NIST: Incompetent or Deliberately Covering Up Evidence of Molten Steel?

NIST is a federal agency their continued existence is based on keeping the Feds happy so of course they would bend over backwards in order to maintain the OS storyline that 11% increase in funding sure did not hurt them either.

reply to post by bsbray11


So I take it you are not going to bother doing research into just how there are other ways steel can show similar damage and destruction when exposed to a toxic environment? I have posted many times before the different mechanisms that do not require any magic thermites, to have steel show the same type of corrosion as seen on the beams which were dug up WEEKS and MONTH later. I have yet to see you or anyone else intelligently dispute those facts. Such as:
Oxidation of a large pile of steel, creates heat.
Oxidation of steel when heated increases in speed of oxidation.
Adding sulfur dioxide gases and other sulfur laden gases also assist in lowering
melting points of steel and iron.
The conditions inside the pile were very corrosive and contained many of these corrosive agents that can help sustain long term heating and corrosion over the weeks of exposure in the pile.
The corrosion can create such "eutectic mixtures" in the pile on the steel.

reply to post by GenRadek


Don’t know much about the subject of corrosive steel but wasn’t “magic thermite” found at the site? Also, I remember seeing pictures of corroded vehicles that where in the area. How did that happen? Did they discuss them in any of the reports?

How can the NIST be competent and honest if it can spend 3 years producing 10,000 pages and can't specify the total amount of concrete in the towers? The total for the steel is in 3 places.

How can anyone not figure out the the distribution of steel has to be important in a skyscraper? So why isn't that in the 10,000 pages.

The NIST is competent at producing snow jobs.

psik

Originally posted by liveandletlive
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Don’t know much about the subject of corrosive steel but wasn’t “magic thermite” found at the site? Also, I remember seeing pictures of corroded vehicles that where in the area. How did that happen? Did they discuss them in any of the reports?

The fanatic defenders of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY prefer to pretend the 1400 burned/corroded vehicles near the WTC never did exist.



It appears that clouds of burning nano-thermite or something else landed on many of the destroyed vehicles.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3b4099d23e14.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f54f6bb4567e.jpg[/atsimg]



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/292d1ddd1bd1.jpg[/atsimg]

Burned Out Vehicles at WTC

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2ccf3ab7430d.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by SPreston


SPreston, did you ever stop and think the cars were BURNED by flaming debris from the aircraft impacts? There were reports of fires burning at the base, caused by debris from the aircraft. Did you miss those reports? How about this video taken well before the collapses of cars on fire at the parking lots:



Also SPreston, if there really was "burning magic thermite" fluttering about in the air, why are there NO reports of any people getting caught in the clouds of dust and debris getting burned by this "burning nano-thermite". Why is that? Why isnt the paper burning from the burning nano-thermite in the air? or is it very special selective burning thermite fluttering in the air that only targets cars instead of people, trees, paper, or buildings?

Wanna see how easy it is for cars to catch fire in a parking lot?





Clouds of burning thermite?? Yeah that is SOOO much more believable than a car fire that spreads naturally.

Originally posted by SPreston
The fanatic defenders of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY prefer to pretend the 1400 burned/corroded vehicles near the WTC never did exist.

Well, what do you expect when burning kerosene falls on them....

It appears that clouds of burning nano-thermite or something else landed on many of the destroyed vehicles.

no magic fairy dust needed, just jet fuel

as to the paper, that came down after the buildings collapsed

So no silly conspiracy theory needed, just the facts!

Originally posted by seethelight
How many of you have read any of this?:

www.nist.gov...

I think you were hoping no one would read it...

Quote:

"How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building."


Wow, so thats the gospel? Man, that is weak. A "chain of events"? This requires more faith than Christianity in light of the visual evidence. Progressive collapse my a**.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
This will be one of those threads that the debunkers don't have anything to debunk, so it will probably remain silent. The evidence is damning and NIST is caught in a deliberate lie or coverup and there's not a single thing that debunkers can say to debunk that!

From NIST FAQ:

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

Also...in BONEZ video, the man accused Mr. Gross of not cooperating by giving him his e-mail address. Bonez pointed this out here:

Originally posted by _BoneZ_When NIST was told, they wouldn't even give out their email address to have the information sent to them. That is willful and blatant cover-up of very damning evidence, period.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I was able to obtain quite a bit of information about Mr. Gross. Took me less than a minute.

Gross, John L. (Gaithersburg) - [email protected]

name: Gross, John L. (Gaithersburg)
phone: (301) 975-6068
agency: NIST
address: 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8611
: Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8611
email: [email protected]

[edit on 2-3-2010 by ImAPepper]

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by SPreston
The fanatic defenders of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY prefer to pretend the 1400 burned/corroded vehicles near the WTC never did exist.

Well, what do you expect when burning kerosene falls on them....

It appears that clouds of burning nano-thermite or something else landed on many of the destroyed vehicles.

no magic fairy dust needed, just jet fuel

as to the paper, that came down after the buildings collapsed

So no silly conspiracy theory needed, just the facts!

Seriously...really? Jet fuel? I don't remember claims of kerosene flying down and burning pedestrians. This is straw grabbing at its finest.

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
This will be one of those threads that the debunkers don't have anything to debunk, so it will probably remain silent. The evidence is damning and NIST is caught in a deliberate lie or coverup and there's not a single thing that debunkers can say to debunk that!

From NIST FAQ:

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

Also...in BONEZ video, the man accused Mr. Gross of not cooperating by giving him his e-mail address. Bonez pointed this out here:

Originally posted by _BoneZ_When NIST was told, they wouldn't even give out their email address to have the information sent to them. That is willful and blatant cover-up of very damning evidence, period.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I was able to obtain quite a bit of information about Mr. Gross. Took me less than a minute.

Gross, John L. (Gaithersburg) - [email protected]

name: Gross, John L. (Gaithersburg)
phone: (301) 975-6068
agency: NIST
address: 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8611
: Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8611
email: [email protected]

[edit on 2-3-2010 by ImAPepper]

"found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse"

See, they didn't lie after all! Some reading comprehension goes a long way.

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow


Seriously...really? Jet fuel? I don't remember claims of kerosene flying down and burning pedestrians. This is straw grabbing at its finest.

There were people within he towers that were burned/killed by jet fuel. Some had their lungs damaged by inhaling it.

Do you have a count on how many people were treated/killed due to na-nu na-nu thermite dust?

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow


Seriously...really? Jet fuel? I don't remember claims of kerosene flying down and burning pedestrians. This is straw grabbing at its finest.

There were people within he towers that were burned/killed by jet fuel. Some had their lungs damaged by inhaling it.

Do you have a count on how many people were treated/killed due to na-nu na-nu thermite dust?

Who mentioned thermite, because I sure didn't. Actually, many people injured in the tower were injured and burned by "explosions" (there claims, not mine). Watching the video, you could see that a large portion of the fuel was ignited on impact instead of some imaginary cascade occurring, but I digress, another poster was speaking of severely burned vehicles below, thats what I was referring to...that it wasn't kerosene that burned the cars and infrastructure below.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by bsbray11

 

So I take it you are not going to bother doing research into just how there are other ways steel can show similar damage and destruction when exposed to a toxic environment?

Why is it that you "debunkers" can never answer a straight question?

I asked you a question, you didn't even answer it. I asked, are you offering an excuse, or an investigation? You're offering excuses, not actual investigation. Even IF what you're saying is theoretically possible, it's still not an explanation, it's some nobody on an internet forum's guesswork based on nothing.

Next time if you want to respond to me, you think you might actually respond to what I say? Instead of just completely ignoring me, going off into lala land and ranting about whatever you feel like?

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow

Originally posted by seethelight
How many of you have read any of this?:

www.nist.gov...

I think you were hoping no one would read it...

Quote:

"How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building."


Wow, so thats the gospel? Man, that is weak. A "chain of events"? This requires more faith than Christianity in light of the visual evidence. Progressive collapse my a**.

If you had taken the little step of reading the next three paragraphs, they explained the "chain of events". No faith required.

"Who mentioned thermite, because I sure didn't."

It doesn't matter if you mentioned it or not. Some people will bring up anything just to poison the well and divert the topic. It's really the best they can do, considering their broken record intellect.

"How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building."

Gotta love this load of crap. So basically, the entire structural integrity of this large 49 story skyscraper hinged on the physical condition of just ONE STRUCTURAL COLUMN?! The OS gets funnier and funnier by the day.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Such as:
Oxidation of a large pile of steel, creates heat.
Oxidation of steel when heated increases in speed of oxidation.

Translation: GenRadek is making up every excuse in the book on what could have happened, but what he's ignoring is the fact that NIST is blatantly lying about it.

What really happened is that the office fires from the plane impacts were put out from the dust and the fall as the buildings were collapsing. Anyone ever see any fires in the collapsing debris? I don't recall ever seeing any. Oh, guess where the impacts were? Yep, about a quarter mile high in the sky. Where was the molten steel? Seven floors down in the basement. What happens when you throw dust and debris over a fire. Yep, it's oxygen-starved and quickly goes out.

Ergo, any intelligent investigator would look at the next logical conclusion and know that there was an accelerant or incendiary to create such massive heating in such an oxygen-starved area.

They use forced air in furnaces to melt steel. You're not going to melt steel with 20-floors of dust and debris on top of it in an oxygen-starved environment without an accelerant or some sort of incendiary.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Where was the molten stee

Again, what molten steel? Care to show videos or pictures of this so called "molten steel"?

Originally posted by dereks
Again, what molten steel? Care to show videos or pictures of this so called "molten steel"?

Source for above diagram: www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu...

Originally posted by bsbray11

Not molten steel



You do not pick up molten steel with a grab...



As the picture says, glowing steel, it is not molten...



no picture of molten steel...


So once again no pictures or videos of molten steel!