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

If there was only some way that the seemingly curious CTers in this thread could get clarification on what Astaneh-Asl meant.
 
R.Mackey said:
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. The two statements do not imply the third.

Melting of girders, perhaps. But only melting of eutectics.

Dr. Astaneh-Asl's other comments make it crystal clear that he does not believe temperatures ever existed to melt steel. Steel-sulfur compounds, yes. Steel, no.

Contact him if you don't believe me.
Click to expand...


You're not having a good night.

"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." [11]
 
* Astaneh-Asl said that steel flanges "had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin." [3]


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


* 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." [11]
Click to expand...

See the difference Mackey? He used the words "vaporized" and "reduced to" to describe oxidation, sulfidation, inter-granular melting.

However, he uses the word MELTED for the girders, a completely different term, and thus meaning.
 
Last edited:
Sizzler said:
See the difference Mackey? He used the worded "vaporized" and "reduced to" to describe oxidation, sulfidation, inter-granular melting.

However, he uses the word MELTED for the girders, and completely different term, and thus meaning.
Click to expand...

This is sounding almost Carrollian.

So "vaporizing" means something definitively other than vaporizing, but "melting" by golly means melting?

Could you be any more bizarre?
 
Sizzler said:
See the difference Mackey? He used the words "vaporized" and "reduced to" to describe oxidation, sulfidation, inter-granular melting.

However, he uses the word MELTED for the girders, a completely different term, and thus meaning.
Click to expand...

What did he mean by it? Have you contacted him, or tried to contact him?

If he has seen these things, why has he not drawn the same conclusions as you? Has he blatantly overlooked something? He has come to a conclusion, that the building collapsed due to the structural damage and the subsequent fires, based on his findings. What is he missing in his analysis, that you have found?
 
RedIbis said:
You're not having a good night.

"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." [11]
Click to expand...
Got it. You think that there was some weird silent nuclear bomb at WTC 7.

 
RedIbis said:
Do you think the official story is falsifiable?
Click to expand...

I know this question was directed at cisco, but the answer is so bloody obvious, I couldn't help but chime in.

OF COURSE THE OFFICIAL STORY IS FALSIFIABLE

You want to falsify it to me? Then just provide an alternative hypothesis that fits all the evidence, and I'll be at Ground Zero in a black t-shirt and brandishing a bullhorn next weekend.
 
Sizzler said:
^are you drunk?
Click to expand...

That's mean. And you are drunken! :mad:


Just kidding. No, I'm not. Dr. Astaneh-Asl is a scientist. Scientists use precise language. So did he. He gave a temperature estimate -- 2000oF.

I don't have a problem with that estimate.

You guys are ignoring that figure, seizing upon figures of speech. The vaporization temperature of steel is way higher than that -- but, sure enough, I've got RedIbis on the hook, defending vaporization.

It's nonsense.

Do you know where Dr. Astaneh-Asl got his steel from? And once you've answered that, do you know what happened to the steel before he saw it? Here's a hint: He described this to Congress in 2002.

Once you've got that, keep the word "eutectic" in mind, and it will all make sense. If you want it to, that is. I welcome you, as I have for some time, to propose an alternate hypothesis. I'll enjoy poking holes in it and helping you refine it.
 
Why are we talking about molten steel again? Only one video puts any mention of molten metal on the day of the event itself, and there's no proof that the metal in that video is steel.

Every other sighting that I'm aware of involving molten metal took place on the order of days to weeks after the collapses, and even if the metal in those sightings was steel, any molten state or stage towards melting can be explained by the burning of fires underneath the mounds of rubble. The intensity of these fires is documented. So is the length of time they burned.

The only sighting of molten metal actually flowing from the towers prior to collapse is that video all over YouTube, and not only is it not proven to be steel, it's more likely to be aluminum, lead, or some combination of metals present in the building.

So why is steel being discussed again?

These observations indicate that the World Trade Center steel was subjected to very high temperatures. Yet, while postulating that the towers collapsed due to fire (and without the use of explosives), even Thomas Eagar--an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology--admitted, "The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel." [12] One must conclude that the phenomena observed by Astaneh-Asl are therefore highly suspicious.
Click to expand...

No, one must stop conflating temperatures observed on the day of the collapse with temperatures underneath the rubble piles weeks afterwards. If you actually look up the Thomas Eager quote, he was discussing the fires within the towers prior to collapse. So why juxtapose his observation against Astaneh-Asl's? Recall that the observations made by Dr. Astaneh-Asl weren't made until several days after the fact (he did not arrive in New York until the 19th).

