The NIST 9-11 Report on the WTC Collapse

[Montrovant]

What should be happening is a real investigation by a real prosecutor with real subpoena power who can call to the witness stand real experts who do know what temp steel melts at and at what temp jet fuel mixed with office furnishings burn.

What does melting steel temperatures have to do with jet fuel mixed with office furnishings have to do with anything?

There is no proof that temperatures reached 2,600F - 2,800F, enough to melt steel.

There is no analysis of the supposed melted steel to PROVE it was melted steel. Furthermore, as stated above, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere of temperatures needed to melt steel. That's proof enough that the melted steel claim is bogus.

Melted steel was not needed to fail the support structure. All that was needed was for the steel to be heated and for an increased load to be applied to that steel. That is enough to fail a structure.

Numerous items have been posted in this tread and elsewhere explaining fire proofing on steel and why they do it. There are explanations about fireproofing restrained versus unrestrained steel.

Yes what a terrible job NIST did ..they do not even have evidence of temperatures required to soften steel

although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

So, wait.....you guys are all over the place.

Is it your contention that it was not hot enough for the towers to collapse? Do you not subscribe to the molten steel idea, or do you think the steel melted after the collapse?

 

[Gamolon]

What does melting steel temperatures have to do with jet fuel mixed with office furnishings have to do with anything?

There is no proof that temperatures reached 2,600F - 2,800F, enough to melt steel.

There is no analysis of the supposed melted steel to PROVE it was melted steel. Furthermore, as stated above, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere of temperatures needed to melt steel. That's proof enough that the melted steel claim is bogus.

Melted steel was not needed to fail the support structure. All that was needed was for the steel to be heated and for an increased load to be applied to that steel. That is enough to fail a structure.

Numerous items have been posted in this tread and elsewhere explaining fire proofing on steel and why they do it. There are explanations about fireproofing restrained versus unrestrained steel.

Yes what a terrible job NIST did ..they do not even have evidence of temperatures required to soften steel

although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

So, wait.....you guys are all over the place.

Is it your contention that it was not hot enough for the towers to collapse? Do you not subscribe to the molten steel idea, or do you think the steel melted after the collapse?

Montrovant,

As you will notice, eots will never answer the question "At what temperature does steel start to weaken".

Excerpt from an article at Structural Material Behavior in Fire: Steel

Hot finished carbon steel begins to lose strength at temperatures above 300°C and reduces in strength at steady rate up to 800°C. The small residual strength then reduces more gradually until the melting temperature at around 1500°C. This behaviour is similar for hot rolled reinforcing steels. For cold worked steels including reinforcement, there is a more rapid decrease of strength after 300°C (Lawson & Newman 1990). In addition to the reduction of material strength and stiffness, steel displays a significant creep phenomena at temperatures over 450°C. The phenomena of creep results in an increase of deformation (strain) with time, even if the temperature and applied stress remain unchanged (Twilt 1988).

So steel starts to weaken at 572F and continues to loss it's strength up to 1472F.

According to the book, Performance-Based Fire Engineering of Structures, page 47, atypical office fire burns at around 1,200F and 1,300F.
Performance-Based Fire Engineering of Structures - Yong C. Wang, Ian Burgess, Franti Ek Wald, Martin Gillie - Google Books

 

[Gamolon]

What does melting steel temperatures have to do with jet fuel mixed with office furnishings have to do with anything?

There is no proof that temperatures reached 2,600F - 2,800F, enough to melt steel.

There is no analysis of the supposed melted steel to PROVE it was melted steel. Furthermore, as stated above, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere of temperatures needed to melt steel. That's proof enough that the melted steel claim is bogus.

Melted steel was not needed to fail the support structure. All that was needed was for the steel to be heated and for an increased load to be applied to that steel. That is enough to fail a structure.

Numerous items have been posted in this tread and elsewhere explaining fire proofing on steel and why they do it. There are explanations about fireproofing restrained versus unrestrained steel.

Yes what a terrible job NIST did ..they do not even have evidence of temperatures required to soften steel

although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

So, wait.....you guys are all over the place.

Is it your contention that it was not hot enough for the towers to collapse? Do you not subscribe to the molten steel idea, or do you think the steel melted after the collapse?

Another thing. Notice how eots contradicts himself by quoting Dr. Quintiere and claims that fire could not weaken steel yet this same person, Dr. Quintiere, says he believes the following in his conclusion.

An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses.

How can eots quote Dr. Quintiere and then make a claim that there were NOT temperatures in the fires hot enough to weaken steel, yet Dr. Quintiere believes there were based on his conclusion above.

Eots cherry picks arguments to suit his ill conceived claims. He's nothing more than a troll and that's why he is on my ignore list.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Yes what a terrible job NIST did ..they do not even have evidence of temperatures required to soften steel

although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

So, wait.....you guys are all over the place.

Is it your contention that it was not hot enough for the towers to collapse? Do you not subscribe to the molten steel idea, or do you think the steel melted after the collapse?

Montrovant,

As you will notice, eots will never answer the question "At what temperature does steel start to weaken".

Excerpt from an article at Structural Material Behavior in Fire: Steel

Hot finished carbon steel begins to lose strength at temperatures above 300°C and reduces in strength at steady rate up to 800°C. The small residual strength then reduces more gradually until the melting temperature at around 1500°C. This behaviour is similar for hot rolled reinforcing steels. For cold worked steels including reinforcement, there is a more rapid decrease of strength after 300°C (Lawson & Newman 1990). In addition to the reduction of material strength and stiffness, steel displays a significant creep phenomena at temperatures over 450°C. The phenomena of creep results in an increase of deformation (strain) with time, even if the temperature and applied stress remain unchanged (Twilt 1988).

So steel starts to weaken at 572F and continues to loss it's strength up to 1472F.

According to the book, Performance-Based Fire Engineering of Structures, page 47, atypical office fire burns at around 1,200F and 1,300F.
Performance-Based Fire Engineering of Structures - Yong C. Wang, Ian Burgess, Franti Ek Wald, Martin Gillie - Google Books

From the link that you failed to paste--
"High temperature creep is dependent on the stress level and heating rate."

"The occurrence of creep indicates that the stress and the temperature history have to be taken into account in estimating the strength and deformation behaviour of steel structures in fire."

"The thermal properties of steel at elevated temperatures are found to be dependent on temperature and are less influenced by the stress level and heating rate."


We have to consider what they say about the temps, the strength of the steel, the insulation, and if there was localized focused elevated temps to fail the steel, within a sufficient amount of time....
What does the NIST testing show us in relation to what this means?

You fail to consider that while steel does weaken, it regains some of its strength and integrity upon it cooling, and the wtc had transient fires and the steel was not subjected to
any localized intense heat, for sufficient amount of time that it would continue to cause it to lose its strength, and you fail to except that heated steel spreads heat along its connected members.

None of what you are trying to imply is supported by the NIST’s metallurgical analyses, which showed that not none of the 236 steel samples, that included those from the impact areas and fire damaged floors, showed any evidence of exposure to temps in excess of 1,110 Deg. F. for as long as 15 minutes.
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation p. 88.

Out of 170 areas examined on 16 recovered perimeter columns, only 3 of them reached temperatures in excess of 450 Deg. F. during the fires.
Sham Sunder, the lead NIST investigator, admitted, the jetfuel burned out in about 15 minutes.

And that the actual amount of combustibles on a typical floor of the WTC turned out to be less than what NIST expected, only about 4 lbs per sq. foot.and the “the fuel loading in the core areas....was negligible.”
Andy Field, “A Look Inside a Radical new Theory of the WTC Collapse,” Fire/Rescue News, February 7, 2004. Sunder made a similar statement during an October 19, 2004 presentation. See “World Trade Center Investigation Status,” S. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, NIST.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/agenda_oct192004.htm

NIST estimated that a fire in a typical area of the building would have burned through the available combustibles at maximum temperatures 1832 Deg. F. in about 15-20 minutes.
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation p. 127.
As the fire left this area and moved on, the affected steel would cool, thereby regaining some of its strength and integrity.

This time, and the fact that steel wicks away heat to its connected members, is not nearly as long as is needed even at that temperature to cause exposed steel to lose 80% of its strength, and NIST had no hard evidence about the actual amount of insulation that was dislodged by the plane impacts, and they say this right in their report.
NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation, Executive Summary, p. xli.

But even after saying this they still go on to assume that all structural steel at the time of impact suffered a 100% loss of insulation. That's really stretching it to make the worse case scenario, but still doesn't jive with their test results.

Again,what many of you continue to fail to consider is that the steel support structure of the WTC did not exists as some isolated components, and that these were not some controlled lab fires. The steel in each tower were part of an interconnected steel framework that weighed at least 200,000 tons.
Steel is known to be an excellent conductor of heat and this huge interconnected structure functioned as a huge heat sink. The total volume of the steel framework was massive in comparison with the small area of exposed steel, and would have transferred much the fire's heat and spread it around, to unaffected steel thus cooling the immediate effected areas.

Going by the steel samples that were recovered, only three recovered steel samples showed temps above 482 Deg. F. and is indicative that the steel was indeed behaving as a heat sink.

The low fuel load/combustibles and the short durations of both fire scenarios 56/and 104 minutes, combined with the testing results, indicate that any melting or weakening would have taken many hours, certainly much longer than the short time span of 56 minutes/104 minutes to slowly raise the temperature of the steel framework to the point of weakening/ melting the localized, exposed steel components.

A global collapse, by definition infers that all support columns must fail at once, this implies a more or less constant blaze across a wide area, but this was not the case in the towers.
As already mentioned NIST’s lead investigator, Sham Sunder, admitted that the jet fuel was consumed within minutes, and they found that the unexpectedly light combustibles in any given area of the towers were mostly consumed in about 15-20 minutes.
The fires in WTC 1 were transient.
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 126-127.

They flared up in a given area, reached a maximum intensity within about 10 minutes, then gradually died down as the fire front moved on to consume combustibles in other areas.
So, as the fires moved away from the impact zone to the areas with little or no damage to the fireproofing, the heating of the steel columns and trusses in those areas would have been minimal.
NIST’s own data showed that, the fires on floor 96, where the collapse began, reached its peak 30-45 minutes after the impact and waned thereafter.

Temperatures were actually cooling across most of floor 96, including the core, at the moment of the collapse, and if this is true, the central piers were not losing strength at that point but regaining it.
Steel actually regains its strength when it starts to cool, unlike some of you that try to insist that once it reaches it's point of weakness, it remains so.
NIST’s insistence that “temperatures and stresses were high in the core area” is not consistent with their findings that indicate that the fuel loads/combustibles in the core was negligible.
NIST NCSTAR 1-5, WTC Investigation, p. 121
The report contradicts itself on this point.

The NIST report fails to explain how these transient fires weakened WTC 1’s massive central piers and support structure in the allotted time span of 103 minutes for this tower, and triggered a global collapse.

The NIST report contradicts itself, and assumes that steel wont spread heat around, but will remain in a localized spot, all the while at the fail temps required to fail the steel, in such short durations of time...But then when reports of melted steel, and high temps that would substantiate their assumptions are brought to their attention, they ignore this instead of looking at this instance as an opportunity to help explain the above....But then
that would have forced them to open the door to there being a fuel load/combustible that was not present and not established by their findings wouldn't it?

BTW, there is no mention of any aluminum anywhere in the report either. Especially molten aluminum 70 feet below the ground in sub basements, near the centers of the buildings. Their findings do not substantiate their own hypothesis, and avoid how steel reacts to heat. Their fire testing does not substantiate their theory either, especially when their metallurgical findings are taken into account in which they found that not only were they wrong about the fuel loads/combustibles per sq. ft. were wrong, but they were surprised to find that the steel's integrity was above and beyond what they expected as well.

“The floors continued to support the full design load without collapse for over two hours.”
NIST NCSTAR 1, Executive Summary, p. xlvi.

Tests showed that the yield strengths of 87% of the perimeter/core columns, and all of the floor trusses samples, exceeded the original specifications by as much as 20%.
The yield strengths of many of the steels in the floor trusses were above 50 ksi, even when specifications required 36 ksi.”
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 67.

NIST performed similar tests on a number of recovered bolts, and found that these too were “much stronger than expected, based on reports from the contemporaneous literature.”
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 67.

None of the above findings support the NIST official explanation for the WTC collapse, and certainly refute the steel weakening in such short times with such low temps, and the steel remaining in a "weakened" state even after the fires spread to other parts and it had a chance to cool.

 

[SAYIT]

Yes what a terrible job NIST did ..they do not even have evidence of temperatures required to soften steel

although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

So, wait.....you guys are all over the place.

Is it your contention that it was not hot enough for the towers to collapse? Do you not subscribe to the molten steel idea, or do you think the steel melted after the collapse?

Another thing. Notice how eots contradicts himself by quoting Dr. Quintiere and claims that fire could not weaken steel yet this same person, Dr. Quintiere, says he believes the following in his conclusion.

An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses.

How can eots quote Dr. Quintiere and then make a claim that there were NOT temperatures in the fires hot enough to weaken steel, yet Dr. Quintiere believes there were based on his conclusion above.

Eots cherry picks arguments to suit his ill conceived claims. He's nothing more than a troll and that's why he is on my ignore list.

It's even worse than first thought. Today (ID)eots reached a new low when he changed the wording of an NIST answer from a Q&A session claiming the blast necessary to destroy the critical bldg 7 column and cause its failure would be only "as loud as a shot-gun blast or speakers at a rock concert..."
The actual answer was "This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert." The boy is clearly ready, willing and eager to lie for his "cause" and while I'm not one to block posters but I don't blame you for blocking that asshole.

 

[Mr. Jones]

So, wait.....you guys are all over the place.

Is it your contention that it was not hot enough for the towers to collapse? Do you not subscribe to the molten steel idea, or do you think the steel melted after the collapse?

Another thing. Notice how eots contradicts himself by quoting Dr. Quintiere and claims that fire could not weaken steel yet this same person, Dr. Quintiere, says he believes the following in his conclusion.

An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses.

How can eots quote Dr. Quintiere and then make a claim that there were NOT temperatures in the fires hot enough to weaken steel, yet Dr. Quintiere believes there were based on his conclusion above.

Eots cherry picks arguments to suit his ill conceived claims. He's nothing more than a troll and that's why he is on my ignore list.

It's even worse than first thought. Today (ID)eots reached a new low when he changed the wording of an NIST answer from a Q&A session claiming the blast necessary to destroy the critical bldg 7 column and cause its failure would be only "as loud as a shot-gun blast or speakers at a rock concert..."
The actual answer was "This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert." The boy is clearly ready, willing and eager to lie for his "cause" and while I'm not one to block posters but I don't blame you for blocking that asshole.

Link?

 

[SAYIT]

What does melting steel temperatures have to do with jet fuel mixed with office furnishings have to do with anything?

There is no proof that temperatures reached 2,600F - 2,800F, enough to melt steel.

There is no analysis of the supposed melted steel to PROVE it was melted steel. Furthermore, as stated above, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere of temperatures needed to melt steel. That's proof enough that the melted steel claim is bogus.

Melted steel was not needed to fail the support structure. All that was needed was for the steel to be heated and for an increased load to be applied to that steel. That is enough to fail a structure.

Numerous items have been posted in this tread and elsewhere explaining fire proofing on steel and why they do it. There are explanations about fireproofing restrained versus unrestrained steel.

Yes what a terrible job NIST did ..they do not even have evidence of temperatures required to soften steel

although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

So, wait.....you guys are all over the place.

Is it your contention that it was not hot enough for the towers to collapse? Do you not subscribe to the molten steel idea, or do you think the steel melted after the collapse?

The molten steel proponents have failed, despite repeated requests, to name any known substances which could have melted the steel beams on 9/11 and have continued to melt them weeks later as they contend was the case. Obviously it's back to the ol' CT drawing board.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Yes what a terrible job NIST did ..they do not even have evidence of temperatures required to soften steel

although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

So, wait.....you guys are all over the place.

Is it your contention that it was not hot enough for the towers to collapse? Do you not subscribe to the molten steel idea, or do you think the steel melted after the collapse?

Montrovant,

As you will notice, eots will never answer the question "At what temperature does steel start to weaken".

Excerpt from an article at Structural Material Behavior in Fire: Steel

Hot finished carbon steel begins to lose strength at temperatures above 300°C and reduces in strength at steady rate up to 800°C. The small residual strength then reduces more gradually until the melting temperature at around 1500°C. This behaviour is similar for hot rolled reinforcing steels. For cold worked steels including reinforcement, there is a more rapid decrease of strength after 300°C (Lawson & Newman 1990). In addition to the reduction of material strength and stiffness, steel displays a significant creep phenomena at temperatures over 450°C. The phenomena of creep results in an increase of deformation (strain) with time, even if the temperature and applied stress remain unchanged (Twilt 1988).

So steel starts to weaken at 572F and continues to loss it's strength up to 1472F.

According to the book, Performance-Based Fire Engineering of Structures, page 47, atypical office fire burns at around 1,200F and 1,300F.
Performance-Based Fire Engineering of Structures - Yong C. Wang, Ian Burgess, Franti Ek Wald, Martin Gillie - Google Books

Temps in a fire like your link says are dependent on what combustibles are available. Wood desks and chairs are better fuel for a fire then a metal one. NIST over estimated the fuel loads and in reality were only 4lbs per sq. ft.
Their testing of recovered steel showed lower temps, for shorter durations of time, and the steel results showed higher strength then expected. The fires were transient, and did not remain localized.
You aren't considering transient heat transfer either.
Steel regains some of its strength upon cooling. It is made under extreme heat is it not?
Is it not then allowed to cool?
Your view contradicts NIST own findings about the temps,the steel, the fuel loads, and fire durations. You leave out the properties of steel and want people to assume that the fires raged at elevated temps, enough time durations, and that steel doesn't transfer its heat to its connected members, while assuming 100% of the insulation was gone, and not proven.

 

[daws101]

So, wait.....you guys are all over the place.

Is it your contention that it was not hot enough for the towers to collapse? Do you not subscribe to the molten steel idea, or do you think the steel melted after the collapse?

Montrovant,

As you will notice, eots will never answer the question "At what temperature does steel start to weaken".

Excerpt from an article at Structural Material Behavior in Fire: Steel

Hot finished carbon steel begins to lose strength at temperatures above 300°C and reduces in strength at steady rate up to 800°C. The small residual strength then reduces more gradually until the melting temperature at around 1500°C. This behaviour is similar for hot rolled reinforcing steels. For cold worked steels including reinforcement, there is a more rapid decrease of strength after 300°C (Lawson & Newman 1990). In addition to the reduction of material strength and stiffness, steel displays a significant creep phenomena at temperatures over 450°C. The phenomena of creep results in an increase of deformation (strain) with time, even if the temperature and applied stress remain unchanged (Twilt 1988).

So steel starts to weaken at 572F and continues to loss it's strength up to 1472F.

According to the book, Performance-Based Fire Engineering of Structures, page 47, atypical office fire burns at around 1,200F and 1,300F.
Performance-Based Fire Engineering of Structures - Yong C. Wang, Ian Burgess, Franti Ek Wald, Martin Gillie - Google Books

From the link that you failed to paste--
"High temperature creep is dependent on the stress level and heating rate."

"The occurrence of creep indicates that the stress and the temperature history have to be taken into account in estimating the strength and deformation behaviour of steel structures in fire."

"The thermal properties of steel at elevated temperatures are found to be dependent on temperature and are less influenced by the stress level and heating rate."


We have to consider what they say about the temps, the strength of the steel, the insulation, and if there was localized focused elevated temps to fail the steel, within a sufficient amount of time....
What does the NIST testing show us in relation to what this means?

You fail to consider that while steel does weaken, it regains some of its strength and integrity upon it cooling, and the wtc had transient fires and the steel was not subjected to
any localized intense heat, for sufficient amount of time that it would continue to cause it to lose its strength, and you fail to except that heated steel spreads heat along its connected members.

None of what you are trying to imply is supported by the NIST’s metallurgical analyses, which showed that not none of the 236 steel samples, that included those from the impact areas and fire damaged floors, showed any evidence of exposure to temps in excess of 1,110 Deg. F. for as long as 15 minutes.
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation p. 88.

Out of 170 areas examined on 16 recovered perimeter columns, only 3 of them reached temperatures in excess of 450 Deg. F. during the fires.
Sham Sunder, the lead NIST investigator, admitted, the jetfuel burned out in about 15 minutes.

And that the actual amount of combustibles on a typical floor of the WTC turned out to be less than what NIST expected, only about 4 lbs per sq. foot.and the “the fuel loading in the core areas....was negligible.”
Andy Field, “A Look Inside a Radical new Theory of the WTC Collapse,” Fire/Rescue News, February 7, 2004. Sunder made a similar statement during an October 19, 2004 presentation. See “World Trade Center Investigation Status,” S. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, NIST.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/agenda_oct192004.htm

NIST estimated that a fire in a typical area of the building would have burned through the available combustibles at maximum temperatures 1832 Deg. F. in about 15-20 minutes.
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation p. 127.
As the fire left this area and moved on, the affected steel would cool, thereby regaining some of its strength and integrity.

This time, and the fact that steel wicks away heat to its connected members, is not nearly as long as is needed even at that temperature to cause exposed steel to lose 80% of its strength, and NIST had no hard evidence about the actual amount of insulation that was dislodged by the plane impacts, and they say this right in their report.
NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation, Executive Summary, p. xli.

But even after saying this they still go on to assume that all structural steel at the time of impact suffered a 100% loss of insulation. That's really stretching it to make the worse case scenario, but still doesn't jive with their test results.

Again,what many of you continue to fail to consider is that the steel support structure of the WTC did not exists as some isolated components, and that these were not some controlled lab fires. The steel in each tower were part of an interconnected steel framework that weighed at least 200,000 tons.
Steel is known to be an excellent conductor of heat and this huge interconnected structure functioned as a huge heat sink. The total volume of the steel framework was massive in comparison with the small area of exposed steel, and would have transferred much the fire's heat and spread it around, to unaffected steel thus cooling the immediate effected areas.

Going by the steel samples that were recovered, only three recovered steel samples showed temps above 482 Deg. F. and is indicative that the steel was indeed behaving as a heat sink.

The low fuel load/combustibles and the short durations of both fire scenarios 56/and 104 minutes, combined with the testing results, indicate that any melting or weakening would have taken many hours, certainly much longer than the short time span of 56 minutes/104 minutes to slowly raise the temperature of the steel framework to the point of weakening/ melting the localized, exposed steel components.

A global collapse, by definition infers that all support columns must fail at once, this implies a more or less constant blaze across a wide area, but this was not the case in the towers.
As already mentioned NIST’s lead investigator, Sham Sunder, admitted that the jet fuel was consumed within minutes, and they found that the unexpectedly light combustibles in any given area of the towers were mostly consumed in about 15-20 minutes.
The fires in WTC 1 were transient.
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 126-127.

They flared up in a given area, reached a maximum intensity within about 10 minutes, then gradually died down as the fire front moved on to consume combustibles in other areas.
So, as the fires moved away from the impact zone to the areas with little or no damage to the fireproofing, the heating of the steel columns and trusses in those areas would have been minimal.
NIST’s own data showed that, the fires on floor 96, where the collapse began, reached its peak 30-45 minutes after the impact and waned thereafter.

Temperatures were actually cooling across most of floor 96, including the core, at the moment of the collapse, and if this is true, the central piers were not losing strength at that point but regaining it.
Steel actually regains its strength when it starts to cool, unlike some of you that try to insist that once it reaches it's point of weakness, it remains so.
NIST’s insistence that “temperatures and stresses were high in the core area” is not consistent with their findings that indicate that the fuel loads/combustibles in the core was negligible.
NIST NCSTAR 1-5, WTC Investigation, p. 121
The report contradicts itself on this point.

The NIST report fails to explain how these transient fires weakened WTC 1’s massive central piers and support structure in the allotted time span of 103 minutes for this tower, and triggered a global collapse.

The NIST report contradicts itself, and assumes that steel wont spread heat around, but will remain in a localized spot, all the while at the fail temps required to fail the steel, in such short durations of time...But then when reports of melted steel, and high temps that would substantiate their assumptions are brought to their attention, they ignore this instead of looking at this instance as an opportunity to help explain the above....But then
that would have forced them to open the door to there being a fuel load/combustible that was not present and not established by their findings wouldn't it?

BTW, there is no mention of any aluminum anywhere in the report either. Especially molten aluminum 70 feet below the ground in sub basements, near the centers of the buildings. Their findings do not substantiate their own hypothesis, and avoid how steel reacts to heat. Their fire testing does not substantiate their theory either, especially when their metallurgical findings are taken into account in which they found that not only were they wrong about the fuel loads/combustibles per sq. ft. were wrong, but they were surprised to find that the steel's integrity was above and beyond what they expected as well.

“The floors continued to support the full design load without collapse for over two hours.”
NIST NCSTAR 1, Executive Summary, p. xlvi.

Tests showed that the yield strengths of 87% of the perimeter/core columns, and all of the floor trusses samples, exceeded the original specifications by as much as 20%.
The yield strengths of many of the steels in the floor trusses were above 50 ksi, even when specifications required 36 ksi.”
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 67.

NIST performed similar tests on a number of recovered bolts, and found that these too were “much stronger than expected, based on reports from the contemporaneous literature.”
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 67.

None of the above findings support the NIST official explanation for the WTC collapse, and certainly refute the steel weakening in such short times with such low temps, and the steel remaining in a "weakened" state even after the fires spread to other parts and it had a chance to cool.

none of this confirms what the molten blobs were made of.
or your theory of thermite or the rigging of any accelerants.

 

[SAYIT]

Another thing. Notice how eots contradicts himself by quoting Dr. Quintiere and claims that fire could not weaken steel yet this same person, Dr. Quintiere, says he believes the following in his conclusion.


How can eots quote Dr. Quintiere and then make a claim that there were NOT temperatures in the fires hot enough to weaken steel, yet Dr. Quintiere believes there were based on his conclusion above.

Eots cherry picks arguments to suit his ill conceived claims. He's nothing more than a troll and that's why he is on my ignore list.

It's even worse than first thought. Today (ID)eots reached a new low when he changed the wording of an NIST answer from a Q&A session claiming the blast necessary to destroy the critical bldg 7 column and cause its failure would be only "as loud as a shot-gun blast or speakers at a rock concert..."
The actual answer was "This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert." The boy is clearly ready, willing and eager to lie for his "cause" and while I'm not one to block posters but I don't blame you for blocking that asshole.

Link?

Interesting. I notice you required none of (ID)eots who posted the NIST response in an altered state (and without a link) but do of me who not only busted the lying slug but included this link with that post:
Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth » Blog Archive » Explosion Witnesses
In response to having his lying ass exposed for all to see he then posted the unaltered version (which matched the version I posted) and included another link:
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation
Care to comment on (ID)eots' lying?

 

[Mr. Jones]

Yes what a terrible job NIST did ..they do not even have evidence of temperatures required to soften steel

although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

So, wait.....you guys are all over the place.

Is it your contention that it was not hot enough for the towers to collapse? Do you not subscribe to the molten steel idea, or do you think the steel melted after the collapse?

The molten steel proponents have failed, despite repeated requests, to name any known substances which could have melted the steel beams on 9/11 and have continued to melt them weeks later as they contend was the case. Obviously it's back to the ol' CT drawing board.

Oh so you want to say there was no molten steel, simply because no one has guessed what could have made it molten?
So you just want to dismiss all that has been said, reported, linked, and basically all the evidence that support the claims because of this stupid reason?
Fuck off...The case for the probability it was indeed molten steel,is too strong for any rational person to dismiss, and you certainly haven't provided anything to deter it.
Again you shit for brains idiot....the point regarding all of this is that this instance was too important for NIST to simply disregard. Why even you seem curious as to what could have possibly caused it, and kept it in a molten state, as well as the stubbornly persistent fires, with confirmed high heat.
Again you try to confirm that which you failed to provide an adequate case for, and because NIST didn't do its job properly, think you can scream "see no proof"?
Get lost you fucking asshole.

 

[daws101]

So, wait.....you guys are all over the place.

Is it your contention that it was not hot enough for the towers to collapse? Do you not subscribe to the molten steel idea, or do you think the steel melted after the collapse?

The molten steel proponents have failed, despite repeated requests, to name any known substances which could have melted the steel beams on 9/11 and have continued to melt them weeks later as they contend was the case. Obviously it's back to the ol' CT drawing board.

Oh so you want to say there was no molten steel, simply because no one has guessed what could have made it molten?
So you just want to dismiss all that has been said, reported, linked, and basically all the evidence that support the claims because of this stupid reason?
Fuck off...The case for the probability it was indeed molten steel,is too strong for any rational person to dismiss, and you certainly haven't provided anything to deter it.
Again you shit for brains idiot....the point regarding all of this is that this instance was too important for NIST to simply disregard. Why even you seem curious as to what could have possibly caused it, and kept it in a molten state, as well as the stubbornly persistent fires, with confirmed high heat.
Again you try to confirm that which you failed to provide an adequate case for, and because NIST didn't do its job properly, think you can scream "see no proof"?
Get lost you fucking asshole.

no one has dismissed anything, you presented what you believe to be smoking gun evidence, the trouble is, it's far more speculative and a lot less probable then the nist report.
IMO what truly pisses you off is none of the people you're trying to convince are crying out hallelujah sister jones and falling on their knees in gratitude.
it never occurs to guys like you that you are working from false and unprovable premise.
total hubris.

 

[eots]

What does melting steel temperatures have to do with jet fuel mixed with office furnishings have to do with anything?

There is no proof that temperatures reached 2,600F - 2,800F, enough to melt steel.

There is no analysis of the supposed melted steel to PROVE it was melted steel. Furthermore, as stated above, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere of temperatures needed to melt steel. That's proof enough that the melted steel claim is bogus.

Melted steel was not needed to fail the support structure. All that was needed was for the steel to be heated and for an increased load to be applied to that steel. That is enough to fail a structure.

Numerous items have been posted in this tread and elsewhere explaining fire proofing on steel and why they do it. There are explanations about fireproofing restrained versus unrestrained steel.

Yes what a terrible job NIST did ..they do not even have evidence of temperatures required to soften steel

although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

So, wait.....you guys are all over the place.

Is it your contention that it was not hot enough for the towers to collapse? Do you not subscribe to the molten steel idea, or do you think the steel melted after the collapse?

Its not an opinion ..the steel saved showed nowhere near the temperatures required to soften steel ...however the evidence sent for destruction in china I believe would of showed temperatures far in excess of temperatures possible from fires and thats why it was disposed of...easier for NIST to explain the lack of evidence than acknowledge these excessive temperatures and this is why it was it was destroyed...

 

[eots]

It's even worse than first thought. Today (ID)eots reached a new low when he changed the wording of an NIST answer from a Q&A session claiming the blast necessary to destroy the critical bldg 7 column and cause its failure would be only "as loud as a shot-gun blast or speakers at a rock concert..."
The actual answer was "This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert." The boy is clearly ready, willing and eager to lie for his "cause" and while I'm not one to block posters but I don't blame you for blocking that asshole.

Link?

Interesting. I notice you required none of (ID)eots who posted the NIST response in an altered state (and without a link) but do of me who not only busted the lying slug but included this link with that post:
Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth » Blog Archive » Explosion Witnesses
In response to having his lying ass exposed for all to see he then posted the unaltered version (which matched the version I posted) and included another link:
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation
Care to comment on (ID)eots' lying?

its you that posted it altered fucking dip-shit

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.



Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

 

[SAYIT]

So, wait.....you guys are all over the place.

Is it your contention that it was not hot enough for the towers to collapse? Do you not subscribe to the molten steel idea, or do you think the steel melted after the collapse?

The molten steel proponents have failed, despite repeated requests, to name any known substances which could have melted the steel beams on 9/11 and have continued to melt them weeks later as they contend was the case. Obviously it's back to the ol' CT drawing board.

Oh so you want to say there was no molten steel, simply because no one has guessed what could have made it molten?
So you just want to dismiss all that has been said, reported, linked, and basically all the evidence that support the claims because of this stupid reason?
Fuck off...

That's a whole lotta huffin' and puffin' and yet absolutely no attempt to explain what melted the steel or kept melting it for weeks. None of what was said was based on fact as no one even tested the temp of those molten mats. No one.


The case for the probability it was indeed molten steel,is too strong for any rational person to dismiss, and you certainly haven't provided anything to deter it.

Your "case" has a hole big enough to fly a 767 through it. You buy it because it's the only way your CT still has any life but you have no proof ... just speculation.

Again you shit for brains idiot....the point regarding all of this is that this instance was too important for NIST to simply disregard. Why even you seem curious as to what could have possibly caused it, and kept it in a molten state, as well as the stubbornly persistent fires, with confirmed high heat.

What "confirmed high heat?" Hot enough to melt steel? Proof? If not you are just flappin' your gums, Princess.

Again you try to confirm that which you failed to provide an adequate case for, and because NIST didn't do its job properly, think you can scream "see no proof"?
Get lost you fucking asshole.

I'll accept that as your concession speech, Princess. You are clearly in this waaaay over your pinhead.

 

[SAYIT]

Yes what a terrible job NIST did ..they do not even have evidence of temperatures required to soften steel

although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

So, wait.....you guys are all over the place.

Is it your contention that it was not hot enough for the towers to collapse? Do you not subscribe to the molten steel idea, or do you think the steel melted after the collapse?

Its not an opinion ..the steel saved showed nowhere near the temperatures required to soften steel ...however the evidence sent for destruction in china I believe would of showed temperatures far in excess of temperatures possible from fires and thats why it was disposed of...easier for NIST to explain the lack of evidence than acknowledge these excessive temperatures and this is why it was it was destroyed...

Yeah ... we're gonna need a credible link for your CTBS, Princess. As you so clearly demonstrated today, you're eager to play fast and loose with the truth.

 

[SAYIT]

Link?

Interesting. I notice you required none of (ID)eots who posted the NIST response in an altered state (and without a link) but do of me who not only busted the lying slug but included this link with that post:
Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth » Blog Archive » Explosion Witnesses
In response to having his lying ass exposed for all to see he then posted the unaltered version (which matched the version I posted) and included another link:
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation
Care to comment on (ID)eots' lying?

its you that posted it altered fucking dip-shit

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

Uh-huh.
Now compare that with your original, altered version of the NIST statement which started this discourse and which you even contained in quotes:
"as loud as a shot-gun blast or speakers at a rock concert..."
You not only conveniently "forgot" to provide a link, you failed to include the part about "10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert."
You can wiggle and squirm all you like Princess, but the truth is there for all to see and I will not be letting you off the hook.
Your original post (#132 of this thread):
"according to NIST it would be.."as loud as a shot-gun blast or speakers at a rock concert...but hey what does NIST know,,,right ??
http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...eve-the-official-911-story-9.html#post6973517

 

[wihosa]

What should be happening is a real investigation by a real prosecutor with real subpoena power who can call to the witness stand real experts who do know what temp steel melts at and at what temp jet fuel mixed with office furnishings burn.

What does melting steel temperatures have to do with jet fuel mixed with office furnishings have to do with anything?

There is no proof that temperatures reached 2,600F - 2,800F, enough to melt steel.

There is no analysis of the supposed melted steel to PROVE it was melted steel. Furthermore, as stated above, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere of temperatures needed to melt steel. That's proof enough that the melted steel claim is bogus.

Melted steel was not needed to fail the support structure. All that was needed was for the steel to be heated and for an increased load to be applied to that steel. That is enough to fail a structure.

Numerous items have been posted in this tread and elsewhere explaining fire proofing on steel and why they do it. There are explanations about fireproofing restrained versus unrestrained steel.

In Wilhosa's defense, despite having been a member here for 5 years he/she is evidently new to the 9/11 CT Movement and is bursting with newbie exuberance. Just three days ago in a "teaching" moment he/she posted; "OK, number one. Did you know that a third office tower in New York collapsed entirely into its own footprint on 911? Many hours (I think it was like at five or six o'clock) building 7 a 47story modern steel frame office tower collapsed."
To most here and to most in America this is not hot news yet the post leads me to believe Wilhosa either just found that out or is pompous enough to think others here just don't have the "knowledge" that he/she does. Not exactly the brightest bulb on the tree but apparently ready for the ridicule he/she is certain is forthcoming.

I don't need you to defend me. I don't spend all my free time posting here, I have a business to run and a family to support. It is not exuberance, just applied common sense. I didn't read everything that has been said, I don't have the time, so I laid down the premise for my argument and that is that something that is unprecedented is worthy of examination and extraordinary claims (NIST's assertion as to the collapse of building 7) need extraordinary proof. That has not been provided.

We need a real investigation!

 

[eots]

SAYIT I'm guessing it would have to have been a fucking large explosive (like a Hiroshima nuke) and if that building was so structurally vunerable why do you doubt the rest of the NIST report on 7's collapse?

eots
according to NIST it would be.."as loud as a shot-gun blast or speakers at a rock concert...but hey what does NIST know,,,right ??

It was not an altered version you ninny..it was my response from memory to your crazy comment about Hiroshima nukes and contradicting the NIST collapse theory ..once again .. NIST determined that the building was not structurally vulnerable and the failure of that single column under any circumstance would have resulted in initiation of the collapse sequence...you know.. NIST...the theory you claim to support ?...

 

[Mr. Jones]

Montrovant,

As you will notice, eots will never answer the question "At what temperature does steel start to weaken".

Excerpt from an article at Structural Material Behavior in Fire: Steel


So steel starts to weaken at 572F and continues to loss it's strength up to 1472F.

According to the book, Performance-Based Fire Engineering of Structures, page 47, atypical office fire burns at around 1,200F and 1,300F.
Performance-Based Fire Engineering of Structures - Yong C. Wang, Ian Burgess, Franti Ek Wald, Martin Gillie - Google Books

From the link that you failed to paste--
"High temperature creep is dependent on the stress level and heating rate."

"The occurrence of creep indicates that the stress and the temperature history have to be taken into account in estimating the strength and deformation behaviour of steel structures in fire."

"The thermal properties of steel at elevated temperatures are found to be dependent on temperature and are less influenced by the stress level and heating rate."


We have to consider what they say about the temps, the strength of the steel, the insulation, and if there was localized focused elevated temps to fail the steel, within a sufficient amount of time....
What does the NIST testing show us in relation to what this means?

You fail to consider that while steel does weaken, it regains some of its strength and integrity upon it cooling, and the wtc had transient fires and the steel was not subjected to
any localized intense heat, for sufficient amount of time that it would continue to cause it to lose its strength, and you fail to except that heated steel spreads heat along its connected members.

None of what you are trying to imply is supported by the NIST’s metallurgical analyses, which showed that not none of the 236 steel samples, that included those from the impact areas and fire damaged floors, showed any evidence of exposure to temps in excess of 1,110 Deg. F. for as long as 15 minutes.
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation p. 88.

