe the explosive charges failed there.

So in your conspiracy theory, why isn't your tower taking a hundred seconds or more to break all those welds and bolts and crush and pulverize all the concrete and furniture and bodies?

Maybe you need to go back to the drawing board.

E.2 INVENTORY OF RECOVERED STEEL

A total of 236 recovered pieces of WTC steel were cataloged; the great majority belonging to the towers, WTC 1 and WTC 2. These samples represented a quarter to half a percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers. The NIST inventory included pieces from the impact and fire regions, perimeter columns, core columns, floor trusses, and other pieces such as truss seats and wind dampers.

The original, as-built locations of 42 recovered perimeter panels and 12 recovered core columns were determined, based on markings and geometry of the columns. Samples were available of all 12 strength levels of perimeter panel steel, the two strength levels of the core column steel that represented 99 percent of the total number of columns, and both strength levels used in the floor trusses.

E.3.2 Structural Impact Damage – Core Columns

Failure of the limited number of recovered core columns was a result of both splice connection failures and fracture of the columns themselves. One recovered core column (WTC 2, column line 801, floors 77–80) may have sustained damage as a direct result of the airplane impact; however, the welded
splice to the column above survived intact.

source

Originally posted by charlyv
Forget all of the molten metal, and what may have happened in the lower levels. The video shows the buildings failing at the level that the planes hit them. Nothing below was going down until the failed structures above smashed everything on its way to the ground.

Many angles, no bomb shocks, nothing on video that would suggest any other helper detonations.

So, to make your conspiracy have legs, you have to explain why that is so, and nothing more. It does not matter if you found a nuclear bomb in the basement, as it would have nothing to do with the buildings failing at the level they were struck, and science proves beyond a shadow of any doubt that the jet fuel fires and massive kinetic destruction at those floors would cause structural failure. Period.

And, if that is so, you do not need anything more to cause total collapse, so everything else becomes a moot point when trying to find root cause.

Building NUMBER SEVEN may be a tad off topic here. But I don't think so.
Now if you have two legs to stand on and any thing between them. You will relate to us all just how Building SEVEN collapsed. Or be deemed an agent of disinformation in my opinion.

Originally posted by charlyv
science proves beyond a shadow of any doubt that the jet fuel fires and massive kinetic destruction at those floors would cause structural failure. Period.

That is either delusional thinking...

or a blatant lie...

reply to post by Psynarchist


Look at the photos of GZ after the collapse. The material did not form a neat monolithic lump. It was filled with voids and spaces, insulated and sufficeintly ventilated to allow combustion to continue for days. Just look at the aftermath of any fire where the building collapses. The fire department doesn't leave soon as they stop seeing flames because material can smolder and burn for days.

Maybe the collapse did put out "most" of the fires, however, that dosen't mean the material spontaneously cooled off. Fire is very oppurtunistic. As long as there is adequate air and fuel (and there was plenty of both) it will continue.

As for your exotic, military only materials, well there just isn't any rhyme or reason or evidence. Just imagination.

reply to post by hooper

Maybe the collapse did put out "most" of the fires, however, that dosen't mean the material spontaneously cooled off. Fire is very oppurtunistic. As long as there is adequate air and fuel (and there was plenty of both) it will continue. As for your exotic, military only materials, well there just isn't any rhyme or reason or evidence. Just imagination.

Are you trying to tell us that the military and/or other government agencies do not have secret projects in which they try to come up with new or better weaponry/technology?

Are you saying that there's rhyme nor reason nor evidence to suggest that perhaps such unpublicized technology was used on 911?

That your 'primitive oven' theory is way more likely considering every facet of this event?

reply to post by Psynarchist


Sorry, simply stating that the military develops weapons does not give you license to declare anything is possible. It's a neat trick, but in the end it doesn't fly.

Likely is not the word, it is an absolute. You had burning material trapped under tons and tons of rubble. Smoldering for days and weeks. Real simple, happens all the time, no exotic super secret weaponry. Just plain old fire.

I use the word likely because:

a- I wasn't there
b- I'm not a firefighter
c- I'm not an architect or building engineer
d- the official story has more holes than swiss cheese
e- I'm simply not certain about any of it, I play it safe, in contrast to others here who claim it's all really simple and definitive

Like you did here:

Likely is not the word, it is an absolute. You had burning material trapped under tons and tons of rubble. Smoldering for days and weeks. Real simple, happens all the time, no exotic super secret weaponry. Just plain old fire.

If it was this simple, why would the NIST guy deny and lie about the reality of it?
Perhaps you should apply for his position, as clearly it's all really simple to you and there's no mystery to what happened.

Originally posted by charlyv
Forget all of the molten metal, and what may have happened in the lower levels. The video shows the buildings failing at the level that the planes hit them. Nothing below was going down until the failed structures above smashed everything on its way to the ground.

Many angles, no bomb shocks, nothing on video that would suggest any other helper detonations.

So, to make your conspiracy have legs, you have to explain why that is so, and nothing more. It does not matter if you found a nuclear bomb in the basement, as it would have nothing to do with the buildings failing at the level they were struck, and science proves beyond a shadow of any doubt that the jet fuel fires and massive kinetic destruction at those floors would cause structural failure. Period.

And, if that is so, you do not need anything more to cause total collapse, so everything else becomes a moot point when trying to find root cause.

It appears that some guys have a slight problem when explaining how a building collapsed, it`s easy to not spot little things, as the collapse initiated the aerial was seen to descend around 12 feet this means there was a minimum of 12 feet missing from the inner core which consisted of elevators stairs and constructed of concrete and metal neither are flammable nor combustible. The centre cores are constructed from 47 beams decreasing in width as they get higher, now the $64,000 question - What vaporised a whole storey (12 feet) so the entire hat including aerial descended 12 feet?, a drawing showing the outline of the tower (black lines) explosion artefacts (red arrows) and the distance these explosions are expelling debris (blue arrows)...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/60538cd5b29f.jpg[/atsimg]

How does damage from burning Jet fuel propel - 110 acres of concrete after turning it dust, whilst reducing the steel to segments - distances of over 200 metres?

Jet fuel you say?.

That's all I can do. Some of the things "deboinkers" come up with is fascinating and hilarious. There is a documentary called 9/11 Eyewitness, I believe. The guy video'd from across the river. High Def. too. He sent the video to a physics lab. They found there to be no less than 15 different "explosions" BEFORE the building fell. You can clearly here them on the audio. There is even evidence as dust is rising BETWEEN the buildings FROM the ground floor, not the top. Also 9 helicopters in the air?

See, most deboinkers only go with ONE video or published account, the governments obviously. They do not research ALL the other videos taken that day and there are dozens.

Another problem is that the top of the second tower "starts" to topple to the side and is then "sucked" back into line with the straight down falling of the building. Now one of Newtons three laws of physics here states that a body in motion stays in motion unless some other entity acts upon it to "change" it's motion. The vacuum created by the core failing first, obviously done with thermite/thermate or some other high tech metal melting devices, "sucks" the upper structure back into the downward path.

And if you have a military device and no where to test it, well isn't that just a waste of your time? The buildings had Galvanic Corrosion and tons of Asbestos in them. A construction firm was called in to give a bid to clean them up( I think it was back in 1989). We have seen many buildings in NY cleaned up since then. Scaffolding outside and a complete going over. BUT, the company was halted and all the documents confiscated and destroyed. Raising scaffolding that high would be dangerous and the estimated cost was approx. 5.6 billion dollars.

SO... you have 2 junk buildings that could fail at any time, Construction firm I believe stated, in less than 20 years. So you have to either take them down or clean them up for a huge amount of money.

Okay, get some one to lease the place and insure it for an ungodly sum and then just burn it. It's the oldest insurance scam in the books. Oh BTW we can use it for a terrorist plot and increase national securty, scare the people into submission, make tons of money using the military and invade some country we don't like anymore, yea, that's a good idea. Oh yea, we can also test all those NEW weapons we have been working on too. No one will be the wiser!!!!

Sound about right anyone?


[edit on 21-8-2009 by daddio]

posted by daddio

Sound about right anyone?

You seem to have pretty much aced the gist of it.

Hire a bunch of duhbunkers and pseudoskeptics to run interference and damage control, although some are probably stupid enough to shill for free.