jaydeehess
Senior Member.
Cube radio wrote:
There was a ' mysterious condition' of very few samples of steel from WTC7 and this 'erosion' was not observed in steel from the towers. It is also not consistent with high temperature melting such as by the use of thermite or similar substances.
NIST did not investigate the steel of column 44 or column 79 , nor the girder connecting the two at the 12/13 floor.
The girders were identical on several dozen floors and , unlike the towers, did not have definite identification indicators on them. Thus it was not possible to positively identify which girder in the rubble of this 47 storey building would have been the one in question. In addition, much of the steel remained in the rubble while fires burned in the debris. It would not be possible to determine whether heating effects were caused by the standing building's office fires and that caused by the same content mix burning in the rubble.
Column 44 does not enter into the debate of how collapse initiated.
Column 79 failure would see it buckling and bending but it would be very difficult to determine what damage was done to this column at collapse initiation and what would have occurred due to it being within a 47 storey structure that fully collapsed.
How can a forensic investigation that doesn't so much as mention physical evidence from the building - in particular the steel from the building that an earlier preliminary investigation said should be analysed further because of its mysterious condition - be described as "first class"?
There was a ' mysterious condition' of very few samples of steel from WTC7 and this 'erosion' was not observed in steel from the towers. It is also not consistent with high temperature melting such as by the use of thermite or similar substances.
NIST did not investigate the steel of column 44 or column 79 , nor the girder connecting the two at the 12/13 floor.
The girders were identical on several dozen floors and , unlike the towers, did not have definite identification indicators on them. Thus it was not possible to positively identify which girder in the rubble of this 47 storey building would have been the one in question. In addition, much of the steel remained in the rubble while fires burned in the debris. It would not be possible to determine whether heating effects were caused by the standing building's office fires and that caused by the same content mix burning in the rubble.
Column 44 does not enter into the debate of how collapse initiated.
Column 79 failure would see it buckling and bending but it would be very difficult to determine what damage was done to this column at collapse initiation and what would have occurred due to it being within a 47 storey structure that fully collapsed.