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

BigAl said:
I'd love to see what more firemen have to say. As a New Yorker and witness, I'd pay good money to see it.

For that matter, I'd love to hear what your "scientists" have to say without Richard Gage speaking for them.
Click to expand...

Why don't we see more of the firemen anyway ?
 
deep said:
Please see the link I posted earlier - the eye-witness reports I'm referring to are the ones that specifically mention molten steel. Dr. A-Asl observed "melting of girders" .. and, I assume we can all agree that girders are made of steel?

So - no, they are not "unrelated".
Click to expand...

They are absolutely, positively established as unrelated via research and experimentation. Again, do a forum search for the word "eutectic".

The witness did not see molten steel; they only thought at the time it was steel. They never tested it, they never, ever made any claim other than a visual one, and that visual one has since been contradicted by the gathering and study of the debris, plus the study and experimentation done to replicate the eutectic erosion Astaneh-Asl noted. The witnesses saw molten metal. Furthermore, no molten steel was ever recovered from Ground Zero, and no steel columns or other steel structures were recovered that showed signs of melting, save for the few individual pieces noted by Astaneh-Asl and studied by the Worchester Polytechnic team; I once again refer you all to NCSTAR 1-3C, a report none of you have bothered to acknowledge, let alone understand. And those were actually eutectic erosion, not actual melting of the steel component of the eutectic itself. Astaneh-Asl's observations were clearly established to be eutectic erosion by the Worchester team. And on top of that, he did not see entire girders melt, he observed less than inch thick areas eroded. I full well realize that the early thoughts were indeed that melting occurred, I full well realize that the early hypotheses were that the beams had suffered such temperatures. You fail to realize that subsequent research has established that this did not happen. You are ignoring the totality of evidence that exists.

Stop relying on only part of the picture. The entirety of evidence is what matters, not your isolated, context free snippets. That entirety includes the Worchester findings, as well as the NIST acknowledgement of the eutectic corrosion. That is the full story, not the missing-pieces approach you conspiracy peddlers take.

The issue of molten steel and Astaneh-Asl's observations have been done to death already.
And you know what's sad, Deep? I'm reminded by doing that search that some of those threads didn't only have you participating, but were started by you. And you still haven't learned anything from all the info we've posted for you. What's up with that?
 
ElMondoHummus said:
The video is a first hand account of a man witnessing molten metal. He has no way of knowing it was steel. And we know it could not have been steel because the recovery teams had the steel debris, which was documented in NCSTAR 1-3C. Nowhere in that report do you see any structural steel elements of the towers that suffered any melting at all, let alone enough to account for that firefighters account. Nowhere. Go read it.

Furthermore, what you fail to acknowledge is
  1. There were a variety of other metals in the towers - aluminum facade, God knows how much plumbing and wiring, etc. - that can easily account for this sighting. And
  2. The firefighter did not test the material to make certain it's steel. So while in normal circumstances we can trust the accuracy of an experienced firefighter's observation, the fact remains that he is stating something that is in direct contradiction to accumulated evidence. In the absence of tests on what the man witnessed, you cannot definitively rule that what he saw was steel.
Last, if there was molten steel, where are the hardened remains? None were recovered (no, the "asteroid" does not count; that was never, ever molten steel).
Click to expand...

Do you even know what this thread is about???

The whole point of the thread is that one of the investigators, who personally inspected steel, said it had not just melted but "vaporized".
 
twinstead said:
And, as usual, it boils down to exactly how does molten steel = inside job anyway?
Click to expand...

Well the molten steel obviously proves thermite doesn't it. And we know it takes lots of thermite to melt steel which means that there must have been tons of it at the impact level.

Also the thermite must have been on the core columns, because if the thermite had been cutting the external columns we would have seen the bright flash. So that proves the thermite was on the core.

Actually there was so much thermite that the molten steel flooded the floor and flowed 70ft from the core to the corner of the building. Actually there must have been tons of the stuff at the bottom of the lift shafts and on the floor itself. I guess that the evidence of this was all hidden in the cover-up.

Also as Mr Gage says the fires burned for months and the only way that could have happened is with thermite. So my guess is that there were tons of thermite at every level and only the stuff at the impact level went off. The rest kept the steel in the pile going for months.
 
vinniem said:
Do you even know what this thread is about???

The whole point of the thread is that one of the investigators, who personally inspected steel, said it had not just melted but "vaporized".
Click to expand...

Or the word "vaporized" came from a science-illiterate New York Times reporter in this badly written article published a month after 9/11.

In any case, there is no physical evidence for molten steel on the pile and there is no science that would show how the temperatures needed to maintain molten steel were created and maintained for weeks.

Given that there is no evidence and no science, we can dismiss the second-hand stories as hyperbole.
 
Last edited:
vinniem said:
The bolded claim is untrue. Here is a video of a firefighter describing what he saw at ground zero

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287#
Click to expand...

The laws of physics don't lie, Vinnie. The temperature wasn't high enough to melt steel, therefore molten steel cannot have been seen.

There were temperatures observed in the debris pile that were high enough to melt aluminum, the second most common material used in the towers construction.

The witness, must have observed molten aluminum and was merely mistaken.
 
vinniem said:
Do you even know what this thread is about???

The whole point of the thread is that one of the investigators, who personally inspected steel, said it had not just melted but "vaporized".
Click to expand...

One more time, since you quite obviously didn't pay attention the first time you were told:
ElMondoHummus said:
Oh, not this again! See above. Astaneh-Asl made an initial observation, but subsequent resesarch shows that this was not vaporization, but sulfidation!

You, too, are not comprehending the overall picture. Go do a search for "eutectic" in this forum; you need to do this before you rehash ground that's been covered ad-nauseum already.
Click to expand...

Reread. And since you are the one who doesn't appear to know what this thread is all about, here is more required reading for you:
Until you understand Astaneh-Asl's place in the recovery chain, and until you understand that there was further analysis of his observations that expanded on what he saw, then you are the one who's lacking the knowledge. Read. Learn. Then participate.
 
Last edited:
vinniem said:
The whole point of the thread is that one of the investigators, who personally inspected steel, said it had not just melted but "vaporized".
Click to expand...

what percent of the WTC towers do you believe was turned into vapor?
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
The laws of physics don't lie, Vinnie. The temperature wasn't high enough to melt steel, therefore molten steel cannot have been seen.

There were temperatures observed in the debris pile that were high enough to melt aluminum, the second most common material used in the towers construction.

The witness, must have observed molten aluminum and was merely mistaken.
Click to expand...

Strange you should say that because a debunker further up this thread said that a sulphur eutectic reaction could effectively lower the melting point of steel.

How do you even know what temperatures were in the pile? We do know that NASA's thermal satellite image of ground zero, several days after 911, showed a hotspot of 1377 degrees Fahrenheit and that was on the surface.
 
vinniem said:
What a ridiculous question. How am I meant to know the answer to that?
Click to expand...

you suggested some of the wtc was vaporized. so i would like to know, out of all your extensive research, what % of the wtc towers do u think was vaporized?
 
vinniem said:
What a ridiculous question. How am I meant to know the answer to that?
Click to expand...

OK, here's one that should be easy. What do you think happened on 9/11?

Remember to be specific about how molten steel fits into your theory, since you seem to believe it is so important.
 
I can tell from the idiocy still inhabiting this thread that no one, yet, has bothered clarifiying Dr. Astaneh-asl's remarks with the man himself.

I can't tell you how surprised I am. Really, I can't.
 
parky76 said:
you suggested some of the wtc was vaporized. so i would like to know, out of all your extensive research, what % of the wtc towers do u think was vaporized?
Click to expand...

Did I? Where?

Do you think that nothing in the wtc was vaporized? Think carefully about your answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom