Molten Steel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christopher7 said:
Denial! You ask for what you know does not exist.

You refuse to accept that he is telling the truth. You are effectively calling him a liar too.

No. He is quite capable of recognizing a steel girder when he sees one.
"Abolhassan Astaneh should know. He's a professor of civil engineering at the University of California at Berkeley and was one of the leading structural engineers who studied the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11."

He said: "[FONT=&quot]I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]"

The cladding does NOT look like steel girders.

You are trying to say Abolhassan Astaneh can't tell the difference between a steel girder and aluminum cladding.
You are being silly. Give it up.
Click to expand...

Source your hearsay. Source.

NotMelted.jpg


An engineer investigating the remains of the World Trade Center sees melted girders and other evidence that the towers experienced extreme temperatures on 9/11. Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Berkeley.
Click to expand...
A reporter made up the melted girders, not DR A, the reporter; proof, the photo of what Dr A is looking at, burnt steel, not melted steel; the reporter is making up the melted part!
Hearsay. But please give us your source;



Abolhassan Astaneh should know. He's a professor of civil engineering at the University of California at Berkeley and was one of the leading structural engineers who studied the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11.

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH, University of California, Berkeley: In both of them, 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...
Oops, Dr A says fire destroyed the WTC complex. Oops; there goes the thermite delusion down the drain. I agree with your expert the WTC was destroyed by fire, your expert from Berkley says so.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
You have hearsay until you get proof. He was talking, no one confirms his story, he is not telling a lie, he is just talking like you with no proof.
Click to expand...
Your assuming he has no proof is effectively calling him a liar.

There was no reason for him to make that statement if it were not true. True means he has proof.

You are cherry picking something someone said in November 2001.
Click to expand...
The "cherry picking" thing again. :( You try to hand wave facts and statements by using this "Gravy catch phrase".
Just like bigfoot experts, and UFO experts, your history channel expert is talking off the cuff,
Click to expand...
Get out of town.

An engineer investigating the remains of the World Trade Center sees melted girders and other evidence that the towers experienced extreme temperatures on 9/11. Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Berkeley.

Funny, he is looking at burnt steel, not melted steel; the reporter is making up the melted part! HEARSAY. !!!
Click to expand...
Please, don't claim you know better than he what he saw.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
Mark Loizeaux came to the conclusion that there was molten steel in the debris pile.

He uses reverse logic to conclude that it was not a CD but he has not changed his position on the molten steel.
Click to expand...
In other words you're more than happy to render an appeal to authority when only when their statements supposedly support your claims. And any further investigation they perform in their relevant fields is rendered moot because their conclusions do not match your own. Weird selective qualifiers... I understand why nobody regardless of their expertise gets through to you. If you're going to hold so strongly to your belief, then I suggest you focus more on your offline practices in the movement and take action that way.


Christopher7 said:
BBC did not ask him about the collapse of building 7 because he would have to say it fell in a manner consistent with a CD.
Click to expand...
So you claim... Sorry, the premises behind these types of assumptions are... weak. Short of your own assumptions, and given my educated background in architecture I'm unable to consider such a statement credible

Christopher7 said:
Get serious. If Mark Loizeaux were to say the collapses were CD's he would be assailed by the press and all govt. contracts would end.
Click to expand...

You mean like Richard Gage and his followers? Oh wait... Gage still has his job... His company still receives work. Alex Jones still has his radio show. Hmmm, not good enough? What of professionals in foreign countries? Forgive me if have some doubt in such a scenario when idiots can seemingly get away with parroting these sorts of theories. Heiwa still has his job for god sakes... to me he's the most incompetent engineer I've ever met, and by your standards he would meet the criteria of a "professional" "questioning the official collapse theory" and better still he's been credited by AE911 no less... It seems that your assumption is baseless.
 
Last edited:
Dr A says he saw some melted girders at the WTC, but he says fire destroyed the WTC. I agree with your expert the WTC was doomed by fire. That means the nut case idea of thermite is proved wrong.

But the melted girder is out of context and not explained. It appears Dr A is talking about the piece from WTC7. But you must supply the evidence. So how many steel girders were melted?

I love it as you argue for your expert, and then prove he is correct the WTC failed due to fire. Good job.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
In other words you're more than happy to render an appeal to authority when only when their statements supposedly support your claims.
Click to expand...
You fail to differentiate between a statement of fact such as;
"[FONT=&quot]I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center. "[/FONT]
and opinions expressed by qualified persons.

You try to subject shift because you are not as rediculous as beachnut. You won't claim Abolhassan Astaneh can't tell a steel girder from a piece of aluminum cladding and/or doesn't know what he saw.

Instead, you sidestep the fact that this witnesses and others confirm beyond a reasonable doubt that there was molten steel in the debris piles.
 
Christopher7 said:
The government was in a big hurry to destroy the evidence as fast as possible. They told the workers the air was safe. It was not. They did not give a damn about the workers lungs and many are now dying. What makes you thing they cared about the safety of the workers at all?
What makes you think the government is telling the truth about anything?
Click to expand...

That is two flagrant lies in one post.
 
Christopher7 said:
He described what he saw.

Opinion

If you are having trouble understanding the difference between a description and an opinion, please consult a dictionary.
Click to expand...
Dr Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl; your expert said the WTC fell due to fire after examining the WTC steel. But you then say no? Then there goes the melted steel since you can’t trust his expert conclusion, you can’t trust his word on melted steel. Darn, you have refuted Dr Jones but then say no melted steel, Dr A’s ideas are not correct the WTC did not fall due to fire and thus no melted steel because Dr A’s ideas are not to be trusted. Your expert is not an expert? You run over Dr A with the bus when he makes conclusions against your Drank the Kool-aid club of Dr Thermite Nut Case Ideas Jones.

This is in NIST; WTC fell due to fire. Did you miss the NIST report too?

So if an expert says something you don’t like it is an opinion, but when an expert has an opinion about melted steel it is a fact? Good for you cherry picking and defining what an expert can get right, and what he can’t get right. You would be a great NAZI propaganda minister, as you would decide what is truth and what is not, based on your own biases. Bravo

You vetted Dr Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and seem to present him as your expert. Dr Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl says the WTC complex was destroyed by fire. You have put to rest the insane Dr Jones rant of Thermite once and for all in one easy step. Good work.
Dr Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl refutes Dr Jones. Thank you for clearing up Dr Jones’ idiotic Thermite scenario.

But as usual you make up what you think are opinions, and what are facts.

But knowing Dr Jones made up thermite and has no clue how to fuse it, how much, who did it, or how it was done, you are left with delusions made up by a failed professor fired for making up absurd ideas.


Now you are saying the melted steel is an opinion! Make up your mind.
 
C7 said:
Thermite is the only known possible cause of the molten metal.
Click to expand...
Dave Rogers said:
That's a prayer, not a conclusion. How many times do you plan to chant it?

Dave
Click to expand...
That should read "molten steel" [my bad]

Thermite is the only known possible cause of the molten steel in the WTC debris piles.

This is a FACT.

Do you know of another explanation for the molten steel in the debris pile?

Do you still refuse to believe there was molten steel in the debris pile despite the statements of the professionals?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Assuming it existed? The same thing that kept it at melting point for weeks, perhaps? We know that couldn't have been thermite. What kept the steel hot, and why wasn't it that that melted it?

Dave
Click to expand...
You deny it's existence and and ponder what kept it molten for weeks.
 
Christopher7 said:
You deny it's existence and and ponder what kept it molten for weeks.
Click to expand...

You refuse to listen to ANY evidence that thermite never existed, including wondering how it could have kept "steel" molten for weeks.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
You don't know that. He made an unequivocal statement that there were melted beams and molten metal at the WTC.
You are unable to accept this so you claim it was hearsay.

You refuse to accept any statements that confirm molten steel in the debris pile because you can't deal with the consequences.

You are simply in denial.

Now you are saying he was talking through his hat. That's pure denial.

Source? What does it matter? Your hand waving is effectively calling him a liar or an idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about.

So what? His statement was clear and unequivocal.

He said there WERE melted beams and there WAS molten steel. You are just trying to double step around that by playing with semantics.

Abolhassan Astansh SAW MELTED GIRDERS!

What is your denial excuse for that?
Click to expand...

If they were melted how did he know they were beams? Can you look at a puddle of liquid and tell what shape it was before it melted?
 
Christopher7 said:
Thermite is the only known possible cause of the molten steel in the WTC debris piles.

This is a FACT.
Click to expand...


No, it's a mantra. In fact, it's more like a Zen koan, because it's essentially meaningless. Thermite is not a possible cause of molten steel weeks after the collapse, therefore it can't be the only possible cause.

Christopher7 said:
You deny it's existence and and ponder what kept it molten for weeks.
Click to expand...

No, I simply point out that if it existed and remained molten for weeks, something must have existed in the rubble pile that was (a) capable of creating sufficiently high temperatures to melt steel and (b) capable of releasing heat continuously over several weeks. Since (b) excludes thermite, then if there was molten metal weeks after the collapse, this proves that there is some possible cause of molten steel in the debris piles other than thermite. This refutes your koan.

Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom