Did NIST lie and claim that the fires melted steel?

[Landru]

Or perhaps they didn't withstand the thermite demolition. More likely.

And 7 couldn't even stand a few office fires without 'collapsing' in what was officially described as a symmetrical implosion. Sorry Landru but you are grasping at straws here.

The planes couldn't do it. That is testified to.

The fires which were fiercer and longer before had no structural impact on the steel and even the lightweight trusses did not need replacing afterwards.

NIST originally claimed the steel melted... proven lie.

What is left?

Even illiterate Iraqi's would not disagree with me, as the polls show.

Do you have anything to back up your claims? The NIST report did not say the steel melted. If I missed it post the evidence. What is left is what the NIST report describes. There is no evidence to support thermite. None. As far as previous fires, the fire protection had not been blown off as it had been due to the planes crashing into the buildings. This was mentioned before on metabunk and the NIST report.

 

[Oxymoron]

Do you have anything to back up your claims? The NIST report did not say the steel melted. If I missed it post the evidence. What is left is what the NIST report describes. There is no evidence to support thermite. None. As far as previous fires, the fire protection had not been blown off as it had been due to the planes crashing into the buildings. This was mentioned before on metabunk and the NIST report.

To be getting on with, here are some of your 'proper' mainstream 'real scientists' who will bend over backwards (and any other direction) to accomodate NIST and back up the OS BS.

We have had years of 'well what do you expect, fire will melt steel', 'you are idiots if you don't understand that'.

You cannot have it both ways. Time to wake up and face the truth. Your wonderful OS scientists do not have a clue what they are talking about or they are lieing their heads off to keep the right side of the authorities.

I wonder how many of these erstwhile intellectuals are now retracting or have retracted what they stated so emphatically?

http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.htmlSteel-Melting Fires

In the wake of the attack, numerous experts asserted that fires in the Twin Towers melted their structural steel.

e x c e r p t

title: Intense heat melted steel supports in Trade Center

authors: Daniel Scarpinato

Although the impact of the jetliners was strong, it was the heat from the explosion that most likely caused the buildings to collapse, experts say. Richard Ebeltoft, a structural engineer and University of Arizona architecture lecturer, speculated that flames fueled by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel melted the building's steel supports.

[SIZE=-1] site: wildcat.arizona.edu page: wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/95/17/01_9_m.html [/SIZE]

e x c e r p t

title: Kamikaze Attackers May Have Known Twin Sisters' Weak Spot

Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's construction manager [sic], speculated that flames fuelled by thousands of litres of aviation fuel melted steel supports. "This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."

[SIZE=-1] site: sunTimes.co.za page: www.suntimes.co.za/2001/09/12/architect.asp [/SIZE]

e x c e r p t

title: Design Choice for Towers Saved Lives

authors: Eugenie Samuel and Damian Carrington

Each tower was struck by a passenger aeroplane, hijacked by suicidal terrorists, but remained upright for nearly an hour. Eventually raging fires melted the supporting steel struts, but the time delay allowed hundreds of people to escape.

[SIZE=-1] site: NewScientist.com page: www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1281 [/SIZE]

e x c e r p t

title: How the World Trade Center fell

authors: Sheila Barter

"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning." aid structural engineer Chris Wise. "The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."

[SIZE=-1] site: news.bbc.co.uk page: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm [/SIZE]

e x c e r p t

title: Twin Towers' Steel Under Scrutiny

[Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Newcastle, John Knapton] told BBC News Online: "The world trade centre was designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, but that was unusual... we are trying to discover why they [ the towers ] collapsed and what needs doing to rebuild them." "The buildings survived the impact and the explosion but not the fire, and that is the problem." "The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel... all that can be done is to place fire resistant material around the steel and delay the collapse by keeping the steel cool for longer."

[SIZE=-1] site: news.bbc.co.uk page: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1604348.stm [/SIZE]

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/sciam01/sci_am1.html

Eduardo Kausel proposed an alternative failure explanation that he acknowledged was independently developed by Zdenek Bazant, a professor at Northwestern University. "I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements—floor trusses and columns— so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse," he said.

Content from external source

​

 

[Cairenn]

But there was NO melted steel found. Duh.

 

[Landru]

NIST originally claimed the steel melted... proven lie.

Where did NIST claim this?

 

[Oxymoron]

But there was NO melted steel found. Duh.

Did you watch the video and 'listen' to the testimony? So all the fire fighters and ground workers were lying? Or do you hear it all and think 'I know, I will just simply deny it'?

Better write to them and tell them how it was simply all an illusion and you know far better than they do.

http://911blogger.com/node/4324

Fabricating evidence is defined as inventing fake evidence; therefore it is not legitimate evidence to prove a theory.[29] As an example, NIST uses a computer model to show that fire caused the WTC towers to fall—but we can’t see it. Can we trust this evidence? A computer simulation is not evidence if we can’t see it; therefore, it is a kind of fabricated evidence:

“World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.”[30]
What data did NIST use for these computer models? We don’t know exactly, but they did reveal:
“The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases… were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events.”[31]
Clearly, NIST ignores contradictory evidence. Since their original model did not prove their predetermined conclusion they had to fix their data until they get the desired result—building collapse:
“The more severe case… was used for the global analysis of each tower... To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance… the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted...”[32]
NIST’s theory couldn’t be proved with the original data, so they changed the data, which was different from the eyewitness reports and photographic evidence. Does this “evidence” prove anything besides the fact computer simulations are fun to play around with?
NIST also revealed:
“The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.”[33]

Content from external source

 

[Cairenn]

I accept what the EXPERTS that LOOKED at it found.

ASSERTION #5
“An explosive other than conventional dynamite or RDX was used...a non-
detonating compound such as thermite (aka thermate), which gets very hot upon
initiation and can basically ‘melt’ steel. This can be proven by photographs of
molten steel taken at Ground Zero, the temperature and duration of underground
fires, and comments made by rescue workers.”
PROTEC COMMENT: We have come across no evidence to support this claim.
This claim is actually a loose connection of unrelated individual assertions, therefore we
must address them as such.
1. The vast majority of comments made by rescue workers, city officials or various
others not involved in the actual demolition process at Ground Zero regarding the heat of
underground fires or “molten anything” (steel, aluminum, tin, composites, etc.) are
conjecture and have no practical value in determining what types of materials were
actually burning and at what temperature. Most were simply never in a position to know,
and those that were have acknowledged that they don’t know for sure.
2. Photographs that we have examined
purporting to show demolition equipment
extracting “molten steel” from the debris at Ground Zero are inconclusive at best, and
most are inaccurate as described. Extracting various hot metallic compounds or debris
is one thing, but “molten steel beams” is quite another. As a fundamental point, if an
excavator or grapple ever dug into a pile of molten steel heated to excess of 2000
degrees Fahrenheit it would completely lose its ability to function. At a minimum the
hydraulics would immediately fail and its moving parts would bond together or seize up.
The heat would then quickly transfer through the steel components of the excavator and
there would be concern for its operator. The photos we have reviewed on various
websites do not show any of this, and if anything, indicate that the underground fires -
while very hot – were not hot enough to melt steel.
3. In an effort to further research this assertion, we spoke directly with equipment
operators and site foremen who personally
extracted beams and debris from Ground
Zero (several of whom have requested anonymi
ty to prevent harassment). These men
worked for independent companies in separate quadrants of the site, and many were
chosen due to their extensive experience with debris removal following explosive
demolition events. To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel
beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of
beams at any point during debris removal activities.

Content from external source

[...]

 

[Mick West]

Part of the problem is that people often use words in a non-scientific manner. It's like calling condensed vapor steam - it's a common usage, but not accurate.

Consider chocolate. If you put a bar of chocolate in your pocket and it it softens a bit, then you might say that is is melted.

The same can apply to steel, if steel is heated until it's red hot, or until it's hot enough that it sags and deformed, is it unreasonable that someone would describe it as melted?

Example:
http://www.lions-online.org/podcasts/mrssaller.html



Now quite clearly the steel has not turned to liquid, I'd not even say it's even "melted", it's just softened


And consider this descripton of the "9/11 cross":
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1075-Debunked-WTC-Cross-(9-11-Cross)

"and there, this cross, fully extended, melted together with the intense heat, the two beams were never initially part of the same structure, heat literally melted them together, and the piece of metal that's draped over was molten metal that had literally fallen over one of the arms"

Content from external source

No. It's not. That entire description is wrong in almost every way.



So when people say "melted" or even "molten", what exactly do they mean?

 

[Oxymoron]

Part of the problem is that people often use words in a non-scientific manner. It's like calling condensed vapor steam - it's a common usage, but not accurate.

Consider chocolate. If you put a bar of chocolate in your pocket and it it soften a bit, then you might say that is is melted.

The same can apply to steel, if steel is heated until it's red hot, or until it's hot enough that it sags and deformed, is it unreasonable that someone would describe it as melted?

Example:
http://www.lions-online.org/podcasts/mrssaller.html



Now quite clearly the steel has not turned to liquid, I'd not even say it's even "melted", it's just softened


And consider this descripton of the "9/11 cross":
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1075-Debunked-WTC-Cross-(9-11-Cross)

"and there, this cross, fully extended, melted together with the intense heat, the two beams were never initially part of the same structure, heat literally melted them together, and the piece of metal that's draped over was molten metal that had literally fallen over one of the arms"

Content from external source

No. It's not, that entire description is wrong in almost every way.
So when people say "melted" or even "molten", what exactly do they mean?

The cross thing is total bunk... you can even see the welds. It was symbolic that's all.

There is an interview by NIST members somewhere that states the collapse was due to fire melted steel. I recall seeing it but I can't seem to find it.

