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

Sam.I.Am said:
Interesting. Any idea at how fast it cuts on average (different materials and all that) in feet per hour?
Click to expand...

I have seen it demonstrated before via video confrence. Its quite the impressive tool.

IIRC, it can cut up to 30 feet per hour. This is a gross average, but I think that is what the guy said. I will try to find the name of the company that makes it.
 
bill smith said:
About as fast as a camel will go through the eye of a needle. Articles like that (and Mackey's post above) are not designed to fool critical thinkers. They are designed to offer a way out to people who do not want to believe that 9/11 was an insde job.
Click to expand...

Um, those articles serve to educate. Something I wish you would do when it comes to the things that are discussed.
 
sylvan8798 said:
Of course, if they had melted from the bottom, the buildings would have collapsed from the bottom up, but don't let Newton stand in the way of your silly ideas, Bill.

Your theory of events just gets dumber and dumber, albeit entertaining. Continue...

Perhaps with some insight on how large sections of both cores stood for several seconds following the main collapse on melted column sections which were blindingly white hot, but gave off no light...

:popcorn6
Click to expand...

If 50% of the core columns had been melted from the bottom up, the other 50% would have supported the weight of the building. ( FOS of three or greater ) Then the second and final wave of destruction some seconds later was top-down as we all saw.

We didn't see the intense glare of the nanothermite burning because it was lightproofed by the fireproofing on the columns.

Do you remember the way the core sections crumbled ? Were they really steel at that point or just empty sheaths of burned and fused fireproofing ? If you look for more videos on youtube you will find even better examples of crumbling than these.(Steel doesn't normally crumble like this ).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goGGQhhTcDY&feature=related Spire crumbles

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6005900343263850613&hl=en core crumbles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm_v4RXvywA Core crumbles 2
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
If 50% of the core columns had been melted from the bottom up, the other 50% would have supported the weight of the building. ( FOS of three or greater )
Click to expand...

I see, I see. Would that have been 50% of EACH column, or just 23.5 of the columns? Your knowledge of structural engineering is apparent boundless.

Then the second and final wave of destruction some seconds later was top-down as we all saw.

We didn't see the intense glare of the nanothermite burning because it was lightproofed by the fireproofing on the columns.
Click to expand...
Lightproofed, uhuh. Anyone willing to help bill fund an experiment?

Do you remember the way the core sections crumbled ? Were they really steel at that point or just empty sheaths of burned and fused fireproofing ?
Click to expand...

Why yes, of course empty sheaths of burned and fused fireproofing are very strong and could stand 50 stories high. That's why buildings nowadays are framed with sheaths of burned and fused fireproofing. Cheaper and reduces the weight of the structure lots.

Rationalizing has no limits with truthers.
 
sylvan8798 said:
I see, I see. Would that have been 50% of EACH column, or just 23.5 of the columns? Your knowledge of structural engineering is apparent boundless.


Lightproofed, uhuh. Anyone willing to help bill fund an experiment?




Why yes, of course empty sheaths of burned and fused fireproofing are very strong and could stand 50 stories high. That's why buildings nowadays are framed with sheaths of burned and fused fireproofing. Cheaper and reduces the weight of the structure lots.

Rationalizing has no limits with truthers.
Click to expand...

Well they didn't stand for very long did they ?. And then they crushed down upon themselves as if their own weight was crumbling them at their bases. This definitely 100% certain could not happen with massive steel like the core columns were made of. Look again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm_v4RXvywA core crumbles 2

So do you have an enjoyable and amusing alternative explanation for how the massive steel columns could have subsided straight down through/into themselves ?

PS. THis was one of the videos I was looking for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI&NR=1 clips 1
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
If 50% of the core columns had been melted from the bottom up, the other 50% would have supported the weight of the building. ( FOS of three or greater ) Then the second and final wave of destruction some seconds later was top-down as we all saw.

We didn't see the intense glare of the nanothermite burning because it was lightproofed by the fireproofing on the columns.
Click to expand...

If you find yourself having to come up with this sort of ad hoc explanation, then your theory is in serious trouble.

This is not my opinion. It has been demonstrated repeatedly by application of the scientific method over the last few centuries.
 
bill smith said:
So do you have an enjoyable and amusing alternative explanation for how the massive steel columns could have subsided straight down through/into themselves ?
Click to expand...

They weren't designed to stand on their own; plus a building had just collapsed around them.

Hope you enjoyed that.
 
aggle-rithm said:
If you find yourself having to come up with this sort of ad hoc explanation, then your theory is in serious trouble.

This is not my opinion. It has been demonstrated repeatedly by application of the scientific method over the last few centuries.
Click to expand...

That was an interesting piece of mumbo-jumbo Aggle.
 
aggle-rithm said:
They weren't designed to stand on their own; plus a building had just collapsed around them.

Hope you enjoyed that.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the building collapsed 'on' them or 'around' them ? If only 'around' as you said here then please elaborate.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
That was an interesting piece of mumbo-jumbo Aggle.
Click to expand...


Really? I thought the meaning of his post was quite clear.

If you let me know which words or phrases you were having trouble understanding, I'll try to help out.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
Really? I thought the meaning of his post was quite clear.

If you let me know which words or phrases you were having trouble understanding, I'll try to help out.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

I (and the readers I expect) would far prefer for you to tackle some of the more important issues I have raised in recent posts. Engage Myriad,engage.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I (and the readers I expect) would far prefer for you to tackle some of the more important issues I have raised in recent posts. Engage Myriad,engage.
Click to expand...


You have not raised any important issues, and aggle-rithm's post which you apparently found unclear explains why. That seemed worthy of discussion, since your admitted incomprehension would likely be correctable by a clearer explanation. Please point out which words or phrases you were having trouble understanding. As I said, I'll try to help out.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
You have not raised any important issues, and aggle-rithm's post which you apparently found unclear explains why. That seemed worthy of discussion, since your admitted incomprehension would likely be correctable by a clearer explanation. Please point out which words or phrases you were having trouble understanding. As I said, I'll try to help out.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Sorry I'm not in the mood for side roads. You could help by giving your opinion on the crumbling steel in the recent videos I posted.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
So do you have an enjoyable and amusing alternative explanation for how the massive steel columns could have subsided straight down through/into themselves ?
Click to expand...

Yeah, they didn't.
They buckled and broke, the later occuring mostly at the section connections which is why many of the core column pieces were 30 feet in length.
 
bill smith said:
Sorry I'm not in the mood for side roads.
Click to expand...


That is inconsistent with what you said before, at least with regard to this particular issue. You clearly stated that aggle-rithm's point was interesting, implying that you regard it as relevant and worthy of discussion. But you also claimed it was mumbo-jumbo, implying that it was difficult to understand.

I wish to remedy the latter issue. Please tell me which parts you were having trouble with, and I'll try to help.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
bill smith said:
Sorry I'm not in the mood for side roads. You could help by giving your opinion on the crumbling steel in the recent videos I posted.
Click to expand...

Steel can't crumble. Cookies do. Do you think the WTC was made of cookies? That's so cute.
 
jaydeehess said:
Yeah, they didn't.
They buckled and broke, the later occuring mostly at the section connections which is why many of the core column pieces were 30 feet in length.
Click to expand...

Well that's a start. I'll put that in the file and add it to the believabilty index a little later. Points out of ten.

Try to come up with something that's a litle bit realistic guys. It's not enough any more to simply apply the long used debunker rule of 'If it's not entirely impossible, then that's what happened'.

Things have changed and people are looking more critically at things. There was a time not too long ago when they would believe pretty well anything as you know. That's just about over thank God, and good riddance.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom