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

WildCat said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Yes but the mode of buckling is different. NB just posted a fabulous model.
 
Sizzler said:
This is off-topic. Start a new thread and I will answer your question:)
Click to expand...
It's not off-topic. If you think that bombs and/or thermite/ate was involved then you don't agree with Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and are just trolling by posting in this thread.
 
WildCat said:
It's not off-topic. If you think that bombs and/or thermite/ate was involved then you don't agree with Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and are just trolling by posting in this thread.
Click to expand...

I believe his findings contradict certain aspects of the official hypothesis. Therefore I belong in this thread.

Please address my thread just before this one, thanks:)
 
Sizzler said:
I believe his findings contradict certain aspects of the official hypothesis.
Click to expand...
But you reject his findings. Therefore you cannot use them to support your theory of bombs/thermite/space beams/mini-nukes or whatever the hell you believe.
 
Why, too, does 9/11 blogger choose his earlier assessment of the WTC, instead of the later one??

SFGate, Oct. 22, 2001

The twin towers were exceptionally well designed and built, Astaneh said, calling the trade center "the best-designed building I have ever seen."
Click to expand...

Compare to his opinion after he received the design documents from FEMA in 2002:

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.
Click to expand...

9/11 Blogger misrepresents his opinion by selectively quoting an early analysis, prior to his actual study of the towers. His later opinion was formed after study, and thus carries more validity than the early one.

People need to stop misrepresenting his work. His suspicions vis-a-vis the Twin Towers collapse are that the building codes were insufficient. There's no conspiracy fantasy there in his work. Again, he has come out and said he does not support any narrative other than that involving impacts and fires. In fact, he like NIST and other researchers, believes that if it weren't for the fires, the buildings would have remained:

The buildings simply redistributed their loads onto the intact columns when the airplanes hit. But as the fires burned, the floor joists were the first elements of the buildings' structures to fail. Their failure pulled the buildings' exterior columns inward, initiating complete collapse of the structures.

"If you didn't have the fires you would be fine,'' Astaneh-asl said.
Click to expand...

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/frederick-w-mowrer.html
 
RedIbis -

Could you please explain what needs to be debunked and why?
 
Based upon the chemical content of the thinned-out metal of WTC 7, one can concluded that the damage was done by sulphuric acid. There was a lot in the environment of the rubble pile. It was abundant in the building before the attack.

Not a thing in the report even suggests thermite of explosives. He would have mentioned the signitures of explosives had he seen them.

It is possible for a Class A fire to achieve 2000F locally.

So, what's to denunk about the report?

What needs debunking is 911 Boogger.
 
RedIbis said:
I think Jharrow's question is perfectly legitimate. What explains Astaneh-Asl's observations?
Click to expand...

Astaneh-Asl's observations were that fire after the jets impacts caused failure of the structure.

“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...

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/did-building-do-it.html

His argument is that the structure should have been better designed.

"This building was so strange, and so many violations of practice and code were introduced..."
Click to expand...

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

There's nothing to debunk. He agrees with the NIST narrative of fires leading to structural failure. If anything, truthers are missing something to investigate right there in what he asks! Was the towers' design faulty? Did the designers violate "practice and code"?

Why do truthers insist on missing the point of these researchers work? Quintierre discusses a glossing over of defects in the building fire codes. Astaneh-Asl discusses potential issues with the design. I don't have the architectural knowledge to know if either researcher is on base or not, but why do people who think they're obsessed with discovering truth continually miss the truth of these researchers work? If there are questions to ask, the ones those researchers ask are the ones! Not this continual purporting of steel melting, or this obsession with the fact the steel was supposedly shipped out too quickly.

Jesus, people, Quintierre and Astaneh-Asl do not support the so-called "Truth" movement. Read their work. Understand what it is they're truly challenging.

-----

Aside from the rant, do any of the engineering or architectural gurus here (Architect, Newton's Bit, rwguinn, R.Mackey, and others) have any opinion over the real questions Astaneh-Asl raises? I do not have the knowledge to analyze his charge that the actual implementation of the Twin Towers design violated codes and practices. Do you guys have any commentary?
 
And why did 9/11 Blogger juxtapose Astaneh-Asl with the argument that the steel was shipped off too quickly? Yes, I know that CBS is the source of the quote, "As a result, Astaneh has almost certainly missed seeing crucial pieces before they were cut up and sent overseas...", but 9/11 Blogger tries to use Astaneh-Asl as proof that there was insufficient investigation of the steel debris.

Funny, but he doesn't agree:

I wish I had more time to inspect steel structure and save more pieces before the steel was recycled. However, given the fact that other teams such as NIST, SEAONY and FEMA-BPAT have also done inspection and have collected the perishable data, it seems to me that collectively we may have been able to collect sufficient data. The main impediments to my work were and still are:​

1. Not having a copy of the engineering drawings and design and construction documents.
2. Not having copies of the photographs and videotapes that various agencies might have taken during and immediately after the collapse.​
Click to expand...
(Bolding mine, for emphasis)

Does he know for certain if all the investigations "have been able to collect sufficient data"? No; that's why he says "may". But he doesn't say that the shipping out was an impediment to his investigation; he instead says that his lack of access to documents - remedied in 2002 - was the real problem.

Again, his work is being misrepresented. His complaints and challenges do not point at a conspiracy. He supports the narrative of impacts + fires = collapse. There's just nothing to debunk there. Nothing at all. What needs debunking is the fantasists interpretation of his work.

I'm done. It's dinnertime where I'm at. I'll check back later to see if any of the truthful, rational, sane architect-ing/engineering heads here have anything to say about Astaneh-Asl's charge. Until then, I think we can put to rest any notion that his work somehow supports the conspiracy fantasy.
 
WildCat said:
But you reject his findings. Therefore you cannot use them to support your theory of bombs/thermite/space beams/mini-nukes or whatever the hell you believe.
Click to expand...

Again, where did the "bombs/thermite/space beams/mini-nukes " come from?

Unless you address my questions in this thread, about this thread, you are temporarily on ignore for this thread because you just can't seem to stay on topic.
 
RedIbis said:
(snip)
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.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that you really believe that those fires, which covered several acres, didn't even get as hot as a tea-light candle?

The present work examines the increase in temperature of the aluminium casing of night lights, when burned in still air and in an air flow, with the single existing candle wick and with a second-introduced double wick. In double-wick cases, the temperature rise is often rapid, easily achieving temperatures of over 200°C.
Source
Click to expand...
 
Just out of interest, were the samples Astaneh-Asl commented on exposed to high temperatures before or after the collapses? Remember, RedIbis, those inconvenient fires that burned for weeks in the rubble piles. How hot did they get? And also out of interest, how many of these "evaporated" samples were the same ones that were then analysed and found to have been eroded by eutectic reactions with sulphur, which proceed at a much lower temperature than the melting point of structural steel?

Dave
 
leftysergeant said:
Based upon the chemical content of the thinned-out metal of WTC 7, one can concluded that the damage was done by sulphuric acid.
Click to expand...

Well why don't you write a journal article and have it published. It seems you solved the mystery.

All those stupid experts called in an anomaly. Geesh.....
 
Sizzler said:
Again, where did the "bombs/thermite/space beams/mini-nukes " come from?

Unless you address my questions in this thread, about this thread, you are temporarily on ignore for this thread because you just can't seem to stay on topic.
Click to expand...

From the article linked to the OP.
 
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...

Red, you're really running on empty, aren't you?

You're quoting an engineer who supports the OS as proof of an inside job.

I can't decide if this is hilarious or sad.
 
Sizzler said:
Well why don't you write a journal article and have it published. It seems you solved the mystery.

All those stupid experts called in an anomaly. Geesh.....
Click to expand...

And where, pray tell, can we find articles by 9-11 Twoof scholars in reputable mainstream, peer-reviewed journals?

Oh, that's right. There are none.

Not. One.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom