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

Is this an admission that all the steel wasn't immediately shipped to China?
 
WildCat said:
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!
Click to expand...

I want you to debunk his observations. Short of that, another laughing dog gif is the level of discourse I expect from you.
 
RedIbis said:
I want you to debunk his observations.
Click to expand...

Why? Just call/email him yourself and get the answer from the "horse's mouth". He's an educator, I'm sure he will be glad to give you a direct answer to any questions you have regarding his research and conclusions.
 
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can say with 100% honesty and integrity that I have never seen or heard any factual, logical, or evidentiary data that makes me suspect anything other than the popular account of the events of 9/11 took place. Scouts honor. I'd swear and sign my name to it.

Can you say the same about the trooth?
 
wildcat wrote:

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?
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that?

“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...

Isn't this the exact opposite of what the NIST report concluded?

This reminds me of the Lee report in so many ways.
 
It's time to cut the BS. Astaneh-Asl does not support the truther side:

Some, wondering how buildings that easily withstood fierce wind gusts for decades were so quickly brought down by airplanes, argue that explosives planted before the attacks must also have been involved. Even some college professors have advanced such theories, though they have largely been dismissed (The Chronicle, June 23).

Mr. Astaneh-Asl also rejects such alternative theories. "I certainly don't buy into any of the conspiracy stuff," he says.

"Those are lightweight buildings," he adds. "There was no need for explosives to bring them down."
Click to expand...

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/06/berkeley-engineer-searches-for-truth.html

His complaint regarding the WTC tragedy is related to building codes:

As Mr. Astaneh-Asl examined the construction documents, however, he was horrified by aspects of the design. He says the structure essentially threw out the rule book on skyscraper construction. "This building was so strange, and so many violations of practice and code were introduced," he says...

He sounds exasperated by what has come to be the accepted wisdom among engineers: that there was nothing wrong with the buildings. "I cannot see why the entire profession has agreed to sit in this convenient seat of saying that there is nothing wrong with our work," he says.
Click to expand...
 
T.A.M. said:
There is MORE THAN ENOUGH proof that the 19 Arab Hijackers carried out 9/11.
Click to expand...
Opinion

The majority of people on the planet believe it,
Click to expand...

argumentum ad populum

the evidence points to it.
Click to expand...

What evidence? On the whole the physical evidence is extremely limited. As a way to redirect to the topic, even NIST admitted it did not observe a single core column sample that exceeded 250C.

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.
Click to expand...

Just the reverse of the fallacy you committed above. Just because a position is held by the minority, doesn't make it wrong.

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.
Click to expand...

The challenge of this thread is to debunk his personal observations at the WTC.
 
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...


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

Way to "Stick to his actual quotes"!
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
Why? Just call/email him yourself and get the answer from the "horse's mouth". He's an educator, I'm sure he will be glad to give you a direct answer to any questions you have regarding his research and conclusions.
Click to expand...
Good idea! Here ya go Red: astaneh@ce.berkeley.edu
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...

Easy one. Yup, I can guarantee you that I am not 100% of the entire official story. I have no doubt that in 20 years the official story will have changed in many minor details. What I will also tell you, is that 50 years from now the who, how, when, and why of the attacks WILL NOT HAVE CHANGED.

RedIbis said:
I want you to debunk his observations. Short of that, another laughing dog gif is the level of discourse I expect from you.
Click to expand...

There is nothing to debunk Red. Who here has DENIED the presence of HIGH TEMPERATURES with regard to the WTC attacks??

TAM:)
 
RedIbis said:
The challenge of this thread is to debunk his personal observations at the WTC.
Click to expand...

Well it seems obvious to me that you have no true concern for the truth but rather just want to argue with folks on an insignificant Internet sub-forum.

Again, please explain why you or any "truther" refuse to contact him directly?
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
Well it seems obvious to me that you have no true concern for the truth but rather just want to argue with folks on an insignificant Internet forum.

Again, please explain why or any "truther" won't contact him directly?
Click to expand...

Stop derailing this thread please....
 
RedIbis said:
Opinion



argumentum ad populum



What evidence? On the whole the physical evidence is extremely limited. As a way to redirect to the topic, even NIST admitted it did not observe a single core column sample that exceeded 250C.



Just the reverse of the fallacy you committed above. Just because a position is held by the minority, doesn't make it wrong.



The challenge of this thread is to debunk his personal observations at the WTC.
Click to expand...

When it comes to burden of proof, argumentum ad populum works just fine for me. Especially when the vast majority of people in the legitimate scientific and engineering community concur.

As I said earlier, you cannot DEBUNK observations...they are what they are, observations. Why don't you try and debunk the CONCLUSIONS this same engineer has made after making his OBSERVATIONS!!!

TAM:)
 
WildCat said:
Why don't you ask him? It sure as hell doesn't support bombs or thermite, does it?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about bombs or thermite?

You said he supported the findings of NIST, but his opinion of collapse initiation clearly doesn't.

Point made, and I assume point taken:)
 
Sizzler said:
Wil cat:address thread 45
Click to expand...
Sorry Sizzler, I don't see how this is mutually exclusive to what NIST concluded. You do realize that the columns buckling (as can be seen where they're being pulled in) is exactly what NIST said preceded the collapse, don't you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom