Since the NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7 suffers from the lack of physical evidence to support its findings it should go into some level of detail on; why normal investigatory protocol was not followed, why none of the steel was recovered, and whether any laws were violated in not doing so. If there are questions as to the legality of the removal and lack of recovery for investigatory purposes, the NIST should recommend that an investigation be commenced to determine who was involved with the decision to remove the steel and why the NIST did not receive any of it for its investigation.
There are also several seemingly contradictory issues, between the 2002 FEMA BPAT report Appendix C and the 2008 NIST WTC 7 report, for which no explanations have been provided, and they are:
* NIST states "No steel was recovered from WTC 7" while FEMA section C.2 shows that at least one piece of WTC 7 steel was tested with the results being alarming, considering the highly unusual formation of a liquid eutectic, intergranular melting, and erosion, not seen before by the experienced investigators in steel subject to common office fires.
* FEMA section C.3 Summary for Sample 1 states that the steel was heated to around 1,000° C. (1,800° F.), which is much hotter than the steel temperature NIST is claiming to have caused the collapse, and seemingly far outside the ability of office fires to heat the steel. Additionally this section states, that steel liquefied at these temperatures, due to the formation of the eutectic, which would dramatically lower the usual 2750° F melting point temperature of the steel.
* FEMA Section C.6 Suggestions for Future Research states "It is also possible that the intergranular melting, eutectic formation, and erosion phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."
* Why hasn't the "future research" been done, and the results published?http://www.911blogger.com/node/17554