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

vinniem said:
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.
Click to expand...

Now you're proceeding from the assumption that the molten steel (if there was any) is the result of eutectic reactions. But eutectic reactions aren't caused by "inside jobs".

So to prove an inside job, you bring up molten steel. But to prove molten steel, you use an non-inside job explanation for it.

Do you get dizzy chasing your tail like that?
 
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...

A first impression that has been corrected by later metallurgical studies of the exact same samples he inspected, which found it to be not vaporisation but eutectic melting. Rational people tend to understand that first impressions can be incorrect and that further detailed study gives far more reliable results. For some reason, when the incorrect first impressions are more convenient to the conspiracy theorists, this rather obvious point becomes incomprehensible to them. Strange, that.

Dave
 
Edx said:
You'd think truthers would try contacting ALL the people they love to quote.

All the firemen in their videos about molten steel and "boom boom boom" guys describing the collapse, or the other firemen they quote talking of explosions and find out what they actually think.

Nah, they'd rather just assume these people are on their side.
Click to expand...

I find that one of the subtle joys in life is that moment of epiphany you get when going directly to the source of an issue and thus achieve a deeper understanding.

I pity truthers for never knowing that joy.
 
As I see it the most important question that needs to be answered (one that will lead to many other answers) is how on Earth the pile stayed so incredibly hot for over 100 days despite being drowned in lakes of water.
 
Last edited:
vinniem said:
Do you think that nothing in the wtc was vaporized? Think carefully about your answer.
Click to expand...

I am quite sure that some of the steel in those columns was vaporized.

I am certain that, during the collapse, there were violent collisions. And that some of those collisions produced sparks.

Other metal "vaporizing" events:
evaporation from the molten aluminum
filaments in broken light bulbs
short circuited electrical wire
arcing in switches & motor brushes
broken wires carrying inductive loads
probably a few more...

Add it all up, and perhaps you'd get to as much as several grams of vaporized metal.

What significance these had to the day's events is beyond me.

It certainly didn't happen anywhere else prior to the collapse. Nor after the collapse.

Although what significance after-the-collapse vaporization might have on the collapse itself is somewhat limited by concepts like "cause & effect".
 
Edx said:
You'd think truthers would try contacting ALL the people they love to quote.

All the firemen in their videos about molten steel and "boom boom boom" guys describing the collapse, or the other firemen they quote talking of explosions and find out what they actually think.

Nah, they'd rather just assume these people are on their side.
Click to expand...

I have emailed him, but as yet received no response.
 
This article produces a very interesting insight into the decision making process regarding the examination / disposition of the steel from the towers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html?pagewanted=all

It was published on Tuesday, Oct 2, 2001. Which means that it was written on Monday, Oct 1, 2001. In the article, the writer, Mr. Chang, states that:

Kenneth Chang said:
Dr. Astaneh-Asl and other engineers had assumed that the estimated 310,000 tons of steel columns and beams were being taken to Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island with the rest of the debris, to be sifted by investigators.

But because the steel provides no clues to the criminal investigation, New York City started sending it to recyclers.

City officials, enmeshed with the more pressing priority of recovering bodies, did not realize that structural engineers would be keenly interested in the twisted metal. Because of crossed communications, a request by the civil engineers' society did not reach city officials until Friday.

The city's Department of Design and Construction has now approved the request, and James Rossberg, director of the civil engineering society's Structural Engineering Institute, said he hoped the team would be able to visit the site this week.
Click to expand...

A request to redirect the disposition of over 300,000 tons of steel reached city official on Friday (presumably Sept. 28, 2001, 17 days after the attack), and by the following Monday (Oct 1, 2001), the government had already made a decision granting that request.

This well may be the fastest decision that I have ever seen out of a governmental body. Other than approving their own pay raises, of course.

[Nah, I have to take that back. Every time they discuss their own pay raises, they go thru a massive, very public, and entirely insincere, display of self-examination & angst over the question. And only then approve it.]

Quite a bit of a different story than the "truther common knowledge" of the "rush to dispose of the steel".

Tom

PS. It's also interesting that, at the end of the article, Chang quotes Asteneh-Asl as saying ''For the sake of those 6,000 people,'' he said, ''we should learn something about it.''

3 weeks after the event, they still thought that 6,000 people had died. Or, perhaps, all initial statements are unassailably flawless, and all later "corrections" are manifestations of the cover-up...?
 
vinniem said:
Are you saying thermite can't melt steel? You really want to go with that?
Click to expand...

I am saying that thermite cannot melt steel beams horizontally or obliquely.

Please feel free to provide ANY example of thermite/thermate/nanothermite cutting through STEEL BEAMS horizontally or obliquely.

I eagerly await your proof.
 
vinnie,

I've got a question for you. When was this "river of molten metal" reported? 1 week later? 1 month later? 3 months later?

If a river of molten metal (of any sort) flowed for that length of time, how much metal would that represent?

If you had a slowly flowing (1'/sec), small (1' wide x 3" deep) creek of molten steel, then in one day, you'd have deposited (500 lb/ft^3)x (.25 ft^3/sec) x (86,400 sec/day) = 5,400 tons of steel per day. Two of these tiny creeks would produce over 10,000 tons per day.

Two of these creeks flowing for one month, and there would have been ZERO steel beams to cart away, because ALL 310,000 tons would have been melted into one giant blob of steel.


What happens to molten metal when it is left for long periods of time? It cools. Into a giant solid piece of metal. Somebody please point me to the 50,000 ton slab of solidified steel that had to be cut up into tiny pieces in order to be carted away. I saw LOTS of steel beams on flat bed trucks. I saw zero cut up slabs of solid steel.

Sometimes it seems to me that truthers' beliefs about the molten metal were formed by this documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu4XVBOTVRE


Tom
 
Last edited:
Bump for Vinniem. Please answer the question.

Can you tell the difference between the dozen or so metals which melt at under 1000C that would have been in the towers and molten steel?


TruthersLie said:
Since you have me on ignore, you will just miss the words of wisdom.

How many different metals which melt at under 1,000C were used in the construction of, and spread throughout the towers?

(take a guess....)

about a dozen. All of them would have been present in the towers and in the piles. The temperuatres would EASILY have turned those dozen metals into liquid/molten form.

Again and again I ask you. Can you or anyone who is untrained with very little experience tell the difference between molten lead, molten tin, molten zinc, molten aluminum, molten colbalt (and all the rest?) Could they tell the difference between MOLTEN GLASS/MOLTEN plastics?

just by looking? Really?

Now comes the better question. Can you ELIMINATE any of those dozen metals which would become molten at 1000C from the datamined quotes? Can you ELIMINATE the possibility of molten glass or plastics?

what? <crickets chirping>

No you can't. If you cannot eliminate very easy to find, reasonable examples, then you CANNOT claim it was molten steel.

It is called experimental design, look it up.
Click to expand...
 
bill smith said:
As I see it the most important question that needs to be answered (one that will lead to many other answers) is how on Earth the pile stayed so incredibly hot for over 100 days despite being drowned in lakes of water.
Click to expand...

The water wasn't getting to the fires.
 
bill smith said:
Sure if the water couldn't get to the fire how would the fire get enough air to burn for one hour let alone than for more than three consecutive months ?
Click to expand...
Place a fire under a roof. Spray water on top of roof. Watch fire not get wet, but burn merrily.

Does air follow similar paths as water?:rolleyes:

Seriously, we know lots of examples of that. Ask any fireman how it is to put out a fire in a thatched roof. Peat bogs can burn for years in spite attempts to put them out. There are several garbage dumps around the world that have been burning for decades, despite attempts to put them out.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Seriously, we know lots of examples of that. Ask any fireman how it is to put out a fire in a thatched roof. Peat bogs can burn for years in spite attempts to put them out. There are several garbage dumps around the world that have been burning for decades, despite attempts to put them out.
Click to expand...

There is even a Coal fire that has been burning for 6000 years.
 
Were the rubble piles hermetically sealed containers :confused:? I mean, seriously, that's exactly the argument being made when talking about getting enough air to burn for months; the only restriction the debris could impose is on flow, not total volume. And no, the piles were not airtight by any stretch, hence the EPA tests on the water in the Hudson river. Yes, they found thankfully little pollution from the Ground Zero runoff, but the point is that some occurred. It's obviously not a hermetic seal when that happens.
 
bill smith said:
Sure if the water couldn't get to the fire how would the fire get enough air to burn for one hour let alone than for more than three consecutive months ?
Click to expand...

Did you know that underground coal seams often catch on fire?

There is one that has been burning in Centrailia Pennsylvainia since 1962.

It is undergound. How does it get the air to burn for almost 40 consecutive years?

Landfills are also notorious for having underground fires.
 
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Now you're proceeding from the assumption that the molten steel (if there was any) is the result of eutectic reactions. But eutectic reactions aren't caused by "inside jobs".

So to prove an inside job, you bring up molten steel. But to prove molten steel, you use an non-inside job explanation for it.

Do you get dizzy chasing your tail like that?
Click to expand...

truthers have no sense of ballance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom