The NIST 9-11 Report on the WTC Collapse

[Mr. Jones]

Ok lets see if we can conduct a debate on some of the points in contention that have been scattered all over the place in a previous thread, that got severely off topic from its title, here-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...nnections-details-exposed-96.html#post6890612

I believe we should start at the reason that NIST stated in their reports as to what caused the WTC towers to collapse, and that is, intense heat from fires that were produced by jetfuel/kerosene from the planes.NIST agrees that the buildings withstood the plane impacts, and THESE buildings, as DESIGNED by the creators, redistributed the loads from the damaged components.
To be clear... this is in regards to the planes impacting the buildings. I agree that not all building designers will take this consideration into account, but those of the WTC DID.

NIST did say if not for the fires, they would not have collapsed..had dislodged fireproofing material, not exposed certain steel weight baring components to intense heat from the fires. So I'll begin with the initial reaction....

In the initial reaction after the attacks, many experts were trotted onto the news channels, and the general consensus at that time was, that the steel components actually must have melted. This was substantiated by the extreme heat within the rubble piles at GZ that persisted for 3 months, and the many witnesses that saw molten steel/metal within them.
Among these witnesses was -Joel Meyerowitz, a photographer who walked around GZ and said the ground was hot enough to melt workers boots.
Another was Sarah Atlas, who was a member of New Jersey Search and Rescue, who said there was molten steel/metal that she encountered during her searches.
Penn SAS Summer 2002 -- K-9/11

Dr Keith Eaton, CE of structural engineers in London who said, there was
“molten metal which was still red-hot weeks after the event,” as well as “four-inch thick steel plates sheered and bent in the disaster.”
The Structural Engineer 3, September 2002

Leslie Robertson, who was one of the men who assisted in the construction of the WTC themselves. he said-."as of 21 days after the attack the fires were still burning and molten steel still running.”
SEAU NEWS, The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, October 2001


Alison Geyh Ph.D. a professor at Johns Hopkins, was on the scene and said-
“In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.”
Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, late fall, 2001.

Even the contractors that were hired to do the clean up have mentioned this.
http://ae911truth.org/documents/lironews.pdf
University of California professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, structural engineer,
“I saw melting of girders at the World Trade Center.”
Peter Tulley, president of Tully Construction told the American Free Press that workmen had seen the molten pools.
American Free Press, August 28, 2002

Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. said “Yes, hot spots of molten steel were seen in the basements.”
thermal images taken by NASA and Earth Data satellites. The thermal images also show that the hot spots remained in the same locations. They didn't travel across the GZ site, as would be expected from fire as it consumes and burns the combustibles available in any one location.

Using infrared spectrometer (AVIRIS). The two hottest spots were under WTC 2 and WTC 7. The USGS recorded surface temperatures as high as 1376 deg.F.
USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS environmental assessment

If these were the surface temps, it must be assumed that they were even hotter where they were emanating from.

FEMA documents in their Appendix C of its May 2002 WTC Building Performance Assessment Team study, for sample 1, “evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting.” A “sulfur-rich liquid” containing “primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur” “penetrated” into the steel.
http://www.fema.gov/library/file;js...f&fileid=6d56be70-50bc-11e0-be57-001cc4568fb6

The point here is that office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air at 1,500 deg. F. can't reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts which is 2700 deg. F..

This is a very important finding regarding the buildings, because many accredited experts thought that parts of the WTC structure attained temps that would melt the steel.
Again these were preliminary assumptions.
We know NOW that the NIST never discovered in their analysis that the temps got anywhere near this high, within the towers.

So let's deal with this contradiction. The steel components that supported the weight of these towers, were said to have gotten hot enough to fail the steel, and we seemingly had evidence of this according to the many experts on site,including one of the WTC engineers himself
and by Kenneth Holden, Commissioner of the city of New York. He told the panel about seeing molten metal during a walk through, and mentioned this to the 9-11 commission.
Statement of Ken Holden

So what did NIST do or say about this? It dismissed them. This is the first sign of fraud as they dismissed what is directly contradicted by the eyewitness statements of the emergency responders, engineers, officials, and health experts already mentioned above, not to mention the lead contractors who did the cleanup.

Don't we need high temps to overcome the steel? Didn't the temps within GZ confirm this?
It should have made it easier for them. But they ran into a problem, that was also mentioned above that being, that office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air can't reach 1500 deg. F., and being buried by debris could not have attained the extreme temps to actually melt steel/metal....for 100 days despite constant attempts to put them out with water, and 1000s of gallons of Pyrocool.

So how hot did the temps within the towers reach? For that we will have to take a look at what is in the NIST reports to find the answers, and also look into their testing..and it was conducted..

BTW...This is not an attempt on my part, to convince anyone who has different views then me, it is an attempt however, to clarify as to WHY my views are different then some of you..regarding the officially sanctioned NIST explanation/s..
Also due to responsibilities and other urgent personal matters, we can't possibly be expected to reply right away to posts at times so lets chill the fuck out...I don't get paid to be on here...

I await responses regarding the above before proceeding any further....

 

[Montrovant]

I have a couple of questions regarding your post if I may.

First, where do you get your information for how hot fires can burn? You are confident about the temperature possible for fires burning office furniture/equipment, but I don't know how you reach those conclusions. I'm not dismissing or arguing with them, simply wondering where the numbers originate.

Second, could the molten metal seen at the site have been something other than steel beams/girders? Between the planes and the same office furniture that we so often bring up, I would think there was a decent amount of other metals in the towers. Not huge amounts, perhaps, but could that not have been the molten metal seen at the site?

Third, and this is nothing but total speculation, but is it possible that conditions on the ground after the collapse led to areas where fires were able to burn hotter than usual? That was a whole lot of debris created by the tower collapses, I'm sure there were plenty of isolated pockets and unusual crevasses. And you do consistently mention open air fires. Could something have occurred to let fires burn hot enough to melt steel after the collapses?

 

[Gamolon]

The point here is that office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air at 1,500 deg. F. can't reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts which is 2700 deg. F..

This is a very important finding regarding the buildings, because many accredited experts thought that parts of the WTC structure attained temps that would melt the steel.
Again these were preliminary assumptions.
We know NOW that the NIST never discovered in their analysis that the temps got anywhere near this high, within the towers.

So let's deal with this contradiction. The steel components that supported the weight of these towers, were said to have gotten hot enough to fail the steel, and we seemingly had evidence of this according to the many experts on site,including one of the WTC engineers himself
and by Kenneth Holden, Commissioner of the city of New York. He told the panel about seeing molten metal during a walk through, and mentioned this to the 9-11 commission.
Statement of Ken Holden

So what did NIST do or say about this? It dismissed them. This is the first sign of fraud as they dismissed what is directly contradicted by the eyewitness statements of the emergency responders, engineers, officials, and health experts already mentioned above, not to mention the lead contractors who did the cleanup.

Before you continue, we need to address this.

There is no way to identify the substance that is molten by sight alone. Especially if there they were mixed with other substances/contaminants.

The point here is, can someone tell the difference between molten aluminum or molten steel? And it COULD have been molten aluminum because the entire perimeter facade was covered with it.

Molten steel:

Molten aluminum:

So, to start, there is not 100% certainty that is was either molten steel or molten aluminum that people saw.

 

[Gamolon]

I have a couple of questions regarding your post if I may.

First, where do you get your information for how hot fires can burn? You are confident about the temperature possible for fires burning office furniture/equipment, but I don't know how you reach those conclusions. I'm not dismissing or arguing with them, simply wondering where the numbers originate.

Second, could the molten metal seen at the site have been something other than steel beams/girders? Between the planes and the same office furniture that we so often bring up, I would think there was a decent amount of other metals in the towers. Not huge amounts, perhaps, but could that not have been the molten metal seen at the site?

Third, and this is nothing but total speculation, but is it possible that conditions on the ground after the collapse led to areas where fires were able to burn hotter than usual? That was a whole lot of debris created by the tower collapses, I'm sure there were plenty of isolated pockets and unusual crevasses. And you do consistently mention open air fires. Could something have occurred to let fires burn hot enough to melt steel after the collapses?

Going with the Montovant's post above, I would like to request that anything posted as evidence should have a link to it's origination. Hence, if you claim that fires can only obtain certain temperatures, you need to provide a link to the study/paper that supports your claim so that we may all look at the same information that you are to avoid misinterpretation.

 

[SAYIT]

Ok lets see if we can conduct a debate on some of the points in contention that have been scattered all over the place in a previous thread, that got severely off topic from its title, here-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...nnections-details-exposed-96.html#post6890612

I believe we should start at the reason that NIST stated in their reports as to what caused the WTC towers to collapse, and that is, intense heat from fires that were produced by jetfuel/kerosene from the planes.NIST agrees that the buildings withstood the plane impacts, and THESE buildings, as DESIGNED by the creators, redistributed the loads from the damaged components.
To be clear... this is in regards to the planes impacting the buildings. I agree that not all building designers will take this consideration into account, but those of the WTC DID.

NIST did say if not for the fires, they would not have collapsed..had dislodged fireproofing material, not exposed certain steel weight baring components to intense heat from the fires. So I'll begin with the initial reaction....

In the initial reaction after the attacks, many experts were trotted onto the news channels, and the general consensus at that time was, that the steel components actually must have melted. This was substantiated by the extreme heat within the rubble piles at GZ that persisted for 3 months, and the many witnesses that saw molten steel/metal within them.
Among these witnesses was -Joel Meyerowitz, a photographer who walked around GZ and said the ground was hot enough to melt workers boots.
Another was Sarah Atlas, who was a member of New Jersey Search and Rescue, who said there was molten steel/metal that she encountered during her searches.
Penn SAS Summer 2002 -- K-9/11

Dr Keith Eaton, CE of structural engineers in London who said, there was
“molten metal which was still red-hot weeks after the event,” as well as “four-inch thick steel plates sheered and bent in the disaster.”
The Structural Engineer 3, September 2002

Leslie Robertson, who was one of the men who assisted in the construction of the WTC themselves. he said-."as of 21 days after the attack the fires were still burning and molten steel still running.”
SEAU NEWS, The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, October 2001


Alison Geyh Ph.D. a professor at Johns Hopkins, was on the scene and said-
“In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.”
Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, late fall, 2001.

Even the contractors that were hired to do the clean up have mentioned this.
http://ae911truth.org/documents/lironews.pdf
University of California professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, structural engineer,
“I saw melting of girders at the World Trade Center.”
Peter Tulley, president of Tully Construction told the American Free Press that workmen had seen the molten pools.
American Free Press, August 28, 2002

Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. said “Yes, hot spots of molten steel were seen in the basements.”
thermal images taken by NASA and Earth Data satellites. The thermal images also show that the hot spots remained in the same locations. They didn't travel across the GZ site, as would be expected from fire as it consumes and burns the combustibles available in any one location.

Using infrared spectrometer (AVIRIS). The two hottest spots were under WTC 2 and WTC 7. The USGS recorded surface temperatures as high as 1376 deg.F.
USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS environmental assessment

If these were the surface temps, it must be assumed that they were even hotter where they were emanating from.

FEMA documents in their Appendix C of its May 2002 WTC Building Performance Assessment Team study, for sample 1, “evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting.” A “sulfur-rich liquid” containing “primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur” “penetrated” into the steel.
http://www.fema.gov/library/file;js...f&fileid=6d56be70-50bc-11e0-be57-001cc4568fb6

The point here is that office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air at 1,500 deg. F. can't reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts which is 2700 deg. F..

This is a very important finding regarding the buildings, because many accredited experts thought that parts of the WTC structure attained temps that would melt the steel.
Again these were preliminary assumptions.
We know NOW that the NIST never discovered in their analysis that the temps got anywhere near this high, within the towers.

So let's deal with this contradiction. The steel components that supported the weight of these towers, were said to have gotten hot enough to fail the steel, and we seemingly had evidence of this according to the many experts on site,including one of the WTC engineers himself
and by Kenneth Holden, Commissioner of the city of New York. He told the panel about seeing molten metal during a walk through, and mentioned this to the 9-11 commission.
Statement of Ken Holden

So what did NIST do or say about this? It dismissed them. This is the first sign of fraud as they dismissed what is directly contradicted by the eyewitness statements of the emergency responders, engineers, officials, and health experts already mentioned above, not to mention the lead contractors who did the cleanup.

Don't we need high temps to overcome the steel? Didn't the temps within GZ confirm this?
It should have made it easier for them. But they ran into a problem, that was also mentioned above that being, that office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air can't reach 1500 deg. F., and being buried by debris could not have attained the extreme temps to actually melt steel/metal....for 100 days despite constant attempts to put them out with water, and 1000s of gallons of Pyrocool.

So how hot did the temps within the towers reach? For that we will have to take a look at what is in the NIST reports to find the answers, and also look into their testing..and it was conducted..

BTW...This is not an attempt on my part, to convince anyone who has different views then me, it is an attempt however, to clarify as to WHY my views are different then some of you..regarding the officially sanctioned NIST explanation/s..
Also due to responsibilities and other urgent personal matters, we can't possibly be expected to reply right away to posts at times so lets chill the fuck out...I don't get paid to be on here...

I await responses regarding the above before proceeding any further....

I believe you have spent perhaps countless hours digging for "proof" and as such you must be aware that much of what you post isn't exactly the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Take for example your quote from Professor Allison Geyh (2001) of Johns Hopkins, who was part of a team of public health investigators who visited the site shortly after 9/11:
"In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel."
Stop The Lie - References

But are quotes like this really separate confirmations or are these individuals simply repeating stories about “molten steel” that they’ve heard elsewhere? Mike Williams at 9/11myths.com quotes from a Geyh E-Mail:

I personally saw open fires, glowing and twisted I-beams. I was told, but do not remember by whom, that the workers were finding molten steel.

In other words, how many of these "eye-witness reports" are simply second-hand repeats from sources unknown or not remembered?

 

[daws101]

seems as if sister jones pulled up his skirts and fled the scene...

 

[Mr. Jones]

I have a couple of questions regarding your post if I may.

First, where do you get your information for how hot fires can burn? You are confident about the temperature possible for fires burning office furniture/equipment, but I don't know how you reach those conclusions. I'm not dismissing or arguing with them, simply wondering where the numbers originate.

Second, could the molten metal seen at the site have been something other than steel beams/girders? Between the planes and the same office furniture that we so often bring up, I would think there was a decent amount of other metals in the towers. Not huge amounts, perhaps, but could that not have been the molten metal seen at the site?

Third, and this is nothing but total speculation, but is it possible that conditions on the ground after the collapse led to areas where fires were able to burn hotter than usual? That was a whole lot of debris created by the tower collapses, I'm sure there were plenty of isolated pockets and unusual crevasses. And you do consistently mention open air fires. Could something have occurred to let fires burn hot enough to melt steel after the collapses?

Going with the Montovant's post above, I would like to request that anything posted as evidence should have a link to it's origination. Hence, if you claim that fires can only obtain certain temperatures, you need to provide a link to the study/paper that supports your claim so that we may all look at the same information that you are to avoid misinterpretation.

From what I have read a 1500 deg. f. temp is about average for what is being discussed.
We're not talking about a foundry here.
The point is that it is far lower then the melting point of steel.
At what temperature does a typical fire burn?

Regarding whether what was observed was steel or otherwise..Most metals melt above 1550. And It's highly unlikely the amounts of the pools that were observed would be substantial amounts of aluminum from the planes.
Metals - Melting Temperatures
Remember these temps lasted for around 100 days.

If you have any different info, post it up
BTW, as I stated before I may not be available right away to comment back to a post, but
I will be responding as my time permits. I am very interested in not only posting what I have, but in your stuff as well.

 

[SAYIT]

I have a couple of questions regarding your post if I may.

First, where do you get your information for how hot fires can burn? You are confident about the temperature possible for fires burning office furniture/equipment, but I don't know how you reach those conclusions. I'm not dismissing or arguing with them, simply wondering where the numbers originate.

Second, could the molten metal seen at the site have been something other than steel beams/girders? Between the planes and the same office furniture that we so often bring up, I would think there was a decent amount of other metals in the towers. Not huge amounts, perhaps, but could that not have been the molten metal seen at the site?

Third, and this is nothing but total speculation, but is it possible that conditions on the ground after the collapse led to areas where fires were able to burn hotter than usual? That was a whole lot of debris created by the tower collapses, I'm sure there were plenty of isolated pockets and unusual crevasses. And you do consistently mention open air fires. Could something have occurred to let fires burn hot enough to melt steel after the collapses?

Going with the Montovant's post above, I would like to request that anything posted as evidence should have a link to it's origination. Hence, if you claim that fires can only obtain certain temperatures, you need to provide a link to the study/paper that supports your claim so that we may all look at the same information that you are to avoid misinterpretation.

From what I have read a 1500 deg. f. temp is about average for what is being discussed.
We're not talking about a foundry here.
The point is that it is far lower then the melting point of steel.
At what temperature does a typical fire burn?

Regarding whether what was observed was steel or otherwise..Most metals melt above 1550. And It's highly unlikely the amounts of the pools that were observed would be substantial amounts of aluminum from the planes.
Metals - Melting Temperatures
Remember these temps lasted for around 100 days.

If you have any different info, post it up
BTW, as I stated before I may not be available right away to comment back to a post, but
I will be responding as my time permits. I am very interested in not only posting what I have, but in your stuff as well.

You seem intent on basing your case on the "molten steel" but upon further review the comments you post as proof of such are failing the litmus test.
Robertson's comments were reported by James Williams but when contacted by Mike Williams (no relation) at 9/11myths.com Robertson not only said he didn't recall having said such a thing, he admitted he had no way to have known it:
I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge.
James Williams, the author of the article, has made his notes publically available (http://911myths.com/NCSEA_oct_5_2001_Leslie_Robertson_s_lecture__notes_by_James_Williams.pdf). In them he describes Robertson as having said "molton metal," not steel.

 

[SAYIT]

Rather than bust the molton steel deal a little at a time the following link to 9/11myths.com does it completely. After reading it Mr. Jones will need a new lead on which to build his CT thread. Carry on.

WTC Molten Steel

 

[daws101]

Rather than bust the molton steel deal a little at a time the following link to 9/11myths.com does it completely. After reading it Mr. Jones will need a new lead on which to build his CT thread. Carry on.

WTC Molten Steel

like I said it the only site with 9/11 in it's title that's credible.

 

[daws101]

I have a couple of questions regarding your post if I may.

First, where do you get your information for how hot fires can burn? You are confident about the temperature possible for fires burning office furniture/equipment, but I don't know how you reach those conclusions. I'm not dismissing or arguing with them, simply wondering where the numbers originate.

Second, could the molten metal seen at the site have been something other than steel beams/girders? Between the planes and the same office furniture that we so often bring up, I would think there was a decent amount of other metals in the towers. Not huge amounts, perhaps, but could that not have been the molten metal seen at the site?

Third, and this is nothing but total speculation, but is it possible that conditions on the ground after the collapse led to areas where fires were able to burn hotter than usual? That was a whole lot of debris created by the tower collapses, I'm sure there were plenty of isolated pockets and unusual crevasses. And you do consistently mention open air fires. Could something have occurred to let fires burn hot enough to melt steel after the collapses?

Going with the Montovant's post above, I would like to request that anything posted as evidence should have a link to it's origination. Hence, if you claim that fires can only obtain certain temperatures, you need to provide a link to the study/paper that supports your claim so that we may all look at the same information that you are to avoid misinterpretation.

From what I have read a 1500 deg. f. temp is about average for what is being discussed.
We're not talking about a foundry here.
The point is that it is far lower then the melting point of steel.
At what temperature does a typical fire burn?

Regarding whether what was observed was steel or otherwise..Most metals melt above 1550. And It's highly unlikely the amounts of the pools that were observed would be substantial amounts of aluminum from the planes.
Metals - Melting Temperatures
Remember these temps lasted for around 100 days.

If you have any different info, post it up
BTW, as I stated before I may not be available right away to comment back to a post, but
I will be responding as my time permits. I am very interested in not only posting what I have, but in your stuff as well.

where's the reports that make this" these temps lasted for around 100 days." sister jones .. a true statement?

 

[Montrovant]

I have a couple of questions regarding your post if I may.

First, where do you get your information for how hot fires can burn? You are confident about the temperature possible for fires burning office furniture/equipment, but I don't know how you reach those conclusions. I'm not dismissing or arguing with them, simply wondering where the numbers originate.

Second, could the molten metal seen at the site have been something other than steel beams/girders? Between the planes and the same office furniture that we so often bring up, I would think there was a decent amount of other metals in the towers. Not huge amounts, perhaps, but could that not have been the molten metal seen at the site?

Third, and this is nothing but total speculation, but is it possible that conditions on the ground after the collapse led to areas where fires were able to burn hotter than usual? That was a whole lot of debris created by the tower collapses, I'm sure there were plenty of isolated pockets and unusual crevasses. And you do consistently mention open air fires. Could something have occurred to let fires burn hot enough to melt steel after the collapses?

Going with the Montovant's post above, I would like to request that anything posted as evidence should have a link to it's origination. Hence, if you claim that fires can only obtain certain temperatures, you need to provide a link to the study/paper that supports your claim so that we may all look at the same information that you are to avoid misinterpretation.

From what I have read a 1500 deg. f. temp is about average for what is being discussed.
We're not talking about a foundry here.
The point is that it is far lower then the melting point of steel.
At what temperature does a typical fire burn?

Regarding whether what was observed was steel or otherwise..Most metals melt above 1550. And It's highly unlikely the amounts of the pools that were observed would be substantial amounts of aluminum from the planes.
Metals - Melting Temperatures
Remember these temps lasted for around 100 days.

If you have any different info, post it up
BTW, as I stated before I may not be available right away to comment back to a post, but
I will be responding as my time permits. I am very interested in not only posting what I have, but in your stuff as well.

Based on the numbers in your links, it seems that there are at least a couple of common metals that could have melted in the fires. I have no idea if there was enough aluminum and/or lead in the planes and furniture to account for it, or if the building itself used metals with lower melting points in quantities that would fit. However, as it is certainly possible, and I haven't seen or heard of any reason to assume anyone at the site would have been able to differentiate between different types of molten metals, I would need some reason to assume it was melted steel.

I have read on multiple occasions that steel loses much of its strength at the 1500 degrees your first link considers an average temp for a building fire. The type of steel used can change the numbers, of course, and I'm not sure what was in the towers. Here's a link which shows some experiments done heating materials, including a couple of different kinds of steel :
Fire Resistance

What these things mean, IMO, is that neither the possible temperatures of the fires nor the possible existence of molten metal in the debris are reason to suspect anything other than what we saw is what occurred. I would sooner look at the possibilities of some substandard building materials having been used, allowing a lower temperature fire to weaken the columns enough to cause collapse, than assume controlled demolition, at least based on this data. At best, perhaps this was an unusual building fire. That may lead to questions as to what made it unusual, but certainly doesn't lead to the dismissal of the NIST report.

 

[daws101]

Going with the Montovant's post above, I would like to request that anything posted as evidence should have a link to it's origination. Hence, if you claim that fires can only obtain certain temperatures, you need to provide a link to the study/paper that supports your claim so that we may all look at the same information that you are to avoid misinterpretation.

From what I have read a 1500 deg. f. temp is about average for what is being discussed.
We're not talking about a foundry here.
The point is that it is far lower then the melting point of steel.
At what temperature does a typical fire burn?

Regarding whether what was observed was steel or otherwise..Most metals melt above 1550. And It's highly unlikely the amounts of the pools that were observed would be substantial amounts of aluminum from the planes.
Metals - Melting Temperatures
Remember these temps lasted for around 100 days.

If you have any different info, post it up
BTW, as I stated before I may not be available right away to comment back to a post, but
I will be responding as my time permits. I am very interested in not only posting what I have, but in your stuff as well.

Based on the numbers in your links, it seems that there are at least a couple of common metals that could have melted in the fires. I have no idea if there was enough aluminum and/or lead in the planes and furniture to account for it, or if the building itself used metals with lower melting points in quantities that would fit. However, as it is certainly possible, and I haven't seen or heard of any reason to assume anyone at the site would have been able to differentiate between different types of molten metals, I would need some reason to assume it was melted steel.

I have read on multiple occasions that steel loses much of its strength at the 1500 degrees your first link considers an average temp for a building fire. The type of steel used can change the numbers, of course, and I'm not sure what was in the towers. Here's a link which shows some experiments done heating materials, including a couple of different kinds of steel :
Fire Resistance

What these things mean, IMO, is that neither the possible temperatures of the fires nor the possible existence of molten metal in the debris are reason to suspect anything other than what we saw is what occurred. I would sooner look at the possibilities of some substandard building materials having been used, allowing a lower temperature fire to weaken the columns enough to cause collapse, than assume controlled demolition, at least based on this data. At best, perhaps this was an unusual building fire. That may lead to questions as to what made it unusual, but certainly doesn't lead to the dismissal of the NIST report.

Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster
Aluminum was present in two significant forms at the World Trade Center on 9-11:
(i) By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding
on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of
anodized 0.09 aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to
cover the fa€ade of each Twin Tower.
(i) The other major source of aluminum at the WTC was the aluminum alloy
airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into the Twin Towers on the
morning of 9-11. It may be estimated that, on impact, these aircraft weighed
about 124,000 kg including fuel; of this weight, 46,000 kg comprised the
fuselage and 21,000 kg made up the mass of the wings – all of which were
fabricated from aluminum alloys. Modern airframes are invariably constructed
from series 2000 aluminum alloys. Alloy 2024 is a typical example containing
93 % Al, 4.5 % Cu, 1.5 % Mg, and 0.5 % each of Mn and Fe. These metallic
additions to aluminum lower the melting point of the alloy from a value of
660 C, for pure aluminum, to about 548  C for alloy 2024. This relatively
low temperature indicates that the fires within the Twin Towers were quite
capable of melting at least some of the Boeing 767 aluminum airframe
structures remaining in the WTC before its collapse.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

 

[Mr. Jones]

Going with the Montovant's post above, I would like to request that anything posted as evidence should have a link to it's origination. Hence, if you claim that fires can only obtain certain temperatures, you need to provide a link to the study/paper that supports your claim so that we may all look at the same information that you are to avoid misinterpretation.

From what I have read a 1500 deg. f. temp is about average for what is being discussed.
We're not talking about a foundry here.
The point is that it is far lower then the melting point of steel.
At what temperature does a typical fire burn?

Regarding whether what was observed was steel or otherwise..Most metals melt above 1550. And It's highly unlikely the amounts of the pools that were observed would be substantial amounts of aluminum from the planes.
Metals - Melting Temperatures
Remember these temps lasted for around 100 days.

If you have any different info, post it up
BTW, as I stated before I may not be available right away to comment back to a post, but
I will be responding as my time permits. I am very interested in not only posting what I have, but in your stuff as well.

Based on the numbers in your links, it seems that there are at least a couple of common metals that could have melted in the fires. I have no idea if there was enough aluminum and/or lead in the planes and furniture to account for it, or if the building itself used metals with lower melting points in quantities that would fit. However, as it is certainly possible, and I haven't seen or heard of any reason to assume anyone at the site would have been able to differentiate between different types of molten metals, I would need some reason to assume it was melted steel.

I have read on multiple occasions that steel loses much of its strength at the 1500 degrees your first link considers an average temp for a building fire. The type of steel used can change the numbers, of course, and I'm not sure what was in the towers. Here's a link which shows some experiments done heating materials, including a couple of different kinds of steel :
Fire Resistance

What these things mean, IMO, is that neither the possible temperatures of the fires nor the possible existence of molten metal in the debris are reason to suspect anything other than what we saw is what occurred. I would sooner look at the possibilities of some substandard building materials having been used, allowing a lower temperature fire to weaken the columns enough to cause collapse, than assume controlled demolition, at least based on this data. At best, perhaps this was an unusual building fire. That may lead to questions as to what made it unusual, but certainly doesn't lead to the dismissal of the NIST report.

The point is that many people witnessed this molten phenomena, of this we can be sure.
Even the hired contractors. Imaging confirmed extreme heat..NIST ignored this and did not consider it a relevant part of their investigation.
form your link-
By the time steel reaches 930°F (500°C), it has lost about 30% of its tensile strength. Unprotected weathering steel loses about half of its tensile strength above 1000°F (538°C)

I'm trying to concentrate on what was reportedly said, and what if anything NIST took into consideration regarding it...what they deemed important or not, and what the results of their testing concluded compared to it. which will come shortly.
The task of providing the definitive explanation of the collapses was given to NIST, and we should have the reasonable expectation they use any and all available information provided to them.