9/11 Blogger is merely making an assumption about Astaneh-Asl's observations being a result of the temperature ranges Eager states occurred in the towers. The pre-collapse tower fires were not the only fires the steel structures were exposed to; the post collapse burning rubble piles also affected these steel components.

Remember, the Bechtel SH&E article in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine reported measurements of up to 2,800 F in the rubble piles. Given that amount of energy, plus that amount of time, why is there any surprise at molten metal sightings days after the fact? That's one possible explanation right there: Exposure to post-collapse fires.

ETA: Mackey got a post in while I was composing. Pay attention to what he's saying; he's sharper on the details of this topic than I am. And yes, consider the eutectic reaction.
 
Last edited:
MACKEY MUST BE DRUNK:

In an interview about the "Collapse of Overpass in California Becomes Lesson in Construction";
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html
Here [Overpass in California], it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.
Click to expand...

I WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mackey is drunk.
 
Last edited:
What Hassan Astaneh Really thinks about the FEMA and NIST Reports

Here is part of an e-mail HA wrote to me back in Sept 2007:

When scientists and engineers outside civil engineering, such as yourself , learn about what I have called "moral corruption" in our profession, they cannot believe it! It is worst than what it looks like. For example, I have
attached a page from the ASCE/FEMA report which lists the names of
people who were on the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team
(BPAT) that produced the FEMA 403 Report. ASCE was paid about $1.0 million
of taxpayer's money to investigate the performance of these buildings and
their collapse. The list of participants in the investigation includes
two names: Jon Magnusson and Saw -Teen See. You may not know these
individuals, but here is who they are:

1. Jon Magnusson: He is listed in ASCE/FEMA report as Partner in
Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc. He is actually one of the main
owners and managers of the firm. Skilling, Barkshire Ward Magnusson,
which was called Skilling Helle Christiansen Robertson, was the
structural engineering firm (located in Seattle and still there) that
did the structural engineering and design of the WTC towers. Leslie E,
Robertson, one of the younger partners at the time moved to New York
after WTC design and opened up his own structural engineering firm which
still is there called Leslie E. Robertson and Associates. Leslie E.
Robertson was the structural engineer of the record for the structural
design of the WTC towers and all structural drawings have his stamp and
signature on them. Having Jon Magnusson from Skilling on the team that
is investigating the structure designed by his firm and has collapsed
killing thousands of people is beyond belief and I am sure in violations
of some laws. You cannot be on the team paid by taxpayers to investigate
why the buildings that you had designed (or your firm had designed)
collapsed. Your own building!

2. Saw-Teen See: She is listed in ASCE/FEMA report as
the Managing Partner, Leslie E. Robertson and Associates, LLP. Of
course Leslie E. Robertson was the structural engineer of the record for
design of towers. In addition, Saw-Teen See is not only the manager of
Leslie E. Robertson and Associates , but she is the wife of Leslie E.
Robertson! So, the wife of the structural engineer who designed the WTC
towers, who is also the head of the firm Leslie E. Robertson was sitting
on the team to investigate the design and performance of the WTC towers
and why they failed!

No wonder when you read the ASCE/FEMA -403 report, there is only praise
( unbeleivable right?) for the structural design of the WTC Towers.

The "moral corruption" is here, where , not only ASCE, but, all other
members of the ASCE/FEMA BPAT allowed these two individuals to become the member of the team and did not demand their expulsion or did not
resign. I was invited to be amember of this ASCE/FEMA team and I had
accepted. When the first kick-off meeting was held which for many
including myself being in New York was via conference call, I realized
what is going on and resigned from the ASCE/FEMA team right after the
first meeting.

There was an article in Chronicle of Higher Education last September
(2006) that talked a little bit about these issues while discussing my
efforts to find the "Truth" about these towers. The URL is:
http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i03/03a02901.htm
an earlier article by the Chronicle of Higher Education on my WTC work
appeared in 2001:
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v48/i15/15a02701.htm

As for the NIST report, the situation is not better. When NIST got the
funding to do the multi-million dollar (I think it was more than $12M)
WTC studies, they divided the money and instead of doing it,
which they really did not have much expertise in structural engineering,
they contracted it out. The first contract for structural modeling and
analysis was given to none other than Leslie E. Robertson firm!

No wonder again that the NIST report does not say anything (almost)
remotely negative about the structural design.
So, here we are with this corrupt profession of mine (civil and
structural engineering) in charge of public safety.
 
Pardalis said:
I'm sorry for the cold shower of reality, but you're a long, long, loooong way from proving anything with this.
Click to expand...

I've proven that at least one engineer saw melted girders, MADE OF STEEL.

That's enough for now.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom