The NIST 9-11 Report on the WTC Collapse

[daws101]

It goes further than that. The idiots here want to claim thermite fueled the fires within the debris pile to create molten steel found weeks (or longer) after the actual collapse.

They claim that people can tell the difference between molten steel, molten aluminum, or other molten substances.

So if nobody saw anything but molten steel in the debris pile, why didn't anyone see molten aluminum oxide? There had to have been a lot a thermite in the pile to keep the temperatures at 2800 F and produce molten steel for weeks. What about elemental iron? None of these "experts in visual identification of molten substances" reported that either, yet it is also a byproduct of a thermite reaction.

[ame=http://youtu.be/s4XXZ9G3gik]Thermite at Ground Zero? - YouTube[/ame]


Here's a Debunking911 Fun Fact!


How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window:


A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe


One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.

Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.

That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.

Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:

Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.

To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.


Example:

Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.

Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft.

*Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum.

Density of metals

The weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds. A hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs. A gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window. Look at them relative to the window size. They look small at first, but when you realize how big the towers were, the slugs were fairly large. It must have been in the thousands of pounds.

Some of the video stills show what look like 50 to 100 slugs in just one frame.




The thermite wouldn't have only needed to make a clean cut like the photo above, it would have also needed to cut sideways. Not an easy feat for thermite. You see, it's a powder which burns chaotically. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work to cut a vertical column. You can direct it with a canister but that method wouldn't work to cut a column. The canister only makes a small hole. Nano-thermite has been talked about but its uses fall far short of cutting these massive columns. It's in its research stage. They include possible uses for welding molecular devices and possible use as a heat signature flare decoy. Then there is a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet, there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work? Even if it did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. Once again the answer to this from the "scholars" is "rationalized technology". They need this technology to exist so it exists. There is some secret super thermite which can be placed in a canister which can survive 1,100 degree C so the primary charge doesn't go off. "Gee debunking, you're so dumb."
Thermite and Sulfer- Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition

Nothing but a prime example of what has been already debunked as utter BS, coming from someone who doesn't know the first thing about any of this topic, or cares to teach himself...Face it you fucking idiot...you are a miserable failure who can't even distinguish real facts from your strawman sites...

yes sister jones yammer to your hearts content. only problem is it's not been debunked. you and your twoofer friends saying it is,is not credible.
if your ravings were even partially fact then it would be obvious and could not be covered up.

 

[daws101]

I remember that someone once posted a picture here os a beam that was "melted", when actually it was obviously cut by a cutting torch. Probably any molton steel found in the debris was there because of the torches used to remove the steel/rescue survivors/increase safety.

you mean these?

I don't see the tons of aluminum or car parts that you idiots kept yammering on about...

once again sister jones is lying. I never said anything about cars parts. If you're so right why the compulsion to lie?

 

[Mr. Jones]

It might be true that the temperatures that the fires achieved was 1000 degrees less than what is needed to melt steel, but the steel did not need to be liquid to fail. With the amount of weight on the columns, heating them to 1800 degrees is enough to cause them to warp and fail.

but there is mo evidence of these temperatures exsisting in the steel tested

link!

Done already, try to keep up, it's in the NIST report that you are supposed to know about since you are here trying to defend its credibility, one would think you'd have easy assess to your own copy...Besides you really only care about being argumentative anyway, and have no real desire at being serious or honest in these topics....I wonder what you could possibly be 'designing" as a "designer" that gives you so much free time to 'work" this message board....
The NIST report is a cover up...the evidence is obvious, and you are a delusional troll who has no life, and appears to have a very low IQ, who makes up fanciful lies to make up for his mental and social deficiencies.. Go ahead and ask ME for the links I have saved from your stupid postings to prove this to everyone....

 

[daws101]

I remember that someone once posted a picture here os a beam that was "melted", when actually it was obviously cut by a cutting torch. Probably any molton steel found in the debris was there because of the torches used to remove the steel/rescue survivors/increase safety.

you mean these?

I don't see the tons of aluminum or car parts that you idiots kept yammering on about...

number#3 photo most all of the smallish debris is aluminum.
so either you're blind or in denial .

 

[PredFan]

I'll respond to this despite your undeserved insult attack.

And as has been explained to you willfully ignorant idiots, the fires in the WTC (all 3 of them) had transient fires. NIST even admits this, and therefore if you really know anything about fires effects on steel, you wouldn't purposefully leave out the fact that if a fire consumes any combustibles, and moves on to feed elsewhere, the effected steel regains much of its strength during this cooling period.
You fucks ignore this on purpose to make others think that once steel is weakened by elevated temps (that NIST has not proven even existed) the steel remains in a permanent weakened state!!

That is not what I'm saying at all. The fires didn't "move on" because the heat from the massive amount of fire kept the steel hot throughout the building. All it took was enough heat to begin the collapse and the pancake effect took the rest of the towers down.

Steel is made with very high temps, and is strengthened AFTER it is cool..This is just another example of the dishonest attempts by you fucks that are here to only misinform others, and you other idiots that actually agree with your "there you have its" are a sorry, stupid, lazy bunch that only wish to have something, even if it's a lie, to further your insane OCT delusion...STFU, and quit hugging each others nutsacks, and do your own research about what is being said instead, you pathetic fucking whack jobs..

Apparently there is a whole lot that YOU do not know. I have done the research, I do know about the properties of steel AND construction. That's why I don't swallow the CTs.

You fucks only want others to depend on "does the NIST report say....?"
And rely on other fucks in your circle of disinformation trolls say, without having to really interpret what it actually is saying and how it contradicts itself!!

I asked that question because if the NIST's report said that then it would be one more mistake that they made. You really should read and understand the posts you're railing on before you open your mouth and insert your foot.

A prime example of this is evident in the facts I have posted in this thread about the molten pools of steel are seen in the rubble of the WTC buildings, including WTC 7.
BUT, jet fuel and normal fires are incapable of melting steel.
Indeed, NIST claims that “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the [jet fuel] fires.”
Therefore, logic and honest, rational thinking, dictates that something else melted the steel. However...since NIST purposefully ignores this (and other evidence) the same logic
must be applied when others rightly accuse NIST of deceitful investigation tactics, and call BS when they analyze their subsequent reports...

Again, just because the NIST's report doesn't explain the "pools of molten steel" it by no means validates a theory that the towers were rigged. You cannot prove your point by simply poking holes in the NIST report.

Scientific Method= Start with the facts and then use them to reach an argument or thesis.
Political (NIST) Method= Start with a thesis and then examine only the facts that confirm the argument. This is exactly what you lying fucks do as well, and it is obvious....and you stoop to incredibly lowdown levels to try to do it too....Aluminum car parts...blaming GZ workers for "not testing" shit...and totally trying to misinform about the transient fires and the cooling and hence re-strengthening of any affected steel....

Your scientific method contains some very serious assumptions. The assumption that the fires blazed and then went out as they moved along being the major one here.

The Scientific method is significantly more credible as it does not ignore evidence and every detail must be considered. If there is contradictory evidence, a thesis must be rejected in favor of a new thesis which follows all of the given evidence. In contrast, the political method often attempts to preserve its thesis even in the face of contradicting evidence, and you fucks continue to ignore the contradicting evidence and continue to make fools out of yourselves in the process....

Some things will never be known. Since the actual events cannot be repeated then the true scientific method cannot be applied. One cannot form a theory, and test it, modify the theory and test it again. So far neither you nor any of your counterparts have ever been able to support YOUR theories, you can only poke holes in the NIST's theory. We saw the planes hit, we saw the buildings fall. The NIST's report fits most of the facts, it is most likely as close to the truth as we will ever get. You have a different opinion then prove your case. You cannot prove YOUR case by attacking the NIST's report.

Once again you fucking anti American and anti-truth shrills are exposed as the lying, dishonest, deceitful fucks that you really are.

Only in your mind. Not in reality.

 

[daws101]

but there is mo evidence of these temperatures exsisting in the steel tested

link!

Done already, try to keep up, it's in the NIST report that you are supposed to know about since you are here trying to defend its credibility, one would think you'd have easy assess to your own copy...Besides you really only care about being argumentative anyway, and have no real desire at being serious or honest in these topics....I wonder what you could possibly be 'designing" as a "designer" that gives you so much free time to 'work" this message board....
The NIST report is a cover up...the evidence is obvious, and you are a delusional troll who has no life, and appears to have a very low IQ, who makes up fanciful lies to make up for his mental and social deficiencies.. Go ahead and ask ME for the links I have saved from your stupid postings to prove this to everyone....

wow thanks but I was not asking you sister jones I want to see eots cherry picked version I 've already seen yours.
please post the so called stupid posts that you wish would prove your false accusations about me I could use a laugh.

 

[Mr. Jones]

you mean these?

I don't see the tons of aluminum or car parts that you idiots kept yammering on about...

once again sister jones is lying. I never said anything about cars parts. If you're so right why the compulsion to lie?

Where is all the supposed aluminum asshole?? You already admitted that the WTC GZ wreckage had "tons of steel" this after trying to argue for the existence of vast amounts of aluminum that YOU said was what the numerous sightings of molten steel by witnesses actually were!!!! LOL!!!!
You are a fucking joke, you pathetic loser .....Go take your meds, or maybe you should stop them as you are sooo fucking braindead it's obvious you have a mental problem they aren't able to even stabilize...

 

[Mr. Jones]

link!

Done already, try to keep up, it's in the NIST report that you are supposed to know about since you are here trying to defend its credibility, one would think you'd have easy assess to your own copy...Besides you really only care about being argumentative anyway, and have no real desire at being serious or honest in these topics....I wonder what you could possibly be 'designing" as a "designer" that gives you so much free time to 'work" this message board....
The NIST report is a cover up...the evidence is obvious, and you are a delusional troll who has no life, and appears to have a very low IQ, who makes up fanciful lies to make up for his mental and social deficiencies.. Go ahead and ask ME for the links I have saved from your stupid postings to prove this to everyone....

wow thanks but I was not asking you sister jones I want to see eots cherry picked version I 've already seen yours.
please post the so called stupid posts that you wish would prove your false accusations about me I could use a laugh.

Coming up shortly....you just insist on further showing others on here how dishonest and stupid you really are...LOL....You asked for it....BTW....why do you insist on even arguing with someone who has a far superior knowledge of the topic of 9-11 then you??
Eots has roasted your pathetic ass far too many times to count!!!

 

[eots]

PredFan
That is not what I'm saying at all. The fires didn't "move on" because the heat from the massive amount of fire kept the steel hot throughout the building. All it took was enough heat to begin the collapse and the pancake effect took the rest of the towers down.

once again the debwunkers claim to support NIST yet constantly contradict NIST

NIST's findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC .

FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation

Apparently there is a whole lot that YOU do not know. I have done the research, I do know about the properties of steel AND construction. That's why I don't swallow the CTs.

but yet he still doesn't know the NIST collapse theory

Your scientific method contains some very serious assumptions. The assumption that the fires blazed and then went out as they moved along being the major one here.

the fact fires consume the combustible materials within in an area and spread is hardly rocket science

 

[Mr. Jones]

I'll respond to this despite your undeserved insult attack.

And as has been explained to you willfully ignorant idiots, the fires in the WTC (all 3 of them) had transient fires. NIST even admits this, and therefore if you really know anything about fires effects on steel, you wouldn't purposefully leave out the fact that if a fire consumes any combustibles, and moves on to feed elsewhere, the effected steel regains much of its strength during this cooling period.
You fucks ignore this on purpose to make others think that once steel is weakened by elevated temps (that NIST has not proven even existed) the steel remains in a permanent weakened state!!

That is not what I'm saying at all. The fires didn't "move on" because the heat from the massive amount of fire kept the steel hot throughout the building. All it took was enough heat to begin the collapse and the pancake effect took the rest of the towers down.

This is evidence that you know (or refuse to admit) that the steel structure (200,000 tons of it) is a massive heatsink. Steel distributes heat to other connected parts. It is a lie to say there were "massive amount of fire" when clearly there was not. If you want to see a "massive amount of fire take a look at at the other buildings that actually DID have them...Again to lie and say that "fire kept the steel hot throughout the building" is really a stupid thing to try and do, as it is sooo abvious this is not true and I challenge to back up these absurd statements with any reference ANYWHERE.
You want to act like the heat was spread "throughout" the entire building??? This is ignorant of you to try to say...This would mean that considering steels ability to spread heat away from the contact area, the heat in the contact area would have been in the hundreds of thousands....Dude try to learn what you are talking about before you post such nonsense.. The fires were transient and moved, read the NIST....

Steel is made with very high temps, and is strengthened AFTER it is cool..This is just another example of the dishonest attempts by you fucks that are here to only misinform others, and you other idiots that actually agree with your "there you have its" are a sorry, stupid, lazy bunch that only wish to have something, even if it's a lie, to further your insane OCT delusion...STFU, and quit hugging each others nutsacks, and do your own research about what is being said instead, you pathetic fucking whack jobs..

Apparently there is a whole lot that YOU do not know. I have done the research, I do know about the properties of steel AND construction. That's why I don't swallow the CTs.

LOL.... there is no evidence supplied by you to back this up, and given what you have said above...you are lying once again..Why don't you try to bolster credibility by posting a link that shows any of these insane assumptions of yours are valid?? You have the task of showing the NIST is wrong when they admitted the fires moved, and that the "whole building" was effected by the heat from the fires, not to mention you have to show that they were "massive"....I'll hold you to providing actual verifiable documentation of this....

I asked that question because if the NIST's report said that then it would be one more mistake that they made. You really should read and understand the posts you're railing on before you open your mouth and insert your foot.

One or 2 "mistakes" can be expected but rampant, and willful ignoring of evidence can not be blamed on "mistakes" So.. you admit faults in the NITS investigations, but chalk it all up to mistakes...after millions of dollars and numerous years to investigate...BTW... why hasn't NIST "corrected" these "mistakes that you are finding out about?? LOL!!

Again, just because the NIST's report doesn't explain the "pools of molten steel" it by no means validates a theory that the towers were rigged. You cannot prove your point by simply poking holes in the NIST report.

Doesn't explain?? BS...they purposefully and intentionally DID NOT EVEN TRY TO BY IGNORING THEM!!! How much more obvious does it have to be for you to be an honest man to admit this?? Mistakes my ass...

Your scientific method contains some very serious assumptions. The assumption that the fires blazed and then went out as they moved along being the major one here.

Not "my" scientific method, but rather what is known to the scientific fields of study and the related academia...Also read what info is available and what NIST has said about the transient fires, .....you really don't know or pretend to not to know how steel does regain its strength when it cools....despite this is how it is made....Sad,, just sad...

The Scientific method is significantly more credible as it does not ignore evidence and every detail must be considered. If there is contradictory evidence, a thesis must be rejected in favor of a new thesis which follows all of the given evidence. In contrast, the political method often attempts to preserve its thesis even in the face of contradicting evidence, and you fucks continue to ignore the contradicting evidence and continue to make fools out of yourselves in the process....

Some things will never be known. Since the actual events cannot be repeated then the true scientific method cannot be applied. One cannot form a theory, and test it, modify the theory and test it again.

This is how it IS done idiot! This is what NIST kept doing and when they failed to achieve their desired outcomes...they manipulated the data, and increased the "severity" of their hidden computer modelings and simulations!!!

So far neither you nor any of your counterparts have ever been able to support YOUR theories, you can only poke holes in the NIST's theory.

We don't have to support any theory, this is what you don't understand!!! I have shown you people where and why and how the NIST is a cover up and they used criminally deceptive and unscientific methods to achieve a predetermined conclusion! It is not hard at all to show this in fact has occurred, and is the point of this thread!!!
NIST theory does not add up at all, when science and physics are applied! This is enough to show that there has to be some other explanation that makes more sense, but even if we don't know exactly how it was done, we at least know for sure that the explanation that NIST and the government have tried to make you gullible people swallow simply because you are not intelligent enough to look beyond the planes, fire balls, and theatrics, is not at all scientifically or physically possible...Their own fucking reports and testing validates these facts...

We saw the planes hit, we saw the buildings fall. The NIST's report fits most of the facts, it is most likely as close to the truth as we will ever get. You have a different opinion then prove your case. You cannot prove YOUR case by attacking the NIST's report.

Sorry but I can not help but to call you a stupid person...Many credible people from many related fields of study have looked at all of this NIST BS, and have concluded they are flat out wrong, and were deceitful in ways and their tactics. They have proven that this is true. It takes a willingness to actually research what the points are, which is something you are not capable, or willing to go through...It is sufficient for you to see a plane, and a collapse and call it a day, while you call us who know better names and ridicule us, BUT you then cry when the same is thrown back at you...The NIST nad the OCT is not the truth, this has been proved, and whether you believe this or not is irrelevant but I suggest you quit your crying about insults, when you post such unprovable rubbish and ridicule others in the process.

Once again you fucking anti American and anti-truth shrills are exposed as the lying, dishonest, deceitful fucks that you really are. [/quote=PredFan;7015966]
Only in your mind. Not in reality.

Anyone who wants to defend liars and criminals and enemies of the American nation and her peoples, are exactly what I said you are above...Now go ahead and post the answers to the challenges Imade to you up above...Back up you assumptions with facts or stay out of the fray..

 

[Mr. Jones]

I'll respond to this despite your undeserved insult attack.

And as has been explained to you willfully ignorant idiots, the fires in the WTC (all 3 of them) had transient fires. NIST even admits this, and therefore if you really know anything about fires effects on steel, you wouldn't purposefully leave out the fact that if a fire consumes any combustibles, and moves on to feed elsewhere, the effected steel regains much of its strength during this cooling period.
You fucks ignore this on purpose to make others think that once steel is weakened by elevated temps (that NIST has not proven even existed) the steel remains in a permanent weakened state!!

That is not what I'm saying at all. The fires didn't "move on" because the heat from the massive amount of fire kept the steel hot throughout the building. All it took was enough heat to begin the collapse and the pancake effect took the rest of the towers down.

Steel is made with very high temps, and is strengthened AFTER it is cool..This is just another example of the dishonest attempts by you fucks that are here to only misinform others, and you other idiots that actually agree with your "there you have its" are a sorry, stupid, lazy bunch that only wish to have something, even if it's a lie, to further your insane OCT delusion...STFU, and quit hugging each others nutsacks, and do your own research about what is being said instead, you pathetic fucking whack jobs..

Apparently there is a whole lot that YOU do not know. I have done the research, I do know about the properties of steel AND construction. That's why I don't swallow the CTs.



I asked that question because if the NIST's report said that then it would be one more mistake that they made. You really should read and understand the posts you're railing on before you open your mouth and insert your foot.



Again, just because the NIST's report doesn't explain the "pools of molten steel" it by no means validates a theory that the towers were rigged. You cannot prove your point by simply poking holes in the NIST report.



Your scientific method contains some very serious assumptions. The assumption that the fires blazed and then went out as they moved along being the major one here.

The Scientific method is significantly more credible as it does not ignore evidence and every detail must be considered. If there is contradictory evidence, a thesis must be rejected in favor of a new thesis which follows all of the given evidence. In contrast, the political method often attempts to preserve its thesis even in the face of contradicting evidence, and you fucks continue to ignore the contradicting evidence and continue to make fools out of yourselves in the process....

Some things will never be known. Since the actual events cannot be repeated then the true scientific method cannot be applied. One cannot form a theory, and test it, modify the theory and test it again. So far neither you nor any of your counterparts have ever been able to support YOUR theories, you can only poke holes in the NIST's theory. We saw the planes hit, we saw the buildings fall. The NIST's report fits most of the facts, it is most likely as close to the truth as we will ever get. You have a different opinion then prove your case. You cannot prove YOUR case by attacking the NIST's report.

Once again you fucking anti American and anti-truth shrills are exposed as the lying, dishonest, deceitful fucks that you really are.

Only in your mind. Not in reality.

PredFan
That is not what I'm saying at all. The fires didn't "move on" because the heat from the massive amount of fire kept the steel hot throughout the building. All it took was enough heat to begin the collapse and the pancake effect took the rest of the towers down.

once again the debwunkers claim to support NIST yet constantly contradict NIST

NIST's findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC .

FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation

Apparently there is a whole lot that YOU do not know. I have done the research, I do know about the properties of steel AND construction. That's why I don't swallow the CTs.

but yet he still doesn't know the NIST collapse theory

Your scientific method contains some very serious assumptions. The assumption that the fires blazed and then went out as they moved along being the major one here.

the fact fires consume the combustible materials within in an area and spread is hardly rocket science

We are dealing with either extremely stupid people, or most likely people who pretend to be stupid.....

 

[Mr. Jones]

It can be observed that the US administration has occasionally made reference to “creating our own reality”...
A government or a person develops credibility through the process of publishing or expressing views that are supported by the evidence to be true. This is also accumulated through repeated accuracy. The more frequently a source is shown to be accurate, the more that source is held as authoritative. If a source is shown to be repeatedly incorrect, we therefore doubt this source, and without hesitation question the validity of this source.

''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''


Although our perception of reality may be subjective—reality itself is not; it consists of scientific laws that are observed to be true. “Creating our own reality” entails using facts that support an imaginary “reality” and ignoring facts that do not. This is the very definition of the political method. But is this policy limited only to political thought? In 2004, “a group of about 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates” declared:

“The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad… Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University who signed the statement and spoke in the conference call, said the administration had ‘engaged in practices that are in conflict with the spirit of science and the scientific method.’”

It also found:

· There is a well established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety, and community well-being.

There is strong documentation of a wide-ranging effort to manipulate the government's scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration's political agenda.

There is evidence that the administration often imposes restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about "sensitive" topics.

There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the abuse of science by the Bush administration are unprecedented.
Scientific Integrity in Policy Making (March 2004) | Union of Concerned Scientists

According to these prominent scientists, the US administration is also creating its own “scientific reality”. As defined, this is not science—it is the political method. It is another form of “creating our own reality”. Therefore we must conclude that the credibility of the US administration is lacking if it will distort science to support “policy goals”. This statement by prominent scientists is a damning blow to the scientific credibility of the US administration if it considers policy goals more important than objective scientific results. If the US government is censoring scientists, then we simply can not trust without examination any single report that they release. Censorship of science is a way to ignore evidence and is therefore no longer science by definition. This is the political method in action.

A perfect and credibility crushing example of this practice is shown by the EPA shortly after the 9/11 attacks took place:

“On September 18, 2001, as fires still smoldered at the trade center, [Christine Todd] Whitman said the air in Lower Manhattan was ‘safe to breathe.’ She continued to reassure New Yorkers in the days and weeks that followed.”
Whitman Sued for Calling 9/11 Air "Safe to Breathe" - WNYC

This has to be one of the most blatant examples of “creating our own [scientific] reality”. This report was completely false and has resulted in a lawsuit...
09/13/2001: EPA INITIATES EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACTIVITIES, REASSURES PUBLIC ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

Steel framed buildings have never completely collapsed due to fire in history.
The scientific method looks for real-life examples to provide a hypothesis. NIST started with this predetermined conclusion, despite the fact that this hypothesis has never been documented before in history as mentioned above. Destroying evidence is a crime and is not scientific. It is a way to ignore evidence. You OCT defenders and shrills approve of these criminal actions and try to justify them as a "mistake"
NIST investigator Richard Tomasetti approved the decision to recycle the steel, BEFORE it could be properly studied and analyzed in the most important criminal investigation in our nations history....And you unrepentant defenders of this have the nerve to approve of this?

Despite the overwhelming evidence that you pathetic people want to call "mistakes" you refuse to find any shred of decency or honesty within you to admit what we all have already admitted to ourselves...and that is , that we were lied to, and our brothers and sisters died because we refused to be honest with ourselves about this..It's time to stop the denial...

 

[SAYIT]

It might be true that the temperatures that the fires achieved was 1000 degrees less than what is needed to melt steel, but the steel did not need to be liquid to fail. With the amount of weight on the columns, heating them to 1800 degrees is enough to cause them to warp and fail.

but there is mo evidence of these temperatures exsisting in the steel tested

Really? That steel was molten when it was formed into beams. What kind of test would tell what temps it had experienced since?
Frankly, I believe you are a desperate CT jackass who depends on half-truths and lies and makes up this silly shit as he goes. The evidence that they reached the weakened state described by the NIST report is their failure to support the building when heated by the fires on 9/11.

 

[daws101]

I don't see the tons of aluminum or car parts that you idiots kept yammering on about...

once again sister jones is lying. I never said anything about cars parts. If you're so right why the compulsion to lie?

Where is all the supposed aluminum asshole?? You already admitted that the WTC GZ wreckage had "tons of steel" this after trying to argue for the existence of vast amounts of aluminum that YOU said was what the numerous sightings of molten steel by witnesses actually were!!!! LOL!!!!
You are a fucking joke, you pathetic loser .....Go take your meds, or maybe you should stop them as you are sooo fucking braindead it's obvious you have a mental problem they aren't able to even stabilize...

yep you're blind.. number#3 photo most all of the smallish debris is aluminum.
you intentional misrepresentation of what I said "tons of steel" is no admission, it's a statement of fact and stating the obvious and you're still failing to spin it.
I did argue the existence of huge amounts of aluminum because there were huge amounts of aluminum.:By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding
on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of
anodized 0.09 aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to
cover the façade of each Twin Tower.
only in your delusional thinking is that a small amount.
and again you attempt to miss represent what I said :"after trying to argue for the existence of vast amounts of aluminum that YOU said was what the numerous sightings of molten steel by witnesses actually were!!!! LOL!!!!"sister jones
it's been proven to you numerous times that aluminum has a lower melting point then steel.
to a rational mind that should mean that it is far more likely the molten pools were made of a mix of substances (mostly aluminum) that have a lower melting point then steel.
most importantly it is an impossibility to differentiate molten steel from any other molten substances.
what that means O blathering propagandist, is the witness testimony ,that you get such a raging wood over, is only factual in that they saw molten pools of something anything else is specious speculation.

 

[PredFan]

PredFan
That is not what I'm saying at all. The fires didn't "move on" because the heat from the massive amount of fire kept the steel hot throughout the building. All it took was enough heat to begin the collapse and the pancake effect took the rest of the towers down.

once again the debwunkers claim to support NIST yet constantly contradict NIST

For the 3,498,657,456,234,542,746,352,874,673,498,567th time. I will sometimes contradict the NIST's report simply because there isn't anyone, especially me who thinks that the NIST's report is infallible. That is something you people make up in your minds.

NIST's findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC .

So? Now YOU support the NIST's version of events?

but yet he still doesn't know the NIST collapse theory

Yet again, I'm not quoting from the NIST report.

the fact fires consume the combustible materials within in an area and spread is hardly rocket science

You guys just like to make shit up or what? Did I say they didn't spread? MR.Jones assumes that the fires went out after they spread and the temperature returned to room temperature when the towers fell. That is as absurd as it gets.

 

[eots]

Really? That steel was molten when it was formed into beams. What kind of test would tell what temps it had experienced since?
Frankly, I believe you are a desperate CT jackass who depends on half-truths and lies and makes up this silly shit as he goes.

Effect of high temperature creep on the fire response of restrained steel beams

Under fire conditions,significant forces develop in restrained steel beams and these forces induce high stresses in the steel section. The extent of creep deformations is affected by magnitude and rate of development of stress and temperature in steel.

Effect of high temperature creep on the fire response of restrained steel beams | Mahmoud Dwaikat - Academia.edu

 

[PredFan]

Ok, Mr.Jones, I never ever insulted you once yet you continue to do so to me. I enjoy this debate but there are others whom I can debate with. I've given you chance after chance to debate in a civilized manner and you won't. Have fun by yourself. I'm sure you will count this as some kind of victory, well, no one cares pal. Good bye.

 

[eots]

For the 3,498,657,456,234,542,746,352,874,673,498,567th time. I will sometimes contradict the NIST's report simply because there isn't anyone, especially me who thinks that the NIST's report is infallible. That is something you people make up in your minds.

Yet again, I'm not quoting from the NIST report.

so what your saying is you find the popular mechanics theory of pancaking more believable than NIST...intresting

 

[eots]

Originally Posted by eots
the fact fires consume the combustible materials within in an area and spread is hardly rocket science

You guys just like to make shit up or what? Did I say they didn't spread? MR.Jones assumes that the fires went out after they spread and the temperature returned to room temperature when the towers fell. That is as absurd as it gets.
__________________

yes how absurd to think that when fire diminishes temperature drops...what was I thinking...lol...its like saying when the sun goes down it gets cooler

 

[daws101]

Done already, try to keep up, it's in the NIST report that you are supposed to know about since you are here trying to defend its credibility, one would think you'd have easy assess to your own copy...Besides you really only care about being argumentative anyway, and have no real desire at being serious or honest in these topics....I wonder what you could possibly be 'designing" as a "designer" that gives you so much free time to 'work" this message board....
The NIST report is a cover up...the evidence is obvious, and you are a delusional troll who has no life, and appears to have a very low IQ, who makes up fanciful lies to make up for his mental and social deficiencies.. Go ahead and ask ME for the links I have saved from your stupid postings to prove this to everyone....

wow thanks but I was not asking you sister jones I want to see eots cherry picked version I 've already seen yours.
please post the so called stupid posts that you wish would prove your false accusations about me I could use a laugh.

Coming up shortly....you just insist on further showing others on here how dishonest and stupid you really are...LOL....You asked for it....BTW....why do you insist on even arguing with someone who has a far superior knowledge of the topic of 9-11 then you??
Eots has roasted your pathetic ass far too many times to count!!!

you have a rich fantasy life!