Not withstanding that, the 'experts' have clearly stated that the collapse was due to melted steel. Now how melted it had to be is a different kettle of fish and I am sure no one would suggest that it had to be 'liquid' before the collapse could ensue.

So for reasonable discussion purposes re collapse, melted steel would be steel that had reached such a temperature that it bowed and lost it's structural integrity.

Re molten steel at the collapse pile, there is much testimony to that. For 'Whoever' Cairenns source was, to state

"To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of beams at any point during debris removal activities."

Content from external source

; is disengenuous as they have deliberately selected a group who for whatever reason have declined to admit seeing such things; when in their own testimony they have previously dismissed anyone who contradicts that assertion.

The vast majority of comments made by rescue workers, city officials or various
others not involved in the actual demolition process at Ground Zero regarding the heat of
underground fires or “molten anything” (steel, aluminum, tin, composites, etc.) are
conjecture and have no practical value in determining what types of materials were
actually burning and at what temperature

Content from external source

If that isn't selective manipulation, I don't know what is.

 

[Cairenn]

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

Lots of great information in that, from real experts on building demolition. Not by inexperienced folks.

If the average person were to look at my puppy they would say he is a lab. However, if someone that is an expert on dogs were to look at him, they would see that the set of his ears and tail are incorrect, that his head is not shaped right, that his ears 'hang' wrong, that he carries his tail wrong and that it is too short and it is shaped wrong (and lets not include his piebald tongue). To the expert, they will see some chow in his tail set and length and carriage, the 'collie' shows in his head shape and the way his ears fall.

That is why I prefer experts to the average observer, they are a lot more accurate and observant.

 

[Landru]

NIST claims that NIST never said the steel melted.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

15. Since the melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit) and the temperature of a jet fuel fire does not exceed 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit), how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?
In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

Content from external source

 

[Mick West]

Re molten steel at the collapse pile, there is much testimony to that.

But why no testimony of solidified steel? If there were tons of molton steel then there would be tons of solid steel in blob form.

My though here is that many of the "molten" comments are about things that are simply very hot, red hot, from underground fires. Or even just describing the glow of a fire (deep in the pile) at night.

It's possible that some people saw some molten metal in the pile, but then it's quite likely that was aluminum.

Pools of molten metal does not even really make much sense, if tons of thermite were used to destroy the tower, then the dripping steel would splash over everything. Some might make it into pools, but vastly more would simply be splashed around, or cooled into ball bearing shapes as it fell.

Just picture pouring a large crucible of molton steel from 500 feet up. What would happen?

 

[MGMGrand]

But why no testimony of solidified steel? If there were tons of molton steel then there would be tons of solid steel in blob form.

Pools of molten metal does not even really make much sense, if tons of thermite were used to destroy the tower, then the dripping steel would splash over everything. Some might make it into pools, but vastly more would simply be splashed around, or cooled into ball bearing shapes as it fell.

There is video on Youtube that talks about huge balls of iron being found from thermite.

My though here is that many of the "molten" comments are about things that are simply very hot, red hot, from underground fires. Or even just describing the glow of a fire (deep in the pile) at night. It's possible that some people saw some molten metal in the pile, but then it's quite likely that was aluminum.

There is video on Youtube where people said they saw molten metal that looked like lava.

 

[Cairenn]

May I point out that YouTubes are extremely poor sources of facts.

2. Photographs that we have examined
purporting to show demolition equipment
extracting “molten steel” from the debris at Ground Zero are inconclusive at best, and
most are inaccurate as described. Extracting various hot metallic compounds or debris
is one thing, but “molten steel beams” is quite another. As a fundamental point, if an
excavator or grapple ever dug into a pile of molten steel heated to excess of 2000
degrees Fahrenheit it would completely lose its ability to function. At a minimum the
hydraulics would immediately fail and its moving parts would bond together or seize up.
The heat would then quickly transfer through the steel components of the excavator and
there would be concern for its operator. The photos we have reviewed on various
websites do not show any of this, and if anything, indicate that the underground fires -
while very hot – were not hot enough to melt steel.
3. In an effort to further research this assertion, we spoke directly with equipment
operators and site foremen who personally
extracted beams and debris from Ground
Zero (several of whom have requested anonymi
ty to prevent harassment). These men
worked for independent companies in separate quadrants of the site, and many were
chosen due to their extensive experience with debris removal following explosive
demolition events. To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel
beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of
beams at any point during debris removal activities.

Content from external source

No evidence from creditable sources= no evidence to me

 

[Mick West]

There is video on Youtube that talks about huge balls of iron being found from thermite.

No, they talk about iron microsphere. Tiny specks of iron that you expect to find after a a fire and collapse.

There is video on Youtube where people said they saw molten metal that looked like lava.

Any liquid metal was probably aluminum, of which there were many tons. And "molten" means different things to different people.