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

Sizzler said:
Lee report states STEEL MELTED!!!!

Link in OP reports STEEL MELTED!!!!!!!

DEAL WITH IT!!
Click to expand...
sorry, anecdotal evidence from someone i wouldnt expect to be able to tell steel from any other metal doesnt really cut it for me

must be nice to be able to accept anything as gospel truth is it agrees with what you want to believe though
 
JHarrow said:
I wonder which logical fallacy that is. Their results can't be true because they personally aren't preaching an inside job.
Click to expand...
no, the point is they dont seem to think theres anything out of the ordinary, so why do you? and why do you cite them?
 
Just so I'm clear.

Red quotes an engineer and wants his quote debunked.
JHarrow chimes in with basically, yeah, debunk it
Sizzler enters another thread just asking questions.
Turns out the engineer contributed to the NIST report.
Turns out the engineer supports the NIST report.
JHarrow, doing his best zensmack and LastChild impression starts his nonsensical one liners.
Sizzler keeps asking questions
Red disappears

Seriously, why does this continue, isn't there a mercy rule, a 10 run rule, someone with a net to stop this?
 
I wonder which logical fallacy that is. Their results can't be true because they personally aren't preaching an inside job.
Click to expand...

He didn't say that.
He said that the pepople who did this haven't concluded it was a anything other than planes hitting a building. He didn't say what these people said was invalid because they didn't say it was an inside job.

He used bad terminology simplified for people to understand easier.

They also said
“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...

When he said melt he was refering to this.

Its like if you have a block of solid chocolate...and you heat it up. There is a point where it moved around easily and is plastic, but not a liquid yet... people would still say it had melted at that point... not that is was plastic. This is people allpying the wrong word in the wrong context, but everyone understanding what was meant.
 
JHarrow said:
I wonder which logical fallacy that is. Their results can't be true because they personally aren't preaching an inside job.
Click to expand...

The results can certainly be true, but it's how those results affect the big picture that really matter.

If this phenomenon did occur, what caused it, and how does that cause, if at all, alter any conclusions about the collapse of the towers?

Of course, none of that interests CTers. You'd just rather yell "Melted steel!" and claim victory.

Unfortunately for you, no one else sees it that way (most notable of all, the experts reporting these results), or is all that concerned with what you think (most notable of all, every single mainstream media outlet and law enforcement agency on the planet).
 
Last edited:
This thread is absolute proof that 9/11 "truthers" don't want the truth at all, but are only intrested in academic exercises in the art of debate.

Why continue to guess at what Dr. Astaneh-Asl's true conclusions are regarding the WTC?

JUST ASK HIM!
 
JHarrow said:
I wonder which logical fallacy that is. Their results can't be true because they personally aren't preaching an inside job.
Click to expand...

The logical fallacy that anyone who isn't preaching an inside job must be in error is called the non sequitur, and is common among conspiracy theorists. The misrepresentation of results which give no proof of an inside job in order to give the impression that they do give such proof is called the strawman fallacy, and is also common among conspiracy theorists, particularly in this specific form.

Hope this helps

Dave
 
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...


I know that I'm being unfair, and I understand how terribly inconvenient reality is for your fantasy, but there is that tiny matter of Osama bin Laden explaining his role in the attacks in several videos. If only those jihadists weren't so stubbornly proud of their victory, you conspiracy liars could make some headway.
 
pomeroo said:
I know that I'm being unfair, and I understand how terribly inconvenient reality is for your fantasy, but there is that tiny matter of Osama bin Laden explaining his role in the attacks in several videos. If only those jihadists weren't so stubbornly proud of their victory, you conspiracy liars could make some headway.
Click to expand...

The Jihadists are proud. But the CIA who puppeteer them are even prouder.
 
pomeroo said:
I know that I'm being unfair, and I understand how terribly inconvenient reality is for your fantasy, but there is that tiny matter of Osama bin Laden explaining his role in the attacks in several videos. If only those jihadists weren't so stubbornly proud of their victory, you conspiracy liars could make some headway.
Click to expand...

Bin Laden was an actor, a CIA plant, etc.

9-11 TROOF 4-LIFE!!4four!!

JHarrow said:
The Jihadists are proud. But the CIA who puppeteer them are even prouder.
Click to expand...

I couldn't have planned that better if I tried.

Along comes TROOFER and proves everything we accuse them of undeniably correct.

Thanks, JHarrow! You're pwning yourselves!
 
Last edited:
Please provide evidence that the CIA are invovled with Al Quaeda. If you can't, then retract your claim, or be called, yet again, a liar.
 
DGM said:
So what? I don't hear them preaching inside job do you?
Click to expand...

You are right. They aren't preaching inside job, just the opposite.

However their conclusions support the fact that steel melted in the WTC event. Melting steel supports the claim of foil play made by others that are preaching inside job.

It seems the tables have turned, and the official hypothesis is now starting to debunk itself. (cue beachnut to jump in on this)
 
Sizzler said:
You are right. They aren't preaching inside job, just the opposite.

However their conclusions support the fact that steel melted in the WTC event. Melting steel supports the claim of foil play made by others that are preaching inside job.

It seems the tables have turned, and the official hypothesis is now starting to debunk itself. (cue beachnut to jump in on this)
Click to expand...

Wrong again. There is only speculation that STEEL melted, and not some other alloy. Please direct me to the conclusive tests that were done that indicate that steel melted in its pure form.

Oh and when are you gonna post in that thread that you asked to be opened for you?
 
I'm late to the party...

Would I be incorrect in summarizing this thread as follows:

  • Truth Movement types just now find out about Dr. Astaneh-Asl
  • Truth Movement decides his position sounds contraoversial and asks us to "Debunk" it
  • Truth Movement has no idea what the NIST report actually contains
  • Truth Movement does not understand the subtle differences bewteen Dr. Astaneh-Asl and NIST
  • JREF posters inform Truth Movement of this
  • Truth Movement still doesn't get it

Again, I apologize if I've got that wrong.

There's nothing to debunk. His position is dissenting but is also reasonable. It's not too far removed from other dissenting opinions from Purdue, Arup, and U Edinburgh, for instance. We know this (well, I know this) because I've actually read all those positions. I've also written about it and highlighted the differences.

What's the problem here?
 
Last edited:
Quad4_72 said:
Wrong again. There is only speculation that STEEL melted, and not some other alloy. Please direct me to the conclusive tests that were done that indicate that steel melted in its pure form.
Click to expand...

Lee Report reports melted steel.

Link in OP reports melted steel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom