Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: NIST Responds To 9/11 Truthers

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,749

    NIST Responds To 9/11 Truthers

    NIST Responds To 9/11 Truthers

    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    Too long to post.
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  2. #2
    AuGmENTor Guest

    Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7,
    So we get buried in paperwork, that no one will read. Worded in terms that would put a nerd to sleep. I say fuckin bullshit. Not one of these NISTers is a truther?

  3. #3
    beltman713 Guest
    11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

    NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

    Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

    NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

    Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

    (Beltman713: Yeah, it was burning carpet, mixed in with aluminum making the aluminum appear orange. What a load of horse shit.)

  4. #4
    AuGmENTor Guest
    Yes but Beltman, it was ORANGE carpet....

  5. #5
    beltman713 Guest
    13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage
    from the WTC towers?


    NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

    NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

    Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

    (Beltman713: Basically they are saying that because there is no way that jet fuel could have melted the steel into molten steel, there was no reason for them to have investigated why pools of molten steel were left in the ruins of the World Trade Center buildings. More bullshit!)

Similar Threads

  1. Government Responds To 9/11 Records Request... 11 Years Later
    By Gold9472 in forum 9/11 Justice Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-20-2013, 02:07 PM
  2. MUJCA Coordinator Responds To NYTimes Journalist
    By Gold9472 in forum 9/11 Justice Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-09-2006, 08:56 AM
  3. Weldon Responds To Omission Of Able Danger From 9/11 Report
    By Gold9472 in forum 9/11 Justice Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-17-2006, 12:17 AM
  4. David Kubiak Responds To Nico Haupt
    By Gold9472 in forum 9/11 Justice Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-17-2005, 04:25 PM
  5. Scarborough Responds to FAIR
    By pcteaser in forum The New News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-02-2005, 07:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •