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

Originally posted by dereks
Not molten steel

Why not? Because you are WILLFULLY ignorant and in DENIAL?

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

Who says it was done intentionally? Is your argument that the picture is fabricated? Or are you just going to play dumb?

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

Yeah, we have a real brainiac here.

no picture of molten steel...

Then you don't realize what that image is showing you.

So once again no pictures or videos of molten steel!

No, we can post the evidence in your face all day, and you freaking ignore it and start making up BAD excuses.

It just goes to show. You're not here for a reasonable debate, or to maybe learn something new. You're here to pound your opinions into others like they're facts, even without being able to back them with evidence. You troll these forums asking questions that YOU DON'T WANT the answers to.

reply to post by seethelight

You are tired, and you are NOT credible. You troll 9/11 threads contributing illogical arguments supporting the os. You (attempt) character assassinations on the researchers who expose the os for what it is. A load of crap!

Do you ever go back and read your dead-in-the-water reasoning? I love when you send up 2 or 3 replies in rapid succession. Your posts are work-like. Like you get paid by the post, and if that is so, I hope they are paying you minimum-wage!

Did you watch the video? Debunk the witnesses. Show us the light, man. Why should we believe you, and not the firefighters and other CREDIBLE eyewitnesses?

"You'd get down below, and you'd see molten steel. Molten steel, running down the channel rails. Like you're in a foundry. Like lava from a volcano."

Originally posted by bsbray11
Why not?

www.debunking911.com...
Shows why it is not molten steel...

Who says it was done intentionally?

More truther quality research, it is hot metal, not molten as you cannot pick up molten steel with a grab.

Yeah, we have a real brainiac here.

More "truther" quality research, there is a picture of glowing metal, even the picture title is called glowing steel but you lie about it and call it molten steel, with nothing at all to back that claim up!

Then you don't realize what that image is showing you.

It is not showing molten steel, as claimed by you!

No, we can post the evidence in your face all day, and you freaking ignore it

Except like all "truthers" you do not have any evidence, you just make claims which once again prove to be wrong - either on purpose or through ignorance, who knows!

You're not here for a reasonable debate, or to maybe learn something new.

You are the one here not interested in the facts, just your silly conspiracy theories, that avoid the real facts.

You're here to pound your opinions into others like they're facts,

Which they are, as I have shown in this post - you are the one posting bull#, but once again have been caught doing that.

All you are interested in is trolling your silly conspiracy theory, avoiding facts that totally destroy it!

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by bsbray11
Why not?

www.debunking911.com...
Shows why it is not molten steel...

Oh, ok. I ask you why it can't be steel and you link me to "debunking911.com," with all the credibility of another internet troll, this time from the JREF forums.

If you can't even make your own arguments you have no business coming on here to discuss anything to begin with. You can't think for yourself? That website is full of it, but unless you have it in you to make the argument yourself then I'm not even going to waste my time on sock puppets that aren't even here.

Who says it was done intentionally?

More truther quality research, it is hot metal, not molten as you cannot pick up molten steel with a grab.

If you look carefully at that image you can see molten steel DRIPPING off the end of what was lifted out of the pile. Go find a higher resolution version of it if you want to see it more clearly. The part that was actually lifted was NOT molten, but the end that was in the pile was. And again you are going to completely ignore what the firefighters and clean-up workers themselves were saying? How dense can you get? How much can you really ignore here?

More "truther" quality research, there is a picture of glowing metal, even the picture title is called glowing steel but you lie about it and call it molten steel, with nothing at all to back that claim up!

First of all, the steel is heated way beyond what an office fire alone could do. End of story. That is ALL that matters here. It was NOT underground, it was laying out in the open right after one of the towers collapsed. The real problem here is that you can't think for yourself and you will reach for whatever would-be excuse is easiest for you to make while allowing the least amount of critical thinking.

Then you don't realize what that image is showing you.

It is not showing molten steel, as claimed by you!

It shows where the molten steel was. It's from a geological team associated with a higher education institution. Now you're going to tell me that you will accept no evidence but seeing it yourself? And even when I DO post pictures of molten steel running out of the building, all you can do is post me a link to another internet troll's website where there is no rebuttal to be found anyway. It's not even worth trying to answer the questions you pose. You refuse the answers you don't want to hear. It's really not even worth responding to you anymore.

You're here to pound your opinions into others like they're facts,

Which they are, as I have shown in this post

You have shown no such thing. Plugging your ears and saying "no it isn't!" over and over is not demonstrating a fact.

reply to post by dereks

Did you not watch the video? Did you not hear the 19 eyewitnesses?

Did you not hear them say things like; "molten steel" "melted beams" "fused element of molten steel and concrete" "8-ton steel i-beam bent like a horse-shoe with no cracks in the iron" "underground fires" "8 weeks later we still have fires burning."

It's the divide that bothers me. The us vs them mentality of this debate. Like you have to pick a side and put on the jersey and win at all costs.

The posted arguments that support the os on this thread do not address the witnesses on the video. Call them out, if you don't believe them. But please, stop derailing the thread with biased rhetoric.

Originally posted by bsbray11
If you look carefully at that image you can see molten steel DRIPPING off the end of what was lifted out of the pile.

Wrong again, just another truther lie, you want it to be molten so you just make things up!

First of all, the steel is heated way beyond what an office fire alone could do.

more truther garbage - you ignore the jet fuel, and how do you know that? All because a "truther" claims something does not make it true (actually, it more likely means they made it up!)

That is ALL that matters here.

so you think you saying something somehow means it is all that matters.... It just shows how far up yourself you are!

It shows where the molten steel was.

Still wrong, it shows a hot spot, not necesarily molten steel

And even when I DO post pictures of molten steel running out of the building,

except you did not show molten steel at all - again, all because a "truther" claims something does not mean it is true - something you refuse to accept, you seem too think whatever you say is the truth, when in fact it is the opposite!

So we still have no pictures or video of molten steel...

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by bsbray11
If you look carefully at that image you can see molten steel DRIPPING off the end of what was lifted out of the pile.

Wrong again, just another truther lie, you want it to be molten so you just make things up!

What's all that glowing stuff underneath the lowest line drawn onto that image? Are you physically blind too? I admit it's not the clearest photo of this available but you can still see it.

First of all, the steel is heated way beyond what an office fire alone could do.

more truther garbage - you ignore the jet fuel, and how do you know that?

How do I know that jet fuel fires can't heat steel to 1000 C?

Try reading the federal government's own NIST report. That would be a good start. Or if that's too much for you then look up the temperatures related to these fires. Jet fuel produces about the same amount of heat energy as burning office materials do. The only thing special about jet fuel is that it's designed to combust in a jet engine. That says nothing about its capacity to produce heat burning in open atmosphere. For someone who keeps talking about "truther garbage" your own understanding of this very same science is pathetic.

All because a "truther" claims something does not make it true (actually, it more likely means they made it up!)

And obviously you don't know the difference. I would say look it up yourself but you would probably end up arguing against more credible sources in your painful denial here.

It shows where the molten steel was.

Still wrong, it shows a hot spot, not necesarily molten steel

Apparently you can't read. Or follow links back to the original sources.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Oh, ok. I ask you why it can't be steel and you link me to "debunking911.com," with all the credibility of another internet troll, this time from the JREF forums.

The explanation was from a Mechanical Engineer named Stephen D. Chastain. stephenchastain.com...

Steve, a mechanical and materials engineer, lives in Jacksonville, Florida. He regularly publishes articles regarding metal casting, machining, and automotive restoration. His “Small Foundry Series” of books are sold in over 40 countries and have become popular “design projects” at many schools and Universities. Steve runs a small foundry and machine shop where he produces castings for antique cars and equipment. In 1989 he formed SDCElectronics, a manufacturer of theatrical lighting control. Steve is an avid reader and maintains a personal library of over 1500 technical and engineering titles.

This is what he stated about the molten material prior to collapse:

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

Stephen D. Chastain

complete write up here

I'm going to say this one last time before trolls start getting reported and/or I ask for my thread to be locked:

The FEMA report commented on the molten steel. The video I posted at the beginning of this thread shows pieces of molten steel. The video I posted at the beginning of this thread has numerous witnesses that talk about the molten steel.

There was molten steel at the WTC proven by FEMA, witnesses and physical evidence, period. Saying anything else like "no there wasn't" is disinformation and is grounds for reprimand according to ATS's T&C.

Just because you wanna be a troll and deny the factual evidence presented, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. For you to say that it doesn't exist, you're calling FEMA liars, the firefighters and other witnesses liars, and calling the steel shown in the video "fake".

Now, who wants to say there was no molten steel by calling FEMA, the firefighters, and the physical evidence liars? You'll go on my ignore list and you'll type to yourself. Then I won't have to see the trollish disinfo anymore. I've reached my patience limit with trolls. There are far too many things going on in the world to deal with or worry about internet trolls that entertain themselves by causing trouble on forums.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

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.

So rather than doing some real investigation, into the chemistry of oxidation, the chemical reactions that dont require direct flames and fires and oxygen, you ignore it and stick to something that is not possible and is not even relevant to the conditions at WTC ground Zero.

I am talking about a different source for the heat, the oxidation, and corrosion which is not encountered on a daily basis, but it is known among the metallurgical world and chemists and such. In fact there is a lot of information one can research on this topic, and using something called critical thinking and reading comprehension, can begin to learn about the processes that would have been present in the pile. But no, you would rather handwave it away, ignore it, and belittle it. If you were interested in the truth, you have to work for it. It took me a little time to research this and I have posted it before. You ignored it, without even bothering to factually dispute any of it.

Did the workers see "molten metal" in the pile immediately after 9/11, or was it a few weeks later? It matters. Was it really molten structural steel? Or could it have been the more obvious aluminum that was ever present all over the WTC? You auto-assume it was molten metal or steel or whatever, and ergo this means THERMITE was involved. Or at least you suggest it through innuendo.

I'm making up excuses? Youre making excuses to not even look into alternate, more realistic scenarios and explanations. You stick to the fantasy of magical thermites that can stay molten for weeks on end when buried by dust or whatever, but totally ignoring the fact that once the thermite reaction is through, there is no more energy to create more heat and the molten steel cools and hardens. But showing pictures of red hot beams is NOT indicative of any thermite. High temps yes, but those can be explained in more realistic ways.
My recommendation is to look into what can happen to an iron ore carrying ship, when the iron ore begins to rust. That is a clue that can help you and others to understand what was very possibly happening on the WTC pile on a large scale. Take it or leave it. If you are acting as if you are a great investigator that knows so much about the "real story" of the WTCs "inside job", then it wouldnt hurt to do some research outside the box and take my little clue. You maybe even surprised of what is possible.

EDIT spelling

[edit on 3/2/2010 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by ImAPepper
This is what he stated about the molten material prior to collapse:

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

Stephen D. Chastain

So you have a straight face telling me that if you melted parts of the structure, it would immediately fail, I suppose. Is that what this is supposed to imply?

reply to post by _BoneZ_


You know the trolling posters that you're getting frustrated with can't even remember from week to week what they're even arguing anymore. Sometimes they're disputing the existence of molten steel, next they're saying it doesn't mean anything because the debris must have somehow turned into a blast furnace.

reply to post by GenRadek


Part of my problem is you're trying to explain all the possible ways of how the steel melted, albeit fantastic ways, but the point of this whole thread is that NIST is blatantly lying about the melted steel in saying there was none. Especially when the evidence is so readily available and especially when the FEMA report commented on it before NIST did its investigation.

You can explain all the possibilities on how the steel melted until you're blue in the face, but NIST is covering it up. If NIST is lying or covering up this, who knows what else they're lying or covering up and therefore you cannot trust their investigation into how the three WTC's collapsed.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


But how can you say it was melted steel if NO ONE tested it, or took pictures of it, or did any analysis? How can you claim something that has not been even confirmed or denied ?

What was pouring out out of the tower in that particular corner? Hell it could have been anything! My bet is on aluminum mixed with the debris inside the building, and/or the melted batteries found in that exact area from the massive UPS system on that floor for all the computers. And someone already has confirmed that indeed, that particular spot had the UPS floor. So it could have been melted batteries.

Reports of molten stuff under the pile, well why didnt anyone bother to snap a picture? One simple picture of it? If it was truely like a foundry with "molten steel" flowing everywhere, (albeit weeks later) how exactly did the workers survive those 2,000+F conditions? I do not recall seeing workers in those special heat shield suits wandering around the WTC pile, did you?

There is a difference between glowing steel and molten steel. Big difference. Most of the pictures you showed was glowing. Glowing steel can glow at a whole range of high temps below melting. So that is evidence of anything.

NIST never ignored the reports. But rather than believe me, how about checking their FAQ:
wtc.nist.gov...

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.

And THAT is where my reply comes in. Combustion can take the form of many ways, and that is why I recommend that you read what I wrote and gave you clues to, as THIS will answer your questions. NIST didnt lie, or coverup anything. Only in your mind and in the minds of the 9/11 Truth camp.

Originally posted by GenRadek
But how can you say it was melted steel if NO ONE tested it, or took pictures of it, or did any analysis?

FEMA did do a limited analysis on the steel and in Appendix C, the FEMA report said the steel was liquified. That sounds like it was melted to me. That also would confirm the pools of molten steel that flowed like "lava".

FEMA has many images of the steel in their report. There is more than one piece of molten steel in the video I posted at the beginning of this thread. There's numerous witnesses that saw the molten steel.

The denial game is over. Concede and admit there was molten, liquified steel at the WTC.




[edit on 3-3-2010 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
There is more than one piece of molten steel in the video I posted at the beginning of this thread.

How about showing us exactly where that video shows molten steel - what time is it shown.... how do you have a piece of molten steel?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by GenRadek
But how can you say it was melted steel if NO ONE tested it, or took pictures of it, or did any analysis?

FEMA did do a limited analysis on the steel and in Appendix C, the FEMA report said the steel was liquified. That sounds like it was melted to me. That also would confirm the pools of molten steel that flowed like "lava".

FEMA has many images of the steel in their report. There is more than one piece of molten steel in the video I posted at the beginning of this thread. There's numerous witnesses that saw the molten steel.

The denial game is over. Concede and admit there was molten, liquified steel at the WTC.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by _BoneZ_]

And once again you ignore the fact that NIST mentions that this could have come just as easily from being buried in the pile for weeks later.

The FEMA report was a PRELIMINARY report, while the NIST report was more comprehensive.

Now what does it say in the same FEMA Appendix C?

The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.

Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.

Hmm high temperature corrosion eh? Highest temps about 1800F? well thats nowhere near the temperatures of a thermite/thermate reaction of say, 3,000-4,000F. (FYI adding sulfur to thermite makes it burn HOTTER, not cooler). Lets see what some experts have to say on that exact wording:

corrosionsource.com...
corrosionsource.com...
www.iupac.org...
216.90.67.54...

I would reccomend the first two websites first. The more I looked into this, the more it was making sense.

Also since you ignored/refused to look into the clue I offered, I offer you this little bit:

www.midrex.com...
www.nepia.com...=70

Be sure to READ THROUGH the two pdfs I posted above. You want to know how steel managed to heat itself up without an open flame or magic thermites, read above. Then use some brainpower and read the corrosion pages, and also a bit on chemistry of sulfur and its gases in releation to heated steel. All of this puts the "mystery" to rest.

EDIT to add:

Hold on a sec. I thought the new "soup dejure" is that it was "super-nano-thermite" that explodes when ignited. That way it can be "painted on" the beams for maximum explsoive effect. Or are we back to regular ho-hum thermite that just melts and burns, but doesnt explode when ignited? Or are we saying that this new super-nano-thermite can explode or melt whenever it wants to do either on ignition? Because this is starting to get out of hand all these "thermites" and their new abilities. Can you guys take a break, regroup, get your stories straight and get back to us with a more cohesive story that makes some more sense?

[edit on 3/3/2010 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by GenRadek
And once again you ignore the fact that NIST mentions that this could have come just as easily from being buried in the pile for weeks later.

This is the entire problem.

You say it theoretically could have come "just as easily" from the debris pile as anything else. Which means YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE IT ACTUALLY CAME FROM.

And in that ignorance you are going to take a position of faith, pretending that you really do know something for a fact, instead of investigating this and countless other unexplained events, unnumbered unexplained explosions and everything else.

When people are now calling you a FAITHER, IT IS FOR THIS REASON!

Originally posted by GenRadek
And once again you ignore the fact that NIST mentions that this could have come just as easily from being buried in the pile for weeks later.

I think you meant to say FEMA above because NIST says (from the OP):

NIST Engineer John Gross is on record as saying he knows of "absolutely nobody, no eyewitness that has said" that there was molten steel below the rubble of the WTC.

NIST denies molten steel. FEMA and firefighters say there was.

You didn't answer my question from my last post: Are you going to concede and admit there was molten steel at the WTC, a simple "yes" or "no" please.

reply to post by bsbray11


I'll ask you what I asked bonez earlier.

I thought right now the "soup dejure" is that it was super-nano-thermite that explodes when ignited, so it can be easily painted on the beams for maximum explosive ability. So if it explodes, then how can it stay liquid and melt the beams, and stay molten for weeks? if something explodes, it is not going to run down the beam and collect in a pool.

Or are we back to the regular "ho-hum" thermite which just melts and burns without the kaboom? Or is this some sort of ultra-super-nano-thermite that can explode or burn as it chooses for the situation?

You have to remember, if you are going to start off making wilder and wilder claims, pretty soon it gets so convoluted, that it stop making sense, and appears more comical.

So enlighten me, what is the "soup dejure"? is it explosive nano-thermite? is it regular thermite? Or is it some alternate universe device brought in by a secret NWO cabal that has access to the alternate universe mirror?