So, we had reports from credible witnesses, on the GZ site that reported this, and others that confirmed it. There are too many eyewitness accounts to simply dismiss this.
And no...I am not basing any theory on this part of the event, I am simply trying to start at a point close to the beginning when people were trying to figure things out. We had all sorts of experts, and knee jerk reactions all over the tube saying "melted" so it's only reasonable to think NIST would consider it and we discuss this no?

John Gross, a main author of NIST’s reports, was asked about the molten steel, he said to the questioner: I challenge your “basic premise that there was a pool of molten steel,” adding: “I know of absolutely no . . . eyewitness who has said so.”

“It is easy enough to find a self-consistent theory . . . , provided that you are content to disregard half your evidence.” The “moral temper required for the pursuit of truth,” he added, includes an unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account.” -

Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (1925; New York: Free Press, 1967), 187.

And for you others (Sayit-Dawgshit) that are pointing to the "9-11 myths" so called debunking site, this thread is about the NIST report and how it relates to the opposing and contradicting stances, and it's polarizing effects.

IOW, whatever is revealed or omitted within it,,that makes YOU and I have the positions regarding the 9-11 attacks that we do...

Gamolon has asked that we post a link to whatever info that we can find, as a way to confirm things, so I suggest that we try to adhere to that. If your "debunking site has a link that backs up their claim, then link it, if not it should be considered mere speculation, and we're in this thread to try and filter the BS.

Oh and Leslie Robertson, he was a guest at SEAU News and spoke about the WTC, and they mentioned other facts in their publication that are consistent with him referring to the "molten steel".
http://web.archive.org/web/20060909104247/http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

 

[Mr. Jones]

From what I have read a 1500 deg. f. temp is about average for what is being discussed.
We're not talking about a foundry here.
The point is that it is far lower then the melting point of steel.
At what temperature does a typical fire burn?

Regarding whether what was observed was steel or otherwise..Most metals melt above 1550. And It's highly unlikely the amounts of the pools that were observed would be substantial amounts of aluminum from the planes.
Metals - Melting Temperatures
Remember these temps lasted for around 100 days.

If you have any different info, post it up
BTW, as I stated before I may not be available right away to comment back to a post, but
I will be responding as my time permits. I am very interested in not only posting what I have, but in your stuff as well.

Based on the numbers in your links, it seems that there are at least a couple of common metals that could have melted in the fires. I have no idea if there was enough aluminum and/or lead in the planes and furniture to account for it, or if the building itself used metals with lower melting points in quantities that would fit. However, as it is certainly possible, and I haven't seen or heard of any reason to assume anyone at the site would have been able to differentiate between different types of molten metals, I would need some reason to assume it was melted steel.

I have read on multiple occasions that steel loses much of its strength at the 1500 degrees your first link considers an average temp for a building fire. The type of steel used can change the numbers, of course, and I'm not sure what was in the towers. Here's a link which shows some experiments done heating materials, including a couple of different kinds of steel :
Fire Resistance

What these things mean, IMO, is that neither the possible temperatures of the fires nor the possible existence of molten metal in the debris are reason to suspect anything other than what we saw is what occurred. I would sooner look at the possibilities of some substandard building materials having been used, allowing a lower temperature fire to weaken the columns enough to cause collapse, than assume controlled demolition, at least based on this data. At best, perhaps this was an unusual building fire. That may lead to questions as to what made it unusual, but certainly doesn't lead to the dismissal of the NIST report.

Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster
Aluminum was present in two significant forms at the World Trade Center on 9-11:
(i) By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding
on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of
anodized 0.09 aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to
cover the fa€ade of each Twin Tower.
(i) The other major source of aluminum at the WTC was the aluminum alloy
airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into the Twin Towers on the
morning of 9-11. It may be estimated that, on impact, these aircraft weighed
about 124,000 kg including fuel; of this weight, 46,000 kg comprised the
fuselage and 21,000 kg made up the mass of the wings – all of which were
fabricated from aluminum alloys. Modern airframes are invariably constructed
from series 2000 aluminum alloys. Alloy 2024 is a typical example containing
93 % Al, 4.5 % Cu, 1.5 % Mg, and 0.5 % each of Mn and Fe. These metallic
additions to aluminum lower the melting point of the alloy from a value of
660 C, for pure aluminum, to about 548  C for alloy 2024. This relatively
low temperature indicates that the fires within the Twin Towers were quite
capable of melting at least some of the Boeing 767 aluminum airframe
structures remaining in the WTC before its collapse.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

And within your link, it states-
But is there any direct evidence for the presence of molten aluminum at the WTC site on
9-11? The answer to this question is an emphatic: “Yes!”

Direct evidence??? Ok lets see what else it says that provides "direct evidence"??

Here are the
pertinent references:
FEMA: World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2.3,
page 34:
“Just prior to the collapse (of WTC 2), a stream of molten metal
- possibly aluminum from the airliner – was seen streaming out
of a window opening at the northeast corner (near the 80
th
floor level).”
NIST: Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the
World Trade Center Disaster, Volume 4, Appendix H, Section H.9, page 43:
“Starting around 9:52 a.m., a molten material began to pour from the
top of window 80- 256 on the north face of WTC 2. The material appears
intermittently until the tower collapses at 9:58:59 a.m. The observation
of piles of debris in this area combined with the melting point behaviors of
the primary alloys used in a Boeing 767 suggest that the material is molten
aluminum derived from aircraft debris located on floor 81.”

It is not "direct evidence" it is an assumption, and you are getting more shit from your debunking site instead of linking to the source of where THEY get their information.
NIST and links you dufus..

 

[Montrovant]

From what I have read a 1500 deg. f. temp is about average for what is being discussed.
We're not talking about a foundry here.
The point is that it is far lower then the melting point of steel.
At what temperature does a typical fire burn?

Regarding whether what was observed was steel or otherwise..Most metals melt above 1550. And It's highly unlikely the amounts of the pools that were observed would be substantial amounts of aluminum from the planes.
Metals - Melting Temperatures
Remember these temps lasted for around 100 days.

If you have any different info, post it up
BTW, as I stated before I may not be available right away to comment back to a post, but
I will be responding as my time permits. I am very interested in not only posting what I have, but in your stuff as well.

Based on the numbers in your links, it seems that there are at least a couple of common metals that could have melted in the fires. I have no idea if there was enough aluminum and/or lead in the planes and furniture to account for it, or if the building itself used metals with lower melting points in quantities that would fit. However, as it is certainly possible, and I haven't seen or heard of any reason to assume anyone at the site would have been able to differentiate between different types of molten metals, I would need some reason to assume it was melted steel.

I have read on multiple occasions that steel loses much of its strength at the 1500 degrees your first link considers an average temp for a building fire. The type of steel used can change the numbers, of course, and I'm not sure what was in the towers. Here's a link which shows some experiments done heating materials, including a couple of different kinds of steel :
Fire Resistance

What these things mean, IMO, is that neither the possible temperatures of the fires nor the possible existence of molten metal in the debris are reason to suspect anything other than what we saw is what occurred. I would sooner look at the possibilities of some substandard building materials having been used, allowing a lower temperature fire to weaken the columns enough to cause collapse, than assume controlled demolition, at least based on this data. At best, perhaps this was an unusual building fire. That may lead to questions as to what made it unusual, but certainly doesn't lead to the dismissal of the NIST report.

The point is that many people witnessed this molten phenomena, of this we can be sure.
Even the hired contractors. Imaging confirmed extreme heat..NIST ignored this and did not consider it a relevant part of their investigation.
form your link-
By the time steel reaches 930°F (500°C), it has lost about 30% of its tensile strength. Unprotected weathering steel loses about half of its tensile strength above 1000°F (538°C)

I'm trying to concentrate on what was reportedly said, and what if anything NIST took into consideration regarding it...what they deemed important or not, and what the results of their testing concluded compared to it. which will come shortly.
The task of providing the definitive explanation of the collapses was given to NIST, and we should have the reasonable expectation they use any and all available information provided to them.

So, we had reports from credible witnesses, on the GZ site that reported this, and others that confirmed it. There are too many eyewitness accounts to simply dismiss this.
And no...I am not basing any theory on this part of the event, I am simply trying to start at a point close to the beginning when people were trying to figure things out. We had all sorts of experts, and knee jerk reactions all over the tube saying "melted" so it's only reasonable to think NIST would consider it and we discuss this no?

John Gross, a main author of NIST’s reports, was asked about the molten steel, he said to the questioner: I challenge your “basic premise that there was a pool of molten steel,” adding: “I know of absolutely no . . . eyewitness who has said so.”

“It is easy enough to find a self-consistent theory . . . , provided that you are content to disregard half your evidence.” The “moral temper required for the pursuit of truth,” he added, includes an unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account.” -

Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (1925; New York: Free Press, 1967), 187.

And for you others (Sayit-Dawgshit) that are pointing to the "9-11 myths" so called debunking site, this thread is about the NIST report and how it relates to the opposing and contradicting stances, and it's polarizing effects.

IOW, whatever is revealed or omitted within it,,that makes YOU and I have the positions regarding the 9-11 attacks that we do...

Gamolon has asked that we post a link to whatever info that we can find, as a way to confirm things, so I suggest that we try to adhere to that. If your "debunking site has a link that backs up their claim, then link it, if not it should be considered mere speculation, and we're in this thread to try and filter the BS.

Oh and Leslie Robertson, he was a guest at SEAU News and spoke about the WTC, and they mentioned other facts in their publication that are consistent with him referring to the "molten steel".
http://web.archive.org/web/20060909104247/http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

I'm not sure where this line of discussion is headed, honestly. Are you saying that there was molten steel at the site? Are you saying that multiple witnesses say they saw molten steel? Are you saying that those witnesses would have known the difference between molten steel and molten aluminum?

Was the existence of molten metal ignored in the NIST report? I can see that being the case. However, it does not follow that it must have been ignored for nefarious reasons. It could be that, since the fires would not have burned hot enough to melt steel, it was simply assumed the metal was aluminum and therefore unimportant to the investigation. I wonder what the conversation around the quote you gave from John Gross was? It seems at least possible that he was saying that he challenged the premise of molten steel, but would accept the premise of molten aluminum. I can't know from the small quote.

Anyway, at this point there seems to be minor discrepancies at most. Certainly nothing seems totally wrong, either intentionally or accidentally, in the NIST report, from the information in this thread.

 

[SAYIT]

From what I have read a 1500 deg. f. temp is about average for what is being discussed.
We're not talking about a foundry here.
The point is that it is far lower then the melting point of steel.
At what temperature does a typical fire burn?

Regarding whether what was observed was steel or otherwise..Most metals melt above 1550. And It's highly unlikely the amounts of the pools that were observed would be substantial amounts of aluminum from the planes.
Metals - Melting Temperatures
Remember these temps lasted for around 100 days.

If you have any different info, post it up
BTW, as I stated before I may not be available right away to comment back to a post, but
I will be responding as my time permits. I am very interested in not only posting what I have, but in your stuff as well.

Based on the numbers in your links, it seems that there are at least a couple of common metals that could have melted in the fires. I have no idea if there was enough aluminum and/or lead in the planes and furniture to account for it, or if the building itself used metals with lower melting points in quantities that would fit. However, as it is certainly possible, and I haven't seen or heard of any reason to assume anyone at the site would have been able to differentiate between different types of molten metals, I would need some reason to assume it was melted steel.

I have read on multiple occasions that steel loses much of its strength at the 1500 degrees your first link considers an average temp for a building fire. The type of steel used can change the numbers, of course, and I'm not sure what was in the towers. Here's a link which shows some experiments done heating materials, including a couple of different kinds of steel :
Fire Resistance

What these things mean, IMO, is that neither the possible temperatures of the fires nor the possible existence of molten metal in the debris are reason to suspect anything other than what we saw is what occurred. I would sooner look at the possibilities of some substandard building materials having been used, allowing a lower temperature fire to weaken the columns enough to cause collapse, than assume controlled demolition, at least based on this data. At best, perhaps this was an unusual building fire. That may lead to questions as to what made it unusual, but certainly doesn't lead to the dismissal of the NIST report.

The point is that many people witnessed this molten phenomena, of this we can be sure.
Even the hired contractors. Imaging confirmed extreme heat..NIST ignored this and did not consider it a relevant part of their investigation.
form your link-
By the time steel reaches 930°F (500°C), it has lost about 30% of its tensile strength. Unprotected weathering steel loses about half of its tensile strength above 1000°F (538°C)

I'm trying to concentrate on what was reportedly said, and what if anything NIST took into consideration regarding it...what they deemed important or not, and what the results of their testing concluded compared to it. which will come shortly.
The task of providing the definitive explanation of the collapses was given to NIST, and we should have the reasonable expectation they use any and all available information provided to them.

So, we had reports from credible witnesses, on the GZ site that reported this, and others that confirmed it. There are too many eyewitness accounts to simply dismiss this.
And no...I am not basing any theory on this part of the event, I am simply trying to start at a point close to the beginning when people were trying to figure things out. We had all sorts of experts, and knee jerk reactions all over the tube saying "melted" so it's only reasonable to think NIST would consider it and we discuss this no?

John Gross, a main author of NIST’s reports, was asked about the molten steel, he said to the questioner: I challenge your “basic premise that there was a pool of molten steel,” adding: “I know of absolutely no . . . eyewitness who has said so.”

“It is easy enough to find a self-consistent theory . . . , provided that you are content to disregard half your evidence.” The “moral temper required for the pursuit of truth,” he added, includes an unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account.” -

Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (1925; New York: Free Press, 1967), 187.

And for you others (Sayit-Dawgshit) that are pointing to the "9-11 myths" so called debunking site, this thread is about the NIST report and how it relates to the opposing and contradicting stances, and it's polarizing effects.

IOW, whatever is revealed or omitted within it,,that makes YOU and I have the positions regarding the 9-11 attacks that we do...

Gamolon has asked that we post a link to whatever info that we can find, as a way to confirm things, so I suggest that we try to adhere to that. If your "debunking site has a link that backs up their claim, then link it, if not it should be considered mere speculation, and we're in this thread to try and filter the BS.

Oh and Leslie Robertson, he was a guest at SEAU News and spoke about the WTC, and they mentioned other facts in their publication that are consistent with him referring to the "molten steel".
http://web.archive.org/web/20060909104247/http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

Say what? You are basing your 9/11 CT on comments by some GZ observers and 9/11myths.com debunks your claims. As the quotes fall apart or your "experts" admit they had no way of knowing what the molten metals were, the basis of your CT falls apart. Rather than reconsider your argument you simply repeat the same baseless comments. That's just stupid.
Robertson not only said he didn't recall having said such a thing, he admitted he had no way to have known it:
I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge. - Leslie Robertson E-Mail to Mike Williams, 9/11myths.com

 

[Mr. Jones]

Based on the numbers in your links, it seems that there are at least a couple of common metals that could have melted in the fires. I have no idea if there was enough aluminum and/or lead in the planes and furniture to account for it, or if the building itself used metals with lower melting points in quantities that would fit. However, as it is certainly possible, and I haven't seen or heard of any reason to assume anyone at the site would have been able to differentiate between different types of molten metals, I would need some reason to assume it was melted steel.

I have read on multiple occasions that steel loses much of its strength at the 1500 degrees your first link considers an average temp for a building fire. The type of steel used can change the numbers, of course, and I'm not sure what was in the towers. Here's a link which shows some experiments done heating materials, including a couple of different kinds of steel :
Fire Resistance

What these things mean, IMO, is that neither the possible temperatures of the fires nor the possible existence of molten metal in the debris are reason to suspect anything other than what we saw is what occurred. I would sooner look at the possibilities of some substandard building materials having been used, allowing a lower temperature fire to weaken the columns enough to cause collapse, than assume controlled demolition, at least based on this data. At best, perhaps this was an unusual building fire. That may lead to questions as to what made it unusual, but certainly doesn't lead to the dismissal of the NIST report.

The point is that many people witnessed this molten phenomena, of this we can be sure.
Even the hired contractors. Imaging confirmed extreme heat..NIST ignored this and did not consider it a relevant part of their investigation.
form your link-
By the time steel reaches 930°F (500°C), it has lost about 30% of its tensile strength. Unprotected weathering steel loses about half of its tensile strength above 1000°F (538°C)

I'm trying to concentrate on what was reportedly said, and what if anything NIST took into consideration regarding it...what they deemed important or not, and what the results of their testing concluded compared to it. which will come shortly.
The task of providing the definitive explanation of the collapses was given to NIST, and we should have the reasonable expectation they use any and all available information provided to them.

So, we had reports from credible witnesses, on the GZ site that reported this, and others that confirmed it. There are too many eyewitness accounts to simply dismiss this.
And no...I am not basing any theory on this part of the event, I am simply trying to start at a point close to the beginning when people were trying to figure things out. We had all sorts of experts, and knee jerk reactions all over the tube saying "melted" so it's only reasonable to think NIST would consider it and we discuss this no?

John Gross, a main author of NIST’s reports, was asked about the molten steel, he said to the questioner: I challenge your “basic premise that there was a pool of molten steel,” adding: “I know of absolutely no . . . eyewitness who has said so.”

“It is easy enough to find a self-consistent theory . . . , provided that you are content to disregard half your evidence.” The “moral temper required for the pursuit of truth,” he added, includes an unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account.” -

Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (1925; New York: Free Press, 1967), 187.

And for you others (Sayit-Dawgshit) that are pointing to the "9-11 myths" so called debunking site, this thread is about the NIST report and how it relates to the opposing and contradicting stances, and it's polarizing effects.

IOW, whatever is revealed or omitted within it,,that makes YOU and I have the positions regarding the 9-11 attacks that we do...

Gamolon has asked that we post a link to whatever info that we can find, as a way to confirm things, so I suggest that we try to adhere to that. If your "debunking site has a link that backs up their claim, then link it, if not it should be considered mere speculation, and we're in this thread to try and filter the BS.

Oh and Leslie Robertson, he was a guest at SEAU News and spoke about the WTC, and they mentioned other facts in their publication that are consistent with him referring to the "molten steel".
http://web.archive.org/web/20060909104247/http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

I'm not sure where this line of discussion is headed, honestly. Are you saying that there was molten steel at the site? Are you saying that multiple witnesses say they saw molten steel? Are you saying that those witnesses would have known the difference between molten steel and molten aluminum?

Was the existence of molten metal ignored in the NIST report? I can see that being the case. However, it does not follow that it must have been ignored for nefarious reasons. It could be that, since the fires would not have burned hot enough to melt steel, it was simply assumed the metal was aluminum and therefore unimportant to the investigation. I wonder what the conversation around the quote you gave from John Gross was? It seems at least possible that he was saying that he challenged the premise of molten steel, but would accept the premise of molten aluminum. I can't know from the small quote.

Anyway, at this point there seems to be minor discrepancies at most. Certainly nothing seems totally wrong, either intentionally or accidentally, in the NIST report, from the information in this thread.

It seems that NIST did not follow due diligence in following up on these reports, statements from witnesses, Tulley was hired to do the cleanup, are we to suppose his people would not know molten metal/steel with their own eyes?
Again we have these statements, from seemingly credible people, and the point is that NIST ignored it.
We had preliminary reports of "melted steel" it should have been followed up by NIST
and it wasn't. It wasn't mentioned in the report, only to dismiss it.
We should be looking at this with unbiased views and try not to stretch it into anything further.
Was there reports of molten steel/metal? Yes. Did NIST follow up on this as should have been expected? No.
Besides, WTC 7 experienced the same thing, and it was not hit by a plane, so I think we can rule aluminum out of the equation.

It is reasonable for people to come to the conclusion at the time, that the molten material under the piles of wreckage were a residual effect of whatever caused the towers to fall.
Something burned hot enough and long enough for witnesses to make these kinds of statements.
Shall we move on to the testing NIST did to better understand if these temps were possible?

 

[Montrovant]

The point is that many people witnessed this molten phenomena, of this we can be sure.
Even the hired contractors. Imaging confirmed extreme heat..NIST ignored this and did not consider it a relevant part of their investigation.
form your link-
By the time steel reaches 930°F (500°C), it has lost about 30% of its tensile strength. Unprotected weathering steel loses about half of its tensile strength above 1000°F (538°C)

I'm trying to concentrate on what was reportedly said, and what if anything NIST took into consideration regarding it...what they deemed important or not, and what the results of their testing concluded compared to it. which will come shortly.
The task of providing the definitive explanation of the collapses was given to NIST, and we should have the reasonable expectation they use any and all available information provided to them.

So, we had reports from credible witnesses, on the GZ site that reported this, and others that confirmed it. There are too many eyewitness accounts to simply dismiss this.
And no...I am not basing any theory on this part of the event, I am simply trying to start at a point close to the beginning when people were trying to figure things out. We had all sorts of experts, and knee jerk reactions all over the tube saying "melted" so it's only reasonable to think NIST would consider it and we discuss this no?

John Gross, a main author of NIST’s reports, was asked about the molten steel, he said to the questioner: I challenge your “basic premise that there was a pool of molten steel,” adding: “I know of absolutely no . . . eyewitness who has said so.”

“It is easy enough to find a self-consistent theory . . . , provided that you are content to disregard half your evidence.” The “moral temper required for the pursuit of truth,” he added, includes an unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account.” -

Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (1925; New York: Free Press, 1967), 187.

And for you others (Sayit-Dawgshit) that are pointing to the "9-11 myths" so called debunking site, this thread is about the NIST report and how it relates to the opposing and contradicting stances, and it's polarizing effects.

IOW, whatever is revealed or omitted within it,,that makes YOU and I have the positions regarding the 9-11 attacks that we do...

Gamolon has asked that we post a link to whatever info that we can find, as a way to confirm things, so I suggest that we try to adhere to that. If your "debunking site has a link that backs up their claim, then link it, if not it should be considered mere speculation, and we're in this thread to try and filter the BS.

Oh and Leslie Robertson, he was a guest at SEAU News and spoke about the WTC, and they mentioned other facts in their publication that are consistent with him referring to the "molten steel".
http://web.archive.org/web/20060909104247/http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

I'm not sure where this line of discussion is headed, honestly. Are you saying that there was molten steel at the site? Are you saying that multiple witnesses say they saw molten steel? Are you saying that those witnesses would have known the difference between molten steel and molten aluminum?

Was the existence of molten metal ignored in the NIST report? I can see that being the case. However, it does not follow that it must have been ignored for nefarious reasons. It could be that, since the fires would not have burned hot enough to melt steel, it was simply assumed the metal was aluminum and therefore unimportant to the investigation. I wonder what the conversation around the quote you gave from John Gross was? It seems at least possible that he was saying that he challenged the premise of molten steel, but would accept the premise of molten aluminum. I can't know from the small quote.

Anyway, at this point there seems to be minor discrepancies at most. Certainly nothing seems totally wrong, either intentionally or accidentally, in the NIST report, from the information in this thread.

It seems that NIST did not follow due diligence in following up on these reports, statements from witnesses, Tulley was hired to do the cleanup, are we to suppose his people would not know molten metal/steel with their own eyes?
Again we have these statements, from seemingly credible people, and the point is that NIST ignored it.
We had preliminary reports of "melted steel" it should have been followed up by NIST
and it wasn't. It wasn't mentioned in the report, only to dismiss it.
We should be looking at this with unbiased views and try not to stretch it into anything further.
Was there reports of molten steel/metal? Yes. Did NIST follow up on this as should have been expected? No.
Besides, WTC 7 experienced the same thing, and it was not hit by a plane, so I think we can rule aluminum out of the equation.

It is reasonable for people to come to the conclusion at the time, that the molten material under the piles of wreckage were a residual effect of whatever caused the towers to fall.
Something burned hot enough and long enough for witnesses to make these kinds of statements.
Shall we move on to the testing NIST did to better understand if these temps were possible?

I just quickly wanted to comment about this. It has been posted in this thread that there was a large amount of aluminum used in the buildings themselves. daws posted a link that claimed the exterior panels used aluminum. This could easily have been the case for building 7 as well, not to mention the possibility of furniture and equipment within the buildings being made of metal with a low melting point.

I also have no idea if someone should be able to tell molten aluminum or other metals from molten steel based solely on visual examination, especially considering the amount of other materials floating around which could have mixed with the molten metal.

 

[daws101]

The point is that many people witnessed this molten phenomena, of this we can be sure.
Even the hired contractors. Imaging confirmed extreme heat..NIST ignored this and did not consider it a relevant part of their investigation.
form your link-
By the time steel reaches 930°F (500°C), it has lost about 30% of its tensile strength. Unprotected weathering steel loses about half of its tensile strength above 1000°F (538°C)

I'm trying to concentrate on what was reportedly said, and what if anything NIST took into consideration regarding it...what they deemed important or not, and what the results of their testing concluded compared to it. which will come shortly.
The task of providing the definitive explanation of the collapses was given to NIST, and we should have the reasonable expectation they use any and all available information provided to them.

So, we had reports from credible witnesses, on the GZ site that reported this, and others that confirmed it. There are too many eyewitness accounts to simply dismiss this.
And no...I am not basing any theory on this part of the event, I am simply trying to start at a point close to the beginning when people were trying to figure things out. We had all sorts of experts, and knee jerk reactions all over the tube saying "melted" so it's only reasonable to think NIST would consider it and we discuss this no?

John Gross, a main author of NIST’s reports, was asked about the molten steel, he said to the questioner: I challenge your “basic premise that there was a pool of molten steel,” adding: “I know of absolutely no . . . eyewitness who has said so.”

“It is easy enough to find a self-consistent theory . . . , provided that you are content to disregard half your evidence.” The “moral temper required for the pursuit of truth,” he added, includes an unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account.” -

Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (1925; New York: Free Press, 1967), 187.

And for you others (Sayit-Dawgshit) that are pointing to the "9-11 myths" so called debunking site, this thread is about the NIST report and how it relates to the opposing and contradicting stances, and it's polarizing effects.

IOW, whatever is revealed or omitted within it,,that makes YOU and I have the positions regarding the 9-11 attacks that we do...

Gamolon has asked that we post a link to whatever info that we can find, as a way to confirm things, so I suggest that we try to adhere to that. If your "debunking site has a link that backs up their claim, then link it, if not it should be considered mere speculation, and we're in this thread to try and filter the BS.

Oh and Leslie Robertson, he was a guest at SEAU News and spoke about the WTC, and they mentioned other facts in their publication that are consistent with him referring to the "molten steel".
http://web.archive.org/web/20060909104247/http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

I'm not sure where this line of discussion is headed, honestly. Are you saying that there was molten steel at the site? Are you saying that multiple witnesses say they saw molten steel? Are you saying that those witnesses would have known the difference between molten steel and molten aluminum?

Was the existence of molten metal ignored in the NIST report? I can see that being the case. However, it does not follow that it must have been ignored for nefarious reasons. It could be that, since the fires would not have burned hot enough to melt steel, it was simply assumed the metal was aluminum and therefore unimportant to the investigation. I wonder what the conversation around the quote you gave from John Gross was? It seems at least possible that he was saying that he challenged the premise of molten steel, but would accept the premise of molten aluminum. I can't know from the small quote.

Anyway, at this point there seems to be minor discrepancies at most. Certainly nothing seems totally wrong, either intentionally or accidentally, in the NIST report, from the information in this thread.

It seems that NIST did not follow due diligence in following up on these reports, statements from witnesses, Tulley was hired to do the cleanup, are we to suppose his people would not know molten metal/steel with their own eyes?
Again we have these statements, from seemingly credible people, and the point is that NIST ignored it.
We had preliminary reports of "melted steel" it should have been followed up by NIST
and it wasn't. It wasn't mentioned in the report, only to dismiss it.
We should be looking at this with unbiased views and try not to stretch it into anything further.
Was there reports of molten steel/metal? Yes. Did NIST follow up on this as should have been expected? No.
Besides, WTC 7 experienced the same thing, and it was not hit by a plane, so I think we can rule aluminum out of the equation.

It is reasonable for people to come to the conclusion at the time, that the molten material under the piles of wreckage were a residual effect of whatever caused the towers to fall.
Something burned hot enough and long enough for witnesses to make these kinds of statements.
Shall we move on to the testing NIST did to better understand if these temps were possible?

how could you rule this: "By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding
on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of
anodized 0.09 aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to
cover the fa€ade of each Twin Tower." with out any evidence to the contrary ...eye witness testimony is only relevant when it matches the physical or forensic evidence.
the eyewitness you attempted to use as proof could not have know what type of materials were molten... the term "melted steel" coming from untrained witnesses is meaning less.

" WTC 7 experienced the same thing, and it was not hit by a plane" sister jones
this is statement is a half truth and intentionally misleading... you shit head...