Reply #29: I told you, John Gross being an asshole one day (if a technically correct one) isn't [View All]

[Bolo Boffin]

an official denial.

That is John Gross, being asked about "molten steel" specifically. NO ONE HAS DIRECT EVIDENCE OF MOLTEN STEEL AT GROUND ZERO. You can see how Gross seizes on that statement.

We have anecdotal evidence of "molten metal." I'm satisfied that some sort of metal was molten under the Pile. And not just molten in the one sense where any red, glowing beam might be called molten (even though it still maintains its shape). That's what a lot of the quotes are talking about, I'll bet.

No, there is eyewitness testimony of metal running liquid under the Pile. I accept it, and if that guy in the video had said molten metal and not molten steel specifically, Gross would have had a harder time denying it.

But Gross being a pissy little bitch about semantics ISN'T an official denial from NIST. In fact, NIST is on record saying that there are reports about molten steel!!

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

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.

That IS the NIST official word on molten steel. Does that sound like a denial of molten steel in the Pile to you, petgoat? The only denial there is the relevance of molten steel in the Pile to conditions before collapse.

Stop stating factual inaccuracies that you KNOW to be factually inaccurate, petgoat.