Merged Has this structural engineer been debunked? / Astaneh-Asl "melting of girders"

RedIbis

Philosopher
RedIbis
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
6,899
Has this structural engineer been debunked? / Astaneh-Asl "melting of girders"

...or could someone point me to one of Gravy's links, where this has been debunked?


"Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, who specializes in studying structural damage done by earthquakes and terrorist bombings. He flew to New York on September 19, 2001 to conduct a two-week reconnaissance of the collapsed towers, hoping to gain an understanding of how they'd come down. He was able to examine numerous pieces of steel taken from Ground Zero. [1]"

Lace up your debunking boots, here's his findings:

http://911blogger.com/node/14062
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedIbis said:
...or could someone point me to one of Gravy's links, where this has been debunked?


"Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, who specializes in studying structural damage done by earthquakes and terrorist bombings. He flew to New York on September 19, 2001 to conduct a two-week reconnaissance of the collapsed towers, hoping to gain an understanding of how they'd come down. He was able to examine numerous pieces of steel taken from Ground Zero. [1]"

Lace up your debunking boots, here's his findings:

http://911blogger.com/node/14062
Click to expand...


Interesting. I have seen him used on the debunking side and he appeared in some 911 documentaries examining the steel.
 
RedIbis said:
...or could someone point me to one of Gravy's links, where this has been debunked?


"Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, who specializes in studying structural damage done by earthquakes and terrorist bombings. He flew to New York on September 19, 2001 to conduct a two-week reconnaissance of the collapsed towers, hoping to gain an understanding of how they'd come down. He was able to examine numerous pieces of steel taken from Ground Zero. [1]"

Lace up your debunking boots, here's his findings:

http://911blogger.com/node/14062
Click to expand...
Well, here are his findings as he stated them in 2006:
“The simulation model shows the plane slicing right through the outer walls of the as-built building like it was a thin soda can,” Astaneh-Asl explained to the spellbound crowd.


He described the issue in a nutshell: “Because of their unique design and the use of the so called “steel bearing wall” tube structural system, which as far as we know has never been used before or after its application in the WTC towers, the buildings essentially showed no resistance to the impact of a medium-sized plane flying into them at about 450miles per hour.”


Elaborating on the novelty of the design, he said that the notion of a ‘structural framing system’ simply didn’t apply in the case of the twin towers. “Rather than traditional columns and beams, the designers employed a steel bearing wall tube system for the perimeter and steel truss joists in the floors that connected the gravity load-carrying inner core columns to the outside perimeter steel bearing walls. The relatively thin steel bearing wall pre-fabricated units of the perimeter bearing tube were bolted together in a Lego-like fashion to expedite construction” he explained

...

“When the fires started, they heated up the steel. In my opinion, the truss joists collapsed first, leaving the exterior columns of probably two floors in the impact area with no bracing but still under gravity load from the floors above. As the columns heated up and reached temperatures of nearly 1,000F, their strength was reduced to less than half the design strength and they started to buckle. When the columns buckled, the top portion of the building, losing its supports, was pulled down by gravity and dropping on the floors below, pancaking the floors one after another and leading to progressive collapse in an almost perfect vertical direction of the pull of gravity force.”

Source
Click to expand...
What is there to debunk? :confused:
 
Last edited:
What is there to debunk?

Engineer finds evidence of high temperatures.

Big **** deal.

Sorry if it sounds harsh, but come on, this stuff is old, and proves nothing we do not already know.

And yes, I read it.

TAM:)
 
Particularly interesting is this bit

Astaneh-Asl saw a charred I-beam from WTC Building 7--a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11, even though no plane hit it. "The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."
Click to expand...

How exactly did the fires in 7 do that?
 
I really don't see how any of that is proof of an inside job. Care to clarify Ibis? Last time I checked steel and other materials warp when they are subjected to thousands upon thousands of pounds of force.
 
T.A.M. said:
What is there to debunk?

Engineer finds evidence of high temperatures.

Big **** deal.

Sorry if it sounds harsh, but come on, this stuff is old, and proves nothing we do not already know.

And yes, I read it.

TAM:)
Click to expand...


It's not harsh. When I find something like this, I'm genuinely curious to see what the debunking arguments are.

You didn't really provide any arguments, just that you had dealt with it.

I think Jharrow's question is perfectly legitimate. What explains Astaneh-Asl's observations?
 
JHarrow said:
Particularly interesting is this bit



How exactly did the fires in 7 do that?
Click to expand...

With heat.

Before you go rushing to conclusions, you should realise that the quote doesn't specify how big a volume was vapourised. You should also realise that even minor fires can be very hot in localised places.
 
JHarrow said:
Particularly interesting is this bit



How exactly did the fires in 7 do that?
Click to expand...

What is the rest of the quote?
If that is all there is, then it is an obscure quote at best.
It's not very specific about things, and thus allows only speculation.
 
Last edited:
I love it how truthers try an appeal to authority by presenting the "findings" of a Structural Engineer, but ignore the conclusions drawn by the very same Structural Engineer.

Astaneh-Asl, whatever his "findings" were, clearly doesn't believe in CD.
 
Last edited:
Reading the actual sources it doesn't seem that he believes that anything other than the impact damage and fires brought down the buildings. Looks to me to be a classic case of quote mining.
 
RedIbis said:
It's not harsh. When I find something like this, I'm genuinely curious to see what the debunking arguments are.

You didn't really provide any arguments, just that you had dealt with it.

I think Jharrow's question is perfectly legitimate. What explains Astaneh-Asl's observations?
Click to expand...

Did you read Firestone's post?

That is the best summary of why the WTC collapsed that I have ever read.

What bits of that article don't you accept?

I am asking, because I don't see how someone could read that article and remain a truther.
 
[X] said:
What is the rest of the quote?
If that is all there is, then it is an obscure quote at best.
It's not very specific about things, and thus allows only speculation.
Click to expand...

I find it interesting that that's also the only quote with out a link.
 
"He noted the way steel from the WTC had bent at several connection points that had joined the floors to the vertical columns. He described the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, "If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted--it's kind of like that." He added, "That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot--perhaps around 2,000 degrees." [6] "
 
Hilarious! A truther finds a structural engineer who supports "the official story" and asks us to debunk it!

:dl:
 
The burden of proof is on those trying to argue against that which is held to be the most likely cause.

Therefore, Red, and others, the onus is on the disbelievers to prove that the evidence at ground zero is NOT COMPATIBLE with the impact of jet airliners into the buildings, then the collapse of those buildings, etc...Remember, I said proof, not speculation, or doubt, but PROOF!

You can begin any time now.

TAM:)
 
Firestone said:
Well, here are his findings as he stated them in 2006:What is there to debunk? :confused:
Click to expand...

Well, here's what he said in 2007:

In an interview in 2007, Astaneh-Asl recalled, "I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center." [7]


He used the word, "melting."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom