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

NIST Engineer John Gross is on record as saying he knows of "absolutely nobody, no eyewitness that has said" that there was molten steel below the rubble of the WTC. The following video will show that he is incorrect, proven incorrect by the physical evidence and eyewitnesses.

But why is he incorrect? If there is physical evidence of molten steel and there are many witnesses that reported seeing the pools of molten steel, why would NIST not have reviewed this evidence before coming to any conclusions?

If NIST couldn't do simple research and find the physical evidence of molten steel, or the eyewitnesses on record that have seen the molten steel, then they are either incompetent, or are deliberately trying to cover up the evidence.

Watch the video and you decide:





If NIST is wrong about one thing, how can you trust anything else they say?

NIST won't release the computer models that show how they came to their conclusions. Without proof of their conclusions, how can you just take their word for how three WTC buildings fell with no proof other than NIST's own word?

I guess there are many people that still believe in blind faith. I believe in science and research.




[edit on 28-2-2010 by _BoneZ_]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


This is typical of NIST.

They were given an answer to their problem, collapsed buildings.

And where told to find a pheasible explanation to how it happened.

They way they wrote off Controlled Demolition Theory is a joke.

They "asked" people around the site, if they "saw" or "heard" demolition,

thats how they investigated Controlled Demolition. NIST is a joke , and their

findings are even funnier.

Their explanation for Building 7 .. Fires and Phenomena.

WTF is Phenomena , Another first for Sept 11.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by Sean48]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


It was willfully ignored.

NIST and commission report are lies! Hell a High School physics teacher corrected them!

If a HS physics teacher can... debunk NIST, i wonder what else they lied about

Molten metal was still found oozing 6-8 weeks later.

they denied it because... well to hide those pesky little thermate/thermite reactions. They had all the reason in the world to lie... they woke the American beast that day... but to their dismay its currently backfiring on them. (just wait until the real investigation takes place...)

take that picture away of molten steel... add in a lot of fluff, 19 hijackers with box cutters and you have one good ol conspiracy!

This report is not open for peer review and not a single engineer or architect signed off on it.

It is a piece of fiction until such a time as it is peer reviewed and signed off...but they wont do that.

This will be one of those threads that the debunkers don't have anything to debunk, so it will probably remain silent. The evidence is damning and NIST is caught in a deliberate lie or coverup and there's not a single thing that debunkers can say to debunk that!

yes, then debunkers/trusters will come with their silly childish rants they will say we are terrorists,liberals,extremists,ron paul nutters and say boeings are made of steel and jet fuel can melt steel . tomorrow , who
knows that trusters may say that al qaida terrorists made a special
variety of jet fuel , that has more energy than nukes in their caves, with allah's supernatural powers

man , those 'debunkers' make me laugh .

[edit on 28-2-2010 by sadchild01]

[edit on 28-2-2010 by sadchild01]

I'll answer your question with another question:

Who financially funds and supports NIST?

"The National Institute of Standards and Technology would receive an 11% increase in federal funding for core research and facilities under the budget that George W. Bush proposed this week."

www.informationweek.com...

Hey, I didn't know GWB was such a huge science buff.

No conflict of interest there, huh?

NIST (Shyam Sunder) also said before it released its final WTC7 report that it would be impossible for a building to accelerate into itself at the rate of gravity due to fires. Then not long after that they came out with their measurement that WTC7 actually did accelerate at the rate of gravity. Did they then change their theory accordingly, to investigate for some other cause? No, of course not. They just sandwiched it between two slightly slower "stages," came up with some misleading numbers using the non-linear theoretical acceleration curve and pretended it didn't mean anything anymore.

They simply ignored the fact that people DID hear and even RECORD explosions coming from WTC7, to say that if there was such a blast, it would have been as loud as a jackhammer (for a split second) and so since they never looked for any witnesses who heard the explosions, then they must not have existed. Of course. Even though WE know they DID, because we have the internet (gasp) and can look up both the witness accounts and the recordings in seconds, even if we have never seen them before. Maybe this is why senator Rockefeller is saying the internet is the biggest threat to national security today huh?

The silence from the debunkers is becoming deafening!

The evidence was in the FEMA report, so there's absolutely no way it could have been an accidental omission... unless you're claiming they were completely incompetent and didn't even read the FEMA report, in which case I don't see how you could use their conclusions for anything other than toilet paper.

SOURCE: www.fema.gov...

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam...

It is much more difficult to tell if melting has occurred in the grain boundary regions in this steel as was observed in the A36 steel from WTC 7. It is possible and likely, however, that even if grain boundary melting did not occur, substantial penetration by a solid state diffusion mechanism would have occurred as evidenced by the high concentration of sulfides in the grain interiors near the oxide layer. Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700–800 °C (1,290–1,470 °F).

In summary: OFFICE FIRES MY ARSE!

[edit on 28-2-2010 by Crito]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


So if the Truther movement is wrong about one thing, how can we trust anything you guys say?

We already know that Stephen Jones has been wrong about several things, so no trust for him either.

Considering all the infighting in the truther movement, you all think other truthers are wrong about lots of things, it's safe to assume that none of you are actually right and we can just ignore further posts.

Because, like YOU said, if someone is wrong about one thing, never trust them about anything.

Great logic, applied to your movement's many mistakes.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


You just can't hear us in your echo chamber

reply to post by Crito


Name another building like WTC7 that has been allowed to burn for over 6 hours without attempts to put out the fire.

How many of you have read any of this?:

www.nist.gov...

Originally posted by seethelight
So if the Truther movement is wrong about one thing, how can we trust anything you guys say? Great logic, applied to your movement's many mistakes.

There is a big difference between honesty and dishonesty and you're being dishonest here.

There is also a big difference between making mistakes and purposely lying. The truth movement may have been wrong about a few things, but that is due to honest errors or mistakes.

NIST either blatantly lied to cover up damning evidence or is willfully incompetent about the molten steel at the WTC. If you blatantly lie or are willfully incompetent about one thing, you lose credibility about everything else. Therefore:

Originally posted by seethelight
How many of you have read any of this?:
www.nist.gov...

That can't be trusted anymore after the above facts have been uncovered.

Originally posted by seethelight
Name another building like WTC7 that has been allowed to burn for over 6 hours without attempts to put out the fire.

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


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


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


As you can see, although some of the weaker outer steel columns did fail, the building still stood tall and strong, even with a heavy crane still sitting on top. Oh, and you never saw this kind of inferno at the WTC in any of the 3 buildings, let alone for 20 hours as compared to the measly 56 minutes for the south tower.

Originally posted by bsbray11

NIST (Shyam Sunder) also said before it released its final WTC7 report that it would be impossible for a building to accelerate into itself at the rate of gravity due to fires. Then not long after that they came out with their measurement that WTC7 actually did accelerate at the rate of gravity. Did they then change their theory accordingly, to investigate for some other cause? No, of course not. They just sandwiched it between two slightly slower "stages," came up with some misleading numbers using the non-linear theoretical acceleration curve and pretended it didn't mean anything anymore.

Thank you NIST for providing the proof that 9/11

was an inside job / false flag attack.

reply to post by Crito


I guess some people around here tend to forget how long the debris was buried for, and how chemical reactions can also create conditions where the steel gets destroyed.

Case in point:
Iron Burns!

huh, steel buried for weeks, exposed to high temps, and a caustic environment, and rusting in a large pile. Methinks some people ought to read up on chemistry and the processes of oxidation in its many forms.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Its just too bad that for Madrid's Windsor Tower, the steel only began to fall apart within two hours of being engulfed in flames.

The only reason it didnt fall was the steel-reinforced concrete core. And it was quite alarge core with concrete/steel pillars as well. Hmm much different than say WTC7 isnt it? I wonder if Windsor DIDNT have a concrete core, what the outcome would have been.

Windsor Tower Fire Case Review

reply to post by GenRadek

excuse

An excuse is a reason which you give in order to explain why something has been done or has not been done, or in order to avoid doing something.

www.google.com...|en&hl=en&q=excuse

investigation

an official examination of the facts about a situation, crime, etc.

www.google.com...|en&hl=en&q=investigation



Now trying your damnedest to figure out what the above definitions mean and then tell me which you just posted.

NIST is a federal agency their continued existence is based on keeping the Feds happy so of course they would bend over backwards in order to maintain the OS storyline that 11% increase in funding sure did not hurt them either.