US Government admits botched job of WTC investigation

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


wtc.nist.gov...
1) No WTC-7 steel was recovered or analyzed.

Yet the Engineer Griff and I have quoted stated this:

Astaneh-Asl sees a charred I-beam from WTC Building 7, which collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11. “The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.”

query.nytimes.com...

reply to post by ThroatYogurt



Nah, I think we are actually in agreement on this one.

I think this is the first time I've read this one:

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Astaneh-Asl sees a charred I-beam from WTC Building 7, which collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11. “The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.”

query.nytimes.com...

Emphasis added.

So did anyone ever figure out what made that happen?

reply to post by bsbray11


I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that this piece was one of the pieces that FEMA analyzed. Of course this is an assumption of mine.

reply to post by bsbray11


The article continues:

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

query.nytimes.com...

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


Not sure what you are responding to, but I was wondering if anyone ever figured out what caused the steel to vaporize. Vaporization means the steel was heated so extremely that it didn't just melt, it turned to a gaseous state.

Not to throw my own thread off topic, but I thought this was interesting too.

Dr. Astaneh-Asl said that in some places, the fireproofing melted into a glassy residue.

That's some pretty intense fires if the fireproofing melted to a glass-like substance.

[edit on 6/29/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

query.nytimes.com...

Interesting.

So again I'll ask, why didn't NIST find the cause to this "evaporation" especially when this expert says that because of the way it buckled, it happened before collapse.

So much for NIST finding answers eh?

reply to post by Griff


Patience grasshopper!!! The report is coming out soon!!

I tell you what.... mark my words...if the report is NOT out by Christmas... I join the Truthers!

Griff, maybe I'm mistaken, but wasn't a similar corrosive anomaly found in steel from the Twin Towers, that NIST completely neglected to explain in their report?


When this report comes out (on WTC7), you're going to owe it to us to show us where it explains the vaporized steel, Cameron. What do you say to that? Because I'm betting it's not even going to be in there.

reply to post by bsbray11



Since NIST admits to not analyzing any WTC 7 steel, I dare say, you're probably correct in your prediction.

reply to post by bsbray11


I don't work for NIST... why the f*** should I have to explain it??!!

I'm not holding my breath though.

reply to post by weedwhacker


bs. pull it is demo slang/jargon from way back. as in pull the trigger or trip wire. blow it. this argument is ridiculous already. the mindwashing has worked well.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
I don't work for NIST... why the f*** should I have to explain it??!!

I was just suggesting that, when this report comes out, you try to find where they explain this vaporized steel.


If it happened before or during the building's collapse, and the energy required for simply melting steel is beyond a fire's capability, then what does that suggest to you about the relation between this anomaly and the building's collapse? Could you not say there is very likely some relationship, at least as far as the destruction of this particular structural member goes?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by undermind
How in your opinion would they have done anything differently?

How about letting the experts go through it before it got smelted down?

Let the experts choose the pieces to be smelted and which were to be kept. Not the other way around.

I'm not asking what they should have done, but how would they have behaved any differently if there was no cover up?


They responded to the wreckages as war/disaster zones not crime scenes.


No different at all from what might be expected in the unique circumstances.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Patience grasshopper!!! The report is coming out soon!!

How can we trust the report from NIST when they did not recover any steel from building 7 for testing?

How come it has taken almost 7 years for thier report to come out?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Ultima,

you don't trust anyone. Seeing that you are a secret agent, perhaps you have the skinny on what they are up to. Why are you asking me?

reply to post by bsbray11


You bring up a good point. I too will be surprised to see an explanation to this. Heck, I'll be surprised to see the report at all.

Also from the NY Times article:

Robert Kelman, senior vice president and general manager of Hugo Neu Schnitzer East of Jersey City, one of the two companies that are recycling the steel, said the researchers were welcome to examine the several thousand tons of steel his company had received. ''The big beams that have obvious fire damage, we're putting aside for now,'' he said.

Now that is a curious statement: big beams with obvious fire damage. And none of this was relevant to NIST?

[edit on 30-6-2008 by gottago]

reply to post by gottago


NIST refused it? I don't understand what you mean. NIST did examine the steel. (not all of it)