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

RedIbis said:
"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] "
Click to expand...

What looks like a giant bite taken out of one piece of steel, for instance, might have been caused by one of the hijacked planes' engines slamming through the column, a hollow, rectangular, steel tube three feet wide and 18 inches deep. The fact that the piece is still partially intact suggests to Mr. Astaneh-Asl that it remained standing after impact. He says the buildings might have survived the plane crashes if the ensuing jet-fuel fires had not weakened the upper floors and started a "pancaking collapse."

To support his theory, he cites the way the steel has been bent at several connection points that once joined the floors to the vertical columns. If the internal supporting columns had collapsed upon impact, he says, the connection points would show cracks, because the damage would have been done while the steel was cold. Instead, he describes the connections as being smoothly warped: "If you remember the Salvador Dalí paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted -- it's kind of like that. That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot -- perhaps around 2,000 degrees." [6]
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
He used the word, "melting."
Click to expand...

How about one of you truthers just call the fine professor and ask him a DIRECT question, "In your professional opinion, what caused the collapse of WTC 1 & 2"?

Now you know no "truther" will make that 25 cent phone call. What I ask you is why not?
 
RedIbis said:
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."
Click to expand...
From that same interview.

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH, University of California, Berkeley: In both of them, (WTC and the overpass in California) basically, the fire was the reason why steel got soft and weak and collapsed. In both of them, I feel that we, as engineers, if we had looked at them and learned the lessons, we could really apply these lessons to build safe structures.
 
T.A.M. said:
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:)
Click to expand...

TAM, Tam, tam...

If you're going to play the "burden of broof" card, you have to be go back to the original story. The "19 Arab hijackers..." is the original claim. Not even the Commission Report could provide a credible, substantiated account. The burden of proof has always been on the original storyteller.

What is most frustrating to anyone who supports the official story is how badly it continues to get savaged.
 
Redtail said:
From that same interview.

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH, University of California, Berkeley: In both of them, (WTC and the overpass in California) basically, the fire was the reason why steel got soft and weak and collapsed. In both of them, I feel that we, as engineers, if we had looked at them and learned the lessons, we could really apply these lessons to build safe structures.
Click to expand...

So? If you take his observations at the WTC as sincere, you're still going to have to explain his observations, such as this one:

"He came across "severely scorched [steel] members from 40 or so floors below the points of impact [by the planes]." [9] "

Let me guess, that was the magic fireball, right?
 
RedIbis said:
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."
Click to expand...

Sometimes, when I'm addressing an audience of laypersons instead of design professionals and other experts, I'll use some rather non-technical terms to help describe things so that the message is understood and they don't feel intimidated.
 
I thought an essential ingredient of something in order for it to be debunked, was bunk. It's a bit difficult to remove bunk from something if it doesn't contain bunk.

What would you have us do Red Ibis? Should we invent some nonsense and attribute it to the Engineer in question? Or should we look for spelling errors and typos, that type of thing?
 
Minadin said:
Sometimes, when I'm addressing an audience of laypersons instead of design professionals and other experts, I'll use some rather non-technical terms to help describe things so that the message is understood and they don't feel intimidated.
Click to expand...

Oh, so if you were addressing your colleagues, instead of "melting" what word would you use to describe what he observed?
 
RedIbis said:
So? If you take his observations at the WTC as sincere, you're still going to have to explain his observations, such as this one:

"He came across "severely scorched [steel] members from 40 or so floors below the points of impact [by the planes]." [9] "

Let me guess, that was the magic fireball, right?
Click to expand...

His words not mine.

He also came across severely scorched members from 40 or so floors below the points of impact. He believes that the planes obliterated the elevator walls, allowing burning fuel to pour down into the building, igniting blazes hundreds of feet below the main fire. "When the plane hit," he says, "the walls around the elevator shaft were gone, just thrown away." These lower-floor fires may have contributed to the collapse, and certainly added to the death toll.
Click to expand...
Let me guess you're going to ignore this from the guy you wanted us to debunk?
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
See post #27.
Click to expand...
Sorry RedIbis, you quoted a structural engineer who not only supports the NIST's conclusions, but in fact contributed to the investigation. And now you want us to debunk it?

:dl:


Man, it's funny when truthers step in it and can't shake it off!
 
RedIbis said:
So? If you take his observations at the WTC as sincere, you're still going to have to explain his observations, such as this one:

"He came across "severely scorched [steel] members from 40 or so floors below the points of impact [by the planes]." [9] "

Let me guess, that was the magic fireball, right?
Click to expand...

What do you think it means Red? Was there some explosives there planted to scorch steel? Coz scorched is so much better than cut when you are trying to blow up a building...:rolleyes:
 
“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.”
Click to expand...

I guess he didn't read the NIST report....
 
RedIbis said:
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."
Click to expand...

So? Were the clocks in the Dali painting melting? Yes. Were they molten? No.

Why do you so often ignore the big picture and nitpick the details? Name a big, chaotic event that you are 100% sure happened and I'll find details to nitpick about it.
 
Redtail said:
His words not mine.

Let me guess you're going to ignore this from the guy you wanted us to debunk?
Click to expand...

It's interesting what you choose to focus on since it's usually the narrative as opposed to his actual quotes. The only quote in your post is:

"When the plane hit," he says, "the walls around the elevator shaft were gone, just thrown away."

Ok, so?

Try to stick to his actual quotes.
 
RedIbis said:
TAM, Tam, tam...

If you're going to play the "burden of broof" card, you have to be go back to the original story. The "19 Arab hijackers..." is the original claim. Not even the Commission Report could provide a credible, substantiated account. The burden of proof has always been on the original storyteller.

What is most frustrating to anyone who supports the official story is how badly it continues to get savaged.
Click to expand...

There is MORE THAN ENOUGH proof that the 19 Arab Hijackers carried out 9/11. The majority of people on the planet believe it, the evidence points to it. Because yourself and a small minority chose to believe otherwise, does not mean it has not been proven....you can't convince everyone, no matter how much proof, no matter how strong the case.

So with that said, the burden of proof is now, once again, back on the disbelievers to prove that this man's findings are not explainable through the impacts and subsequent collapse of the buildings.
 
cisco said:
Name a big, chaotic event that you are 100% sure happened and I'll find details to nitpick about it.
Click to expand...


The point being, are you honest enough to admit that you are not 100% sure of the official story?

I know I am. I don't pretend to know the twoofy twoof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom