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

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I probably did error with the NIST/FEMA labels so thank you for that, my apology.

Was there molten something at WTC? Yes, absolutely. Was it steel? Doubt it. Molten aluminum? Maybe. Red hot debris, mixed with molten aluminum, batteries? Probably.

Excellent video. I had some experts body language come out and tell me the NIST guy was very odd and lying big time.

Anyone could of seen that tho.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by bsbray11

 

I'll ask you what I asked bonez earlier.

2nd time in a row you have completely side-stepped what I posted in order to rant about something else.

Why do you even respond to me if you have no interest in actually responding to what I say?

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".
[edit on 3-3-2010 by _BoneZ_]

Now, I have the FEMA report in front of me, and after thourghly checking through it, I do not see any steel that was "liquified" or liquid, but I do see a eutectic mixture that formed at temperatures of 1800F. Hmm that is not thermite grade heat now is it? As for the eutectic mixture, it does not appear to have any "thermitic" properties does it? Where did the pools of molten steel go? Shouldnt it have stayed on the beam? Why so thin on an almost microscopic level? I'd expect to see a whole glob of solidified steel coating the steel in question, but what do I see? A thin corroded piece of steel that looks nothing like thermite was ever on it.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by bsbray11

 

I'll ask you what I asked bonez earlier.

2nd time in a row you have completely side-stepped what I posted in order to rant about something else.

Why do you even respond to me if you have no interest in actually responding to what I say?

You are constantly claiming that NIST is covering up deliberately "molten steel". However, how can you make that claim when A) there was no metallurgical analysis of the alleged "pools of steel" allegedly seen under WTC weeks later; B) no one made a metallurgical analysis of the molten STUFF that dripped from the corner of the WTC prior to collapse, in the same location as the UPS floor; C) in the NIST FAQ section of the report they mention that they did not see any evidence for any melting steel prior to collapse and mention that it is more evidence of ocurring AFTER collapse while being buried for weeks in the pile:

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.

wtc.nist.gov...

Your question answered. NIST did not cover-up any alleged reports of molten steel, and they even talk about it in the FAQ. The reason why it was not included is in the above quote. So no, NIST is not incompetent or deliberately covering anything up.

Now answer my question please.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Now, I have the FEMA report in front of me, and after thourghly checking through it, I do not see any steel that was "liquified" or liquid, but I do see a eutectic mixture that formed at temperatures of 1800F.

Gen, you posted on the last page:

a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


But it sure dont sound like thermite now does it? Nope I see no 3,000-4,000F temps mentioned. I do not see any thermite.

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.

So wait, you mean to tell me there is a newer and even better form of super-nano thermite that burns and melts steel below the temperature of the melting point of steel? WOW! Now its an ultra-super-nano thermite that explodes when it feels like, or melts when it feels like it, and it can do all that at temps below the melting point of steel.

Oh wait I get it! You are thinking that a thin layer of eutectic liquid metal formed from hot corrosion of steel mixing with sulfur and oxygen which extended a few microns into the steel = molten steel found in pools under the WTC for weeks later. Ah how silly of me. And here I thought you were making sense.

reply to post by GenRadek


You're still denying the liquid, molten steel that flowed in the basements of the WTC and NIST is denying it.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by GenRadek

 

You're still denying the liquid, molten steel that flowed in the basements of the WTC and NIST is denying it.

Again, did anyone ever take a picture of this "molten steel" in the basements? Did anyone take samples of the "pools of molten steel" to see what it really was? If not, then why are you saying it is molten steel? We do not know what it is.

NIST did not deny anything. It mentioned it in the FAQ and gave their reasons for it.

This paper gives a little better insite into the molten stuff and sulfur and what could have caused it. good reading. I recommend it.
i realize the title is not to your liking, but when you get to the last two pages of the paper, it gets into some interesting territory regarding the "molten stuff" found at the basements. key words to see: "corrosive slags"
Sulfur and WTC site

Now if you can somehow coherently come up with a theory as to how it could have been "molten steel" and how it got there, I am willing to listen. Just be sure to untangle the whole mess, because so far I have heard everything from regular thermite, to paint on sol-gel thermite, to thermite chips, to nano-thermite, to super nano-thermite that explodes rather than melts, to super nano-thermite that can be painted on and explodes. So please be specific as to which of these is most likely and which of these would be able to do what it did. I'm serious. I offered you alternate and reasonable theories which you ignored and didnt even bother to look into, so how about giving something back? If you are going to say that NIST is covering up evidence of "molten steel", well be sure to at least give an idea of how the thermite would get there, how it would work and how it would get to where it was being reported and how it cannot possibly a result of something as innocuous as hot corrosion and hot oxidation of the steel.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Did anyone take samples of the "pools of molten steel" to see what it really was?

NIST did not deny anything. It mentioned it in the FAQ and gave their reasons for it.

FEMA talks about the liquefied steel (liquefied = molten) and NIST does deny it in the video I posted in the OP.

Since you keep playing the denial games, I have no choice but to put you on my ignore list. No sense in responding because I won't see it. It really is too bad that there are a handful of debunkers in this forum and you show them the evidence and they continue to deny it no matter how right or wrong they are. The only conclusion I can come to is that they are here to troll internet forums regardless of the evidence.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Your question answered. NIST did not cover-up any alleged reports of molten steel, and they even talk about it in the FAQ.

That was not my "question." My "question" (which really wasn't a question to begin with) was, is the idea that the steel only melted in the debris pile proven through forensic investigation of the melted steel, or is it just another unproven theory? Well FEMA Appendix C was the only actual analysis of "severely corroded" steel that had suffered intergranular melting (meaning that it ate between the tiny grains in the steel) while undergoing a eutectic reaction aided by sulfidation. They could not conclude what the cause of it was, ie the source of the corrosion. And this was the most the government, or anyone else, had to say after actually looking at it forensically.

You are offering nothing but lame excuses that have no evidence to back them. That isn't debunking, that's just sucking. You have presented no good reason for no further investigation. And as I mentioned, you can't explain the various explosions either, you just offer more baseless claims that were never verified, that you try to peddle in the place of proven facts.

I try to get you to acknowledge that you are doing this, as is obvious, but you keep ignoring these posts and ranting about other things instead.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by dereks


Hahaha - you're really reaching here, man. "No molten steel! No molten steel No molten steel", like an indignant child with his finger in his ears. To take a page from your favorite book of lazy debate tactics, "Prove it wasn't molten steel".

Originally posted by longfade
"Prove it wasn't molten steel".

You are very confused, just like most "truthers".

I am not the one making the claim it was molten steel, how about the ones making the claim prove it was molten steel.... of course they are unable to!

Originally posted by dereks
I am not the one making the claim it was molten steel, how about the ones making the claim prove it was molten steel.... of course they are unable to!

Why do you blatantly lie when your lie is proven wrong with the video in the OP?

You're calling FEMA liars when they state that some of the steel samples they tested were previously "liquefied" (molten). You're calling the firefighters and other witnesses that saw the molten steel liars. And you're ignoring the actual pieces of previously molten steel that are shown in the video.


Your agenda is becoming clear.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by dereks
I am not the one making the claim it was molten steel, how about the ones making the claim prove it was molten steel.... of course they are unable to!

Why do you blatantly lie when your lie is proven wrong with the video in the OP?

You're calling FEMA liars when they state that some of the steel samples they tested were previously "liquefied" (molten). You're calling the firefighters and other witnesses that saw the molten steel liars. And you're ignoring the actual pieces of previously molten steel that are shown in the video.


Your agenda is becoming clear.

I didn't realize that the fire fighters had access to a microscope to see the 30-50 microns-thick layer of intergranulated melting that occurred to the steel, as a result of hot corrosion from laying the pile for weeks and weeks.

I know bonez you still have me on ignore, but anyone else here want to point out to bonez that scale of the pictures and the actual sizes of the "melting" regions? And if anyone can, please have bonez explain how a 20-100 micron thick layer of thermite can melt the thick steel beams.

[edit on 3/13/2010 by GenRadek]

reply to post by GenRadek


Firefighters said underground in the basement levels it was literally like a foundry, where molten steel was flowing "like lava." If this was the case then there is only one real possibility because steel and aluminum were the only metals around in large quantities like that and they look completely different when molten.

Although I am attracted to Dr Wood's DEW theory, I cannot say I am an expert. So I am the real scrptic--in that I am not-knowing, but like I say I am attracted to DEW because of various reasons I wont go into right now---but one of them is the audaciousness of the mindset which is behind 9/11.

Anyway, even so---I am not sht to include clues that could contradict the position I am attracted to. I know Dr Wood is not a fan of 'molten steel', and I have been following the thread here---yes its moten steel--not it isn't--yes it is.

I did a simple Google and found this video eclipptv.com... where everyone mentions is saying 'molten steel'. eclipptv.com...

I put the clue on the table. My present metaphor for the trying-to-dig 9/11 is a TABLE to put clues on. No fightring and blame and shame--that all wastes time and is just childiss--though of course there can be challenges to evidence. But I respect the dedictated people looking into this, and it is hard-faced to attack them without good cause

Also I have found this where the person is suggesting that ONLY muclear explanation can explain the mad hot fires of molten metal--oxygen starved--that were reported in the basement----I would love now to debate with Dr Judy Wood about this

Now some claim that oxygen starved fires could allow for vastly longer high temperature fires underground at the WTC. These people don’t seem to realize they have just proven the case ONLY for nuclear chain reactions!! Because only nuclear chain reactions release massive heat almost indefinitely, without needing ANY oxygen whatsoever! This is not the case for any conventional (non-nuclear) fire. This “indefinite” massive heat source was the basis for the term “China Syndrome” in regards to a nuclear reactor mishap which, in theory (but not really due to other factors), could have massive indefinite heat leading to a nuclear reactor criticality (core) remnant burning all the way through to China.

______beforeitsnews/story/423/943/9_11_-_First_Nuclear_Attack_on_U.S._Soil.html

well what do you think?

Why do original scientific research when you have a guy in a ball cap there on the scene right after the collapse of the towers tell us "exactly" what happened? I mean why bother, right?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Is allowing a building to burn for over 20 hours without attempts to put out the fire good enough for you?

Lie. It was fought. Well, there goes the TM in one simple post!! LOL!! Epic fail!!

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e9d0c897b366.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/959cf0934619.jpg[/atsimg]

Hey look, all the bare steel has collapsed, and anything with concrete didn't. Imagine that.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

As you can see, although some of the weaker outer steel columns did fail,

ALL of the unprotected steel failed. The stuff with the concrete, survived.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
the building still stood tall and strong, even with a heavy crane still sitting on top.

Yep. Concrete does well in fire compared to unprotected steel.

Self-debunking, and shot yourself in the foot.