Out of 170 areas examined on 16 recovered perimeter columns, only 3 of them reached temperatures in excess of 450 Deg. F. during the fires.
Sham Sunder, the lead NIST investigator, admitted, the jetfuel burned out in about 15 minutes.

And that the actual amount of combustibles on a typical floor of the WTC turned out to be less than what NIST expected, only about 4 lbs per sq. foot.and the “the fuel loading in the core areas....was negligible.”
Andy Field, “A Look Inside a Radical new Theory of the WTC Collapse,” Fire/Rescue News, February 7, 2004. Sunder made a similar statement during an October 19, 2004 presentation. See “World Trade Center Investigation Status,” S. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, NIST.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/agenda_oct192004.htm

NIST estimated that a fire in a typical area of the building would have burned through the available combustibles at maximum temperatures 1832 Deg. F. in about 15-20 minutes.
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation p. 127.
As the fire left this area and moved on, the affected steel would cool, thereby regaining some of its strength and integrity.

This time, and the fact that steel wicks away heat to its connected members, is not nearly as long as is needed even at that temperature to cause exposed steel to lose 80% of its strength, and NIST had no hard evidence about the actual amount of insulation that was dislodged by the plane impacts, and they say this right in their report.
NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation, Executive Summary, p. xli.

But even after saying this they still go on to assume that all structural steel at the time of impact suffered a 100% loss of insulation. That's really stretching it to make the worse case scenario, but still doesn't jive with their test results.

Again,what many of you continue to fail to consider is that the steel support structure of the WTC did not exists as some isolated components, and that these were not some controlled lab fires. The steel in each tower were part of an interconnected steel framework that weighed at least 200,000 tons.
Steel is known to be an excellent conductor of heat and this huge interconnected structure functioned as a huge heat sink. The total volume of the steel framework was massive in comparison with the small area of exposed steel, and would have transferred much the fire's heat and spread it around, to unaffected steel thus cooling the immediate effected areas.

Going by the steel samples that were recovered, only three recovered steel samples showed temps above 482 Deg. F. and is indicative that the steel was indeed behaving as a heat sink.

The low fuel load/combustibles and the short durations of both fire scenarios 56/and 104 minutes, combined with the testing results, indicate that any melting or weakening would have taken many hours, certainly much longer than the short time span of 56 minutes/104 minutes to slowly raise the temperature of the steel framework to the point of weakening/ melting the localized, exposed steel components.

A global collapse, by definition infers that all support columns must fail at once, this implies a more or less constant blaze across a wide area, but this was not the case in the towers.
As already mentioned NIST’s lead investigator, Sham Sunder, admitted that the jet fuel was consumed within minutes, and they found that the unexpectedly light combustibles in any given area of the towers were mostly consumed in about 15-20 minutes.
The fires in WTC 1 were transient.
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 126-127.

They flared up in a given area, reached a maximum intensity within about 10 minutes, then gradually died down as the fire front moved on to consume combustibles in other areas.
So, as the fires moved away from the impact zone to the areas with little or no damage to the fireproofing, the heating of the steel columns and trusses in those areas would have been minimal.
NIST’s own data showed that, the fires on floor 96, where the collapse began, reached its peak 30-45 minutes after the impact and waned thereafter.

Temperatures were actually cooling across most of floor 96, including the core, at the moment of the collapse, and if this is true, the central piers were not losing strength at that point but regaining it.
Steel actually regains its strength when it starts to cool, unlike some of you that try to insist that once it reaches it's point of weakness, it remains so.
NIST’s insistence that “temperatures and stresses were high in the core area” is not consistent with their findings that indicate that the fuel loads/combustibles in the core was negligible.
NIST NCSTAR 1-5, WTC Investigation, p. 121
The report contradicts itself on this point.

The NIST report fails to explain how these transient fires weakened WTC 1’s massive central piers and support structure in the allotted time span of 103 minutes for this tower, and triggered a global collapse.

The NIST report contradicts itself, and assumes that steel wont spread heat around, but will remain in a localized spot, all the while at the fail temps required to fail the steel, in such short durations of time...But then when reports of melted steel, and high temps that would substantiate their assumptions are brought to their attention, they ignore this instead of looking at this instance as an opportunity to help explain the above....But then
that would have forced them to open the door to there being a fuel load/combustible that was not present and not established by their findings wouldn't it?

BTW, there is no mention of any aluminum anywhere in the report either. Especially molten aluminum 70 feet below the ground in sub basements, near the centers of the buildings. Their findings do not substantiate their own hypothesis, and avoid how steel reacts to heat. Their fire testing does not substantiate their theory either, especially when their metallurgical findings are taken into account in which they found that not only were they wrong about the fuel loads/combustibles per sq. ft. were wrong, but they were surprised to find that the steel's integrity was above and beyond what they expected as well.

“The floors continued to support the full design load without collapse for over two hours.”
NIST NCSTAR 1, Executive Summary, p. xlvi.

Tests showed that the yield strengths of 87% of the perimeter/core columns, and all of the floor trusses samples, exceeded the original specifications by as much as 20%.
The yield strengths of many of the steels in the floor trusses were above 50 ksi, even when specifications required 36 ksi.”
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 67.

NIST performed similar tests on a number of recovered bolts, and found that these too were “much stronger than expected, based on reports from the contemporaneous literature.”
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 67.

None of the above findings support the NIST official explanation for the WTC collapse, and certainly refute the steel weakening in such short times with such low temps, and the steel remaining in a "weakened" state even after the fires spread to other parts and it had a chance to cool.

none of this confirms what the molten blobs were made of.
or your theory of thermite or the rigging of any accelerants.

Try to keep up dawgshit....I am obviously talking about other instances that don't support NIST....Since no one has presented any reasonable case for it probably being aluminum, and can't refute what I noted about the steel vs aluminum, I am moving on to other aspects of the investigation and report..