'What about building 7'?

[dadeets]

There was no melted steel. Can't you read and comprehend the report on the "swiss cheese" steel? It was corroded, to say otherwise is anti-intellectual claptrap.

The "swiss cheese" steel specimen was reported on in Appendix C "Limited Metallurgical Examination" in the FEMA Building Performance Report, and stated by the fire safety professors as coming from WTC 7. Their first concluding statement was, "The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation."

NIST, when they got around to studying WTC 7, chose to ignore the steel specimen. Furthermore, they stated repeatedly, "No Steel Was Recovered."

 

[jaydeehess]

The "swiss cheese" steel specimen was reported on in Appendix C "Limited Metallurgical Examination" in the FEMA Building Performance Report, and stated by the fire safety professors as coming from WTC 7. Their first concluding statement was, "The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation."

NIST, when they got around to studying WTC 7, chose to ignore the steel specimen. Furthermore, they stated repeatedly, "No Steel Was Recovered."

So? No expert ever described that sample as " melted" as it implies a process different that that of corrosion.
Second, there was no way to identify when this corrosion occurred, pre-911, during the the time when the structure was standing and burning, or in the fires of the rubble pile.
Third, this was not apparent as a widespread phenomena, nor was it part of a large column. Therefore it is very unlikely it had anything to do with initiation or progression of collapse.
Fourth, the no steel recovered, refers to the fact that the original location of steel members in the WTC 7 rubble was not possible. In the towers it was, due to permanent markings on many steel members there( though even the tower steel suffered from eradication of those markings by abrasion in the collapse or heat damage either in the standing burning structure, or in the rubble fires).
Fifth, the specious inclusion of " when NIST got around to" completely ignores the reasons given by NIST for considering that structure's collapse last. NO ONE died as a result of WTC7's demise! Therefore the concentration on the towers, specifically because one of NIST's tasks was to recommend ways to minimize deaths, I.e. regs on stairwells and fire suppression and passive fire measures.

 

[DGM]

The "swiss cheese" steel specimen was reported on in Appendix C "Limited Metallurgical Examination" in the FEMA Building Performance Report, and stated by the fire safety professors as coming from WTC 7. Their first concluding statement was, "The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation."

Good job! You quote how it didn't melt for proof of the fact steel didn't melt.

I bet you wonder why people don't take you seriously.

 

[beachnut]

The "swiss cheese" steel specimen was reported on in Appendix C "Limited Metallurgical Examination" ...

It appears 911 truth followers failed to read Appendix C, or failed to understand what it means.

What was the temperature of each sample, exposed to fire at what temperature. Did 911 truth followers read the Appendix, did 911 truth followers take Chem Eng 101? What did your NASA peers say about the claims you support? The lies you push.

 

[beachnut]

The "swiss cheese" steel specimen was reported on in Appendix C "Limited Metallurgical Examination" in the FEMA Building Performance Report, and stated by the fire safety professors as coming from WTC 7. Their first concluding statement was, "The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation."

NIST, when they got around to studying WTC 7, chose to ignore the steel specimen. Furthermore, they stated repeatedly, "No Steel Was Recovered."

Do you know the study states the temperature the steel was subjected to, and this is the study, not the "New Your Times" reporter making up BS, this is a study; you might be confused on the time line of melted steel, oops, study shows corrosion. The old vaporized steel is BS. Wait, you had vaporized steel in your car, near the battery, oops, ... corrosion. How did 911 truth fool you?

Appendix C is the study of steel, found to be corroded in temperatures at or below 1000 C. Means the steel was not melted, not blown up, not attacked by thermite. It burned in fires, corroded. Corrosion is not melting. Sorry; guess 911 truth experts forgot to take Chemical Engineering to understand what a eutectic is, cause 911 truth trying to make a point based on Appendix C corroded steel is anti-intellectual claptrap.

Wow, no steel was recovered means what? What is your point?
OOPS, you lied - steel was recovered, or are saying steel was recovred too?
What is your point?

OMG, steel.

What is your point, and how does it support the delusional fantasy of 911 truth? Is your fantasy silent explosives, or product free thermite. You see, no products from thermite were found at the WTC.

911 truth has BS, and 911 truth is in the 13th year of solid failure. 911 truth is the most anti-intellectual anti-government movement that spreads lies and mocks those fellow Americans murdered by 19 terrorists on 911. Happy fourth 911 truth followers, spread some more lies, feel good about it. 911 truth, all 911 truth claims based on ignorance.

911 truth, 13th year of fail - do I see 14? Infinity. 911 truth only product, fail, and disrespect.

 

[Redwood]

Back to the reason I revived this thread: If you look at the list of tenants in WTC 7, most of the floors were occupied by Salomon Bros. If you take as your starting point of analysis that the East Penthouse was brought down by destroying its support columns, most floors are ruled out, unless you think that a bunch of cubicle drones sat back idly as demolition crews pulled the insulation/covering off the structural columns in the middle of their work area and planted charges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_Seven_World_Trade_Center

The only possibilities would be the 25th floor, occupied by the IRS, DoD, and the CIA, or the 9th floor occupied by the Secret Service, or the 10th floor also occupied by the Secret Service, though part of that floor was also occupied by a British Bank.

Wouldn't those be the three floors to check out for signs of explosives or thermite? C'mon guys; it's been over a dozen years now! Stop dawdling and get down to work!

 

[beachnut]

... , unless you think that a bunch of cubicle drones sat back idly as demolition crews pulled the insulation/covering off the structural columns in the middle of their work area and planted charges.
... !

In 911 truth thinking is prohibited.

 

[pgimeno]

Fourth, the no steel recovered, refers to the fact that the original location of steel members in the WTC 7 rubble was not possible. In the towers it was, due to permanent markings on many steel members there( though even the tower steel suffered from eradication of those markings by abrasion in the collapse or heat damage either in the standing burning structure, or in the rubble fires).

I think that it actually refers to the fact that NIST didn't receive any steel from WTC 7 for their study.

It is actually quite evident when looking at point 5 in their reference [1] that NIST is referring to what came to their hands, thus making their accusation of a fraudulent claim by NIST adventurous, to use an euphemism:

5. 7.7.2 Mechanical Properties of WTC 7 Steel Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality. p. 114.
​

http://www.consensus911.org/point-wtc7-6/

 

[chrismohr]

The "swiss cheese" steel specimen was reported on in Appendix C "Limited Metallurgical Examination" in the FEMA Building Performance Report, and stated by the fire safety professors as coming from WTC 7. Their first concluding statement was, "The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation."

NIST, when they got around to studying WTC 7, chose to ignore the steel specimen. Furthermore, they stated repeatedly, "No Steel Was Recovered."

Dadeets,

That report was authored by Jonathan Barnett, who I have talked to personally about the whole sufidized steel question. You are right about this: " Their first concluding statement was, "The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation." " (BTW what does this have to do with melting steel in bulk quantities?)

No further study was done, as you said, so I asked Barnett if he thought that thermite could have done it, and if not, what are possible causes? No thermite, he said emphatically, and then he gave three possible causes: burning of gypsum walls, acid rain and battery acid. With one 9/11 Truth person, he lost patience with him and joked that it may have been caused by aliens. The Truther believed him and tokld me I should research this further with him!!!

I have repeatedly asked for responses from experts who are quoted by Richard Gage et al, and over and over again I find that they feel they have been misquoted, taken out of context, etc.

 

[dadeets]

I think that it actually refers to the fact that NIST didn't receive any steel from WTC 7 for their study.

What do you mean, "NIST didn't receive"? In 9/11 Consensus Point WTC7-6,

http://www.consensus911.org/point-wtc7-6/

There is a photo of NIST investigator Dr. John Gross examining the WTC7 steel in the scrap yard. Clearly, he chose not to "receive" it.

 

[dadeets]

5. Basically correct that their analysis was perhaps not a correct match to the real world. They imply lacked real world data and made it up (what they believed to be reasonable) to run the simulation.

JSanderO,

I'm quite surprised you are so nonchalant about this. They left out steel plate stiffeners and lateral support pieces at the critical point that would have prevented the failure they claimed happened.

To say they lacked real world data...they had the drawings! Why would they selectively leave out critical items that just so happened to allow their simulation to produce a collapse?

Read about the missing stiffeners and lateral support here:

http://www.consensus911.org/point-wtc7-5/

 

[DGM]

What do you mean, "NIST didn't receive"? In 9/11 Consensus Point WTC7-6,

http://www.consensus911.org/point-wtc7-6/

There is a photo of NIST investigator Dr. John Gross examining the WTC7 steel in the scrap yard. Clearly, he chose not to "receive" it.

Wrong. It's useless if you can't identify exactly where in the building it came from. You should know this, I doubt you care though, this truth does not fit your agenda.

 

[LSSBB]

JSanderO,

I'm quite surprised you are so nonchalant about this. They left out steel plate stiffeners and lateral support pieces at the critical point that would have prevented the failure they claimed happened.

To say they lacked real world data...they had the drawings! Why would they selectively leave out critical items that just so happened to allow their simulation to produce a collapse?

Read about the missing stiffeners and lateral support here:

http://www.consensus911.org/point-wtc7-5/

They simplified the model to find the likely collapse mode. they already knew the building would collapse, they weren't trying to show it couldn't collapse when all the evidence showed that it did.

By the way, I can't believe people still pull the "free fall" card, when there was no period of constant free fall acceleration, and free fall acceleration of the exterior is fully explainable by interior collapse leveraging the exterior by occurring first.

 

[Animal]

JSanderO,

I'm quite surprised you are so nonchalant about this. They left out steel plate stiffeners and lateral support pieces

And added others......so what?

at the critical point that would have prevented the failure they claimed happened.

A claim only made by troofers.......

To say they lacked real world data...they had the drawings!

Did they contain every actual torque of every bolt in the building? How about the exact strength of every weld? Every variation of steel strength in every piece of steel in the building? How about every change that took place? Exact loading of every floor as it existed on 9.11.2001? Etc.Etc. Etc.

THAT is real world data.

Why would they selectively leave out critical items that just so happened to allow their simulation to produce a collapse?

Free hint....the collapse happened......the study was to find the probable cause.

Only a few select troofers ignorant in computer modelling claim "critical" items were left out.

Read about the missing stiffeners and lateral support here:

http://www.consensus911.org/point-wtc7-5/

No need to "read" about them from another lame troofer site.

 

[ozeco41]

JSanderO,

I'm quite surprised you are so nonchalant about this. They left out steel plate stiffeners and lateral support pieces at the critical point that would have prevented the failure they claimed happened.

To say they lacked real world data...they had the drawings! Why would they selectively leave out critical items that just so happened to allow their simulation to produce a collapse?

Read about the missing stiffeners and lateral support here:

http://www.consensus911.org/point-wtc7-5/

We are aware of the claims.

Get yourself some advice from:
a) A competent engineer;
b) who is sympathetic to your core genuine concerns.

...I doubt that you will find a competent one who agrees with the technical nonsense but at least you will be informed as to why it is nonsense.

Your base problem as an advocate for AE911 is that the AE911 strategy "There was CD at WTC THEREFORE we want a new investigation..." is fatally flawed. A house of cards erected on a false foundation. And AFAIK the falseness of claims for CD was already evident to the truth movement when AE911 adopted the fatal strategy.

Put it in strategic perspective...

...the switch of truth movement focus to WTC7 was a delaying tactic and an admission of defeat.

Having lost the battle for CD at the Twin Towers despite the reliance on reversed burden of proof - WTC7 was an opportunity to pretend and drag out CD based claims despite the reality of no CD at WTC.

Why?

At WTC7 most data is hidden making the debunkers task under reversed burden several grades more difficult to disprove CD.

It never was "our" responsibility to "disprove".

So those are the two strategic failure points for AE911 and any sycophants viz:
1) Reliance on CD when there was no CD; AND
2) Reliance on reversed burden of proof when, even if there was further investigative process, it may get slight credence in forum discussions BUT the debating trick of reversing burden would not survive the first attempt to call on it in any formal process.

 

[DGM]

No need to "read" about them from another lame troofer site.

But, they need the site hits to PROVE they're relevant.

Notice I didn't say "still relevant". That would be a lie because they never have been.

 

[pgimeno]

What do you mean, "NIST didn't receive"? In 9/11 Consensus Point WTC7-6,

http://www.consensus911.org/point-wtc7-6/

There is a photo of NIST investigator Dr. John Gross examining the WTC7 steel in the scrap yard. Clearly, he chose not to "receive" it.

Who decided what steel to keep and which to dismiss? On what basis? When did NIST start collecting material, where/who did they get it from and what material was that? Remember the NCSTA^WP was not passed until October 2002. Until then, they had no authority to preserve evidence.

Without answers to these questions, I think that that point is a baseless accusation.

It's plausible that the people who decided what to preserve and what not, whoever these were, didn't think about preserving WTC steel for its pure metallurgical value (which is what NIST mostly complains about in the report), and dismissed it on the basis that it was not marked.

 

[Justin39640]

What do you mean, "NIST didn't receive"? In 9/11 Consensus Point WTC7-6,

http://www.consensus911.org/point-wtc7-6/

There is a photo of NIST investigator Dr. John Gross examining the WTC7 steel in the scrap yard. Clearly, he chose not to "receive" it.

The scrap yard investigations were murder investigations. Try to remember that in the context of 9/11. It's easy to understand why none of WTC7's steel was saved with everything factored in.

 

[ozeco41]

The scrap yard investigations were murder investigations. Try to remember that in the context of 9/11. It's easy to understand why none of WTC7's steel was saved with everything factored in.

Good point.

It is so easy to fall for the truther set trap of their false context.

In this example false in both the timings - NIST started long after the evidence collection was concluded - and focus.

And the purpose of NIST investigation was never gave priority to disproving idiotic clams for CD put by dishonest truther organisations.

 

[DGM]

In this example false in both the timings - NIST started long after the evidence collection was concluded - and focus.

I'm not so sure about this. I'm fairly sure NIST started their investigation on 9/12. Although un-official, they had people on site from the beginning. If they saw something suspicious, they would have reported it. Back to the "truthers", NIST did not report it because they were "in on it".

"Truthers" don't actually accuse anyone. They're just trying to "connect the dots" by "asking questions".