NIST examination of WTC steel was seriously fudged

NIST claims they "examined" the steel at the WTC's. They DIDN'T. They couldn't have. As this link explains (proves), NIST completely ignored what "didn't fit" their preconceived conclusions. Two good examples are their BS "examination" of perimeter column K-1, and their complete BS regarding core column C-30. They EXCLUDED anything that resembled or suggested something other than their BS story. Anyone that blurts out their support the "official" BS story without at least looking at some of the key problem areas, like this, are part of the problem.

Learn truth here:

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...s-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html

 

What steel?



Nope, no steel here.

NIST quite obviously made the entire inqiry up.

 

No specific comments. I thought not.

 

Specifically, all of the steel dustified before hitting the ground.

 

Ahh...I see. Probably amongst the very first to go were those pesky K-1 and C-30 columns then...hmmm...Thanks for clearing that one up!

 

Exdplain the process that 'dustifies' steel.

And be specific,no 'It wuz ray beams!'

 

Glad to know so many bright individuals are able to comment on the particulars of the OP. No wonder the general dumb public believe buildings fall down from fire. Stupid, stupid people.

 

Who said they fell down just from fire?..forget the massive structural damage caused by 120 ton airplanes slamming into them,THEN fire?

 

you can always tell when these guys dont know sht about what they are talking about.

 

you mean like this?

 

Is that your particular Schtick,koko? answer questions by demeaning anothers intelligence?

I asked you a simple question,is it too much to expect an answer?

 

The bright people know what happened. Idiots with tinfoil hats doubt the ridiculously thorough and completely supported NIST examinations.

LOL... Because fire doesn't make buildings fall down?

Anyway, why would we bother responding to you? You are just going to accuse us of being on this conspiracy's payroll; that's the only response you ever make to anyone who dares question your delusions.

 

Ridiculously thorough??!!!??

BTW have you read this paper or not?

Do you dispute that only a small percentage of physical samples were subjected to damage and failure analysis or do you think that testing only a percentage is "ridiculously thorough".

NIST claim that it was fire that made WTC7 fall down. This of course be the only time in the history of steel framed highrises.

 

Oh yeah. Hey wait...no plane hit WTC7. Musta been the fire on that one then.

 

DEbris from the WTC tower next to it damaged it,in fact it was expected to collapse most of the day

 

You do of course know that your friends down at NIST claim that WTC7 collapsed due to fire; that damage from debris was a negligable factor in why the building collapsed?

 

Exactly what part said that?,and even if it was only fire, why is that so hard to accept for you?.

You keep throwing around the phrase 'never in the history of steel framed buildings' as if that means it couldn't happen..

It DID happen,why are you trying to complicate things?

 

Sounds to me like you don't even care what NIST says about it.. You think it'll be right no matter what. So why bother showing you where they said it?

On the one hand, you are increduluous that they blamed fire alone and want to see where they said this, then you go on to say that it DID happen this way anyway? Which is it?

Do you KNOW the conlusions that you are so vehemently defending or not? Who said I didn't accept that? Of course I'm sure such a thing as possible, however I don't see proof such a thing did indeed occur. The NIST report fell far short in that regard.

 

Well, you won't, mainly because specifics really seem to irritate "official" BS story proponents, but also because it's easier to throw out the insults 24/7 amongst the team.
Sorry...I'm just trying to figure out who's "captain". I think I know but, it seems like it changes day to day (probably having to do with shift schedules and all). Who's "it" today is all I was wondering.

 

Really? Did you hear that on CNN? You knew WTC7 was coming down too huh? You AND Guilianni? Well, I'll be darned. That referenced "officially" anywhere? I'd like to check it out, cause it seems Rudy has two versions on that one. Thanks.

 

Actually it came from a cop posted outside building 7,on the HBO documentary who was warning people that the building might collapse at any moment.

It was no secret,surely youve heard they had a transit line on the building guaging it's lean?,so it appears a lot of people figured 7 was next

 

Can you post a pic that shows the WTC 7 leaning?

 

Of course, even if this were the only time, which it isn't, according to 9/11 denier logic, if something has "never happened before" it is impossible.

Which they might want to tell to the Apollo astronauts, Columbus, Magellan, Edison, Glenn Curtis, Chuck Yeager, and that guy who ran the first sub-four-minute mile.

Really, the fact that 9/11 deniers keep repeating that tired line, as if it somehow creates some sort of evidence for something, is proof they have no ability to think rationally.

 

what is it with you and frigging pictures?


http://http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=84e_1191970248

 

No no, you misunderstand me. I was asking for photos showing WTC 7 leaning, not photos of showing people saying it was leaning.