Steel Piece Proves Lie - NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel

As the kid's say these days, "Epic Fail" on John Gross' part to do the job for which he was appointed: investigating all aspects of the 9/11 attacks.

It seems we always get the same answers from these NIST investigators. You have to remember that WTC7 wasn't even mentioned in the official report. There was a lot of lobbying for who was nominated for the investigation committee and even more so for what evidence was presented to the NIST Commission.

If these guys didn't even know there was a pool of molten metal below ground zero, I say that alone is enough to warrant another full investigation of the events that transpired that day.

reply to post by SPreston


One thing - that "8 Ton WTC I-beam", well its not an I-beam. It looks more like a piece of tublar steel, or some other fabrication. But don't say it doesn't matter, because it does, very much.

reply to post by rich23

Another news report records that “the FAA has confirmed it stepped up security levels relating to Rushdie,” but “the airlines weren’t willing to upgrade their security” in relation to the wider public.[119] It is public knowledge that Rushdie is under 24-hour protection of UK Scotland Yard’s Special Branch, and that all his travel plans are approved by the MI5 for domestic travel within the UK, and by the MI6 for international travel. The MI5 and MI6 are the British equivalent of the American CIA. Clearly, it appears that British intelligence anticipated a grave danger, under the guidance of U.S. authorities, and believed it to be urgent, threatening and real enough to inform Rushdie—but once again not the general public.

www.mediamonitors.net...

WARNINGS THAT THE DANGER WOULD COME FROM THE AIR

BRITAIN, WARNING #1: Al-Qaeda is planning to use aircraft in "unconventional ways", "possibly as flying bombs"

1999 (C): MI6, the British intelligence agency, gives a secret report to liaison staff at the US embassy in London. The reports states that al-Qaeda has plans to use "commercial aircraft" in "unconventional ways", "possibly as flying bombs." [Sunday Times, 6/9/02]

BRITAIN, WARNING #3: An Al-Qaeda attack will involve multiple hijackings

Early August 2001 (C): Britain gives the US another warning about an al-Qaeda attack. The previous British warning (see July 16, 2001) was vague as to method, but this warning specifies multiple airplane hijackings. This warning is included in Bush's briefing on August 6. [Sunday Herald, 5/19/02]

CAYMAN ISLANDS, WARNING #2: Three al-Qaeda agents are part of a plot "organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines"

s3.amazonaws.com...

It's always Osama. Osama must either 1: feel good about all the attention or 2: thinking holy crap I would never have pulled that off.

reply to post by hooper

OK I'll bite.What difference does it make if a very thick steel piece,which is bent way beyond any cold work parameters by any reasonable standard,is from an I beam or another profile?The inner portion ought to have buckled and outside cracked regardless of shape,really.There is massive stretching,twinning and upsetting involved with working big iron.It's not silly putty.So?

Originally posted by trueforger
reply to post by hooper

 

OK I'll bite.What difference does it make if a very thick steel piece,which is bent way beyond any cold work parameters by any reasonable standard,is from an I beam or another profile?The inner portion ought to have buckled and outside cracked regardless of shape,really.There is massive stretching,twinning and upsetting involved with working big iron.It's not silly putty.So?

Well, the biggest problem I have is that all these people are making arguments based on fine technical points, accusing people of lying and murder, so something as simple as identfying a steel shape should be called out. If you don't know something as basic as steel shapes why should I believe or listen to anything else you have to say?

Just to play devil's advocate here.. since yes, I believe most "truthers" are crazy, even tho some actually ask some thought provoking questions..

Question is: Who is to say that what they crashed into was just office furniture. Could the real cover up be that there was something in the tower that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place or was there under some other conspiracy and through sheer supernaturally bad odds happened to have a plane fly into it? Some kind of lab, storage, etc?

posted by hooper
reply to post by SPreston

 

One thing - that "8 Ton WTC I-beam", well its not an I-beam. It looks more like a piece of tublar steel, or some other fabrication. But don't say it doesn't matter, because it does, very much.

Main Entry: tu·bu·lar
Pronunciation: \ˈtü-byə-lər, ˈtyü-\
Function: adjective
Date: 1673
1 a : having the form of or consisting of a tube b : made or provided with tubes
2 : of, relating to, or sounding as if produced through tubes

Oh really? You cannot even spell tubular. It doesn't look like any form of tubular steel I ever worked with. Those construction guys and welders seem to think it was an 8-ton I-beam with 6-inch thick steel legs. It went into Hanger 17 for display. Surely somebody moving the steel would know it weighed 8 tons or not.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ce6879eec4a1.jpg[/atsimg]

Hanger 17 at Kennedy International classifies these steel shapes as Core Columns.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2700fab6bcbe.jpg[/atsimg]

They look like box I-beams or box columns to me.

These engineers call them box columns and show how to cut them with thermate.

Use of Thermate explains the "Underground Fires"

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with this style of I-beam; or perhaps you are just getting desperate over the rapid self-destruction of your precious 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY.

Photos of Remains of the Twin Towers in Hanger 17



This 8-ton 6 inch thick steel I-beam was once straight, but is now curved into a horseshoe shape without stress cracks, by the intensive heat which formed the molten metal under the WTC.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/edf353238801.jpg[/atsimg]

Nice post, I only wish I could see articles like this everywhere. Maybe then we can move forward and punish the truly guilty. I served my country prouldly in the military before 911, but after? I was in Okinawa when it happened so the impact was different than if I was in the states. But one thing that did occur to me--as soon as it happened--was that the official story was BS. I still don't understand how anyone can buy that story, and then people come on here brandishing their shiny ignorance badges and using terms like conspiracy theorist or truthers. I hate that stuff, the truth is out there, if you are too afraid to face it and realize that you are being lied to, then get off of sites like this and turn on you MTV!

Im ashamed to call myself an american these days and associate myself with such people as Bush and Obama. Sucks too cuz I/We have sacrificed so much for this corporation--I mean country.

reply to post by SPreston


As we know the core beams decreased in size, largest at the bottom - smallest at the top, if the measurements can be calculated it gives a rough idea of which section of storeys the steels came from. How the hell can something that is vertical and shaped like I be turned into U, bearing in mind they are centre core steels and the only thing hitting the centre core on collapse was?.

It really does not make sense.

posted by Seventh
reply to post by SPreston

 

As we know the core beams decreased in size, largest at the bottom - smallest at the top, if the measurements can be calculated it gives a rough idea of which section of storeys the steels came from. How the hell can something that is vertical and shaped like I be turned into U, bearing in mind they are centre core steels and the only thing hitting the centre core on collapse was?.

It really does not make sense.

As I understand steel forms, this feature below determines the designation of I-beam or Box I-beam. Perhaps that designation is not used now in 2009.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2ec1e114da68.jpg[/atsimg]

There were 47 such box columns welded together forming a core structure over 1000 feet high in each tower. As you state, the box columns at the bottom were much heavier and stronger, having to support much more mass, than those higher up. These 47 box columns were embedded hundreds of feet into the bedrock below the 7 story basement levels.

reply to post by SPreston


So they are not I-Beams are they?

So exactly how does one go about cutting a vertically position column with thermite? Never mind - I know the answer - you don't.

Originally posted by Seventh
reply to post by SPreston

 

As we know the core beams decreased in size, largest at the bottom - smallest at the top, if the measurements can be calculated it gives a rough idea of which section of storeys the steels came from. How the hell can something that is vertical and shaped like I be turned into U, bearing in mind they are centre core steels and the only thing hitting the centre core on collapse was?.

It really does not make sense.

was? A couple million pounds of falling building.

posted by hooper
reply to post by SPreston

 

So they are not I-Beams are they?

So exactly how does one go about cutting a vertically position column with thermite? Never mind - I know the answer - you don't.

Do you read nothing which is presented for you?

Geeze this is like teaching pre-school.

post by SPreston

These engineers call them box columns and show how to cut them with thermate.

Use of Thermate explains the "Underground Fires"

reply to post by SPreston


Did those "engineers" teach you how to sneak into the WTC, make the thermite defy gravity, distribute about 500 tons of it and set it off all with no one seeing. Was that engineer named Blaine?

I've done more orgotherm welds then you've ever seen wise guy.

reply to post by hooper

Common sense ought to dictate,but unfortunately the normal observed rules of physics were suspended this day,doncha know?

Normally the difference between a thermate cut for demolition and one after the fall to clean up is that the 'felling cut' of thermate is a steep diagonal cut,sparing no expense to get the job DONE first time by slippage and a sidewise skew,which when combined with a counter twist by skewing oppositely above gets maximum instability with straight down fall.After,in emergency rescue or hazardous clean up,they will cut straight across,cause it's quicker and more stable to be right next to when it goes.The photos in the reel of the cleanup show torches,lances and possibly plasma cutters,not thermate.

Originally posted by redhead57
This is science here not conspiracy!

Originally posted by Mindmelding
where have you been the last 8 years? The proof is out there, and it's quite obvious. None of the main elements of 911 truth are really debateable

posted by hooper
reply to post by SPreston

 

I've done more orgotherm welds then you've ever seen wise guy.

So you claim you weld light guage railroad irons together?

Big deal. Or is it a model railroad you work on?

Originally posted by trueforger

'felling cut' of thermate is a steep diagonal cut,sparing no expense to get the job DONE first time by slippage and a sidewise skew

Steep diagonal cut eh?

Something like what we see on the core column in the background below?:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/96e411ee1edc.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by SPreston


Once again SPreston, spouting off nonsensical techno-jargon without having a clue as to what the heck he is saying.

There is no such thing as a steel box I-beam. Its either an I-beam, or a box beam. You cannot, repeat, cannot mix the two up.

For those truly interested in facts and truth, here is a steel box beam:
www.alibaba.com...

Here is an I-beam:
www.quality-fabrication.com...

Notice the key differences.

If someone cannot distinguish something as simple as identifying building materials like an I-beam and a Box-beam/box column, but still tries to pass off the disinfo that they are the same thing, is downright wrong. You cannot interchange the two and expect no one will notice.

second thing, how do you know that the piece discovered wasnt the result of being buried and corroded in the pile due to natural reasons found in the pile? There are numerous chemical reactions that have nothing to do with thermite that can create the same effects. how long was this piece in the pile? Was it dug up days later? weeks? Months? It matters because depending on the amount of time it was buried, it could have very well have corroded into this chunk thanks to corrosion, not thermite.

Also would you please explain how thermite is able to react for months? Once again SPreston, you have no clue what you are trying to argue about. Thermite does not react slowly for weeks. Also steel will not stay molten for weeks and months later from thermite. Once there is no reaction, it cools and hardens. Maybe you can direct me to the link where thousands of pounds of molten steel were found in the debris, as your little disinformation site claims to have happened. On second thought, don't bother. You can't. There was no thermite.