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

[Oystein]

...
- He says: “My wish was that we had spent whatever it takes, maybe $50 million, $100 million, and maybe two years, get all this steel, carry it to a lot. Instead of recycling it, put it horizontally, and assemble it. You have maybe 200 engineers, not just myself running around trying to figure out what’s going on. After all, this is a crime scene and you have to figure out exactly what happened for this crime, and learn from it.” However, he adds, “My wish is not what happens.” [CBS News, 3/12/2002]
...

His wish is not what happens, and for good reasons, since no one is willing to pay that much. In particular, TRUTHERS do not wish to pay that much for a new investigation. The latest and greates fund raising effort by truthers aimed at collecting 1 million (i.e. 1% of what Astaneh wished for) towards advertising for a more thorough investigation, but less than 1500 truthers thought it worth any money at all, and the entire Truth Movement, over the course of months, put together only about 80,000 dollars, or less than 0.1% of what Astaneh wished for.

If the masses of the Truth Movement are only willing to actually pay 80,000 dollars, who do they think should come up with the other 99.9%, or 99,920,000 dollars?

 

[Oystein]

Lol yes he said, do you know the girders were made from steel. Ohh i hope i do not shock you.

You assume other posters here are as uninformed, or even less informed, than you are. That assumption is wrong.
You assume other posters here understand engineering, metallurgy, fire science etc. as badly as you, or even worse. That assumption is wrong.
You assume other posters do not read your posts for comprehension, just as you can't read their posts for comprehension. That assumption is wrong.



tfk not only knows the girders were made of steel In contrast to you, he also understands the microstructure of steel, he understands what eutectics are, how hot gasses diffuse into the microstructure of steel, how that causes intergranular melting, and why this is, at the macro level, better described as corrosion and not as melting. He understands, and Astaneh understands, but you don't understand, that the findings of Astaneh and his peculiar specimen do not support any allegation of controlled demolition at all. You have been informed, earlier in this thread, that Astaneh believes that ALL the evidence, including his own, points to collapses brought about by plane crashes, and NOTHING else, and that he threatens legal action against those who misconstrue his words as meaning anything remotely in the way of trurtherdom.

Marokkaan, every reader of this thread can see easily that you are either totally ignorant and refuse to even read what's presented to you, or if you do read, you must be lying. Why is it so important to you to make it public knowledge that you are ignorant, a liar, or both?

 

[triforcharity]

How about that evidence? Got it?

 

[triforcharity]

And they have WHAT to show for it? Seems to me that the ROI is VERY low....

(ROI = Return on Investment)

 

[Miragememories]

How about that evidence? Got it?

You mean trail of custody, lab approved proof?

That eye witness testimony of red hot steel with dripping ends must represent some other metal, each and every time it was observed?

I don't think I can run as fast as you can move the goalposts.

I've witnessed too much automodaction deceit already in the "red chips were paint" thread.

MM

 

[triforcharity]

You mean trail of custody, lab approved proof?

That eye witness testimony of red hot steel with dripping ends must represent some other metal, each and every time it was observed?

I don't think I can run as fast as you can move the goalposts.

I've witnessed too much automodaction deceit already in the "red chips were paint" thread.

MM

Citation needed. In case you keep forgetting, this means a link with proof that A: It in fact was steel, B: It was in fact molten.

Hint: A grabber arm picking up a piece of steel is not proof of molten metal.

Two reasons : 1-Molten steel couldn't be picked up with a grabber arm. 2-Molten metal doesn't have straight, square edges.

Do try again there champ.

 

[leftysergeant]

Astaneh-Asl says that steel flanges have been reduced “from an inch thick to paper thin.” [Berkeleyan, 10/3/2001]

So? I have seen sulphuric and nitric acids do that to metal. Did you have some point to make?

He finds a foot-long twisted shard of steel that is “like a piece of bread, but it was high-strength steel.” He comments, “I haven’t seen anything like this [before].” [Berkeley Daily Planet, 10/20/2001]

So? How many buiding fires last for a couple months? The longer a fire burns, the more unusual the debris will be.

Astaneh-Asl previously told the New York Times that the scrap steel from the WTC was “worth only a few million dollars, a tiny fraction of the billions of dollars the cleanup will cost.” Yet the knowledge that could be gained from it “could save lives in a future disaster.” [New York Times, 10/2/2001]

There is no indication that he thinks anything other than the crash damage and fires caused the collapse. That is not even a major concern of his. He is just interested in how buildings might be better-designed to prevent this sort of collapse, or to delay it long enough to allow more people to escape.

He did not see your pile of unicorn poo that proves an inside job.

 

[BasqueArch]

.....
"
In my opinion, and based on scientific facts, the only cause of collapse was the structural and fire damage to the towers that had many unusual features and were not designed according to the buildings codes, standards and the practice.

" A. Astaneh, Professor
.....

IIRC all the reviews by engineers determined the Towers engineering design met or exceeded all applicable building and engineering codes at the time.

I remember reading about the questionable use of super high strength steel used in some areas, but I believe these steels were not in the area of the collapse and therefore could not have contributed to the failures.

IIRC NIST studied these codes and practices and found the design met or exceeded these.

I know this has been discussed in other reports, but frankly I don't spend as much time in research as I used to.
What specifically is Astaneh talking about.

 

[Senenmut]

it is interesting where he thinks that wasted away steel came from.....the floors engulfed in flames!:

"For example, valuable information could come from analysis of the blackened steel from the floors engulfed in flame after the airplane collisions. Steel flanges had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin, Astaneh said."
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/10/03_grou.html

and of coarse that is only 8 -18 days after 911. that 25mm of steel wasted away in only a short amount of time!! and he thinks its from the floors engulfed in flame!

and of coarse we cant forget the 15.9mm of A367 steel that disappered in only 8 days according to this article. and what prof astaneh thinks....it burned first (lost 15.9mm of A36steel) then buckled before the building fell, not as it lay in the debris pile. prof sisson can only get "little metel" to dissolve in 24 hrs with his powders on steel experiment that dosent even replicate building/debris fire. it bypasses the critical step of the building material/debris fire causing the eutectic to form in the fist place.

from the article-
One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. 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.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

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

 

[BasqueArch]

.....

.....
One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. 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.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward. ''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html?pagewanted=all

And this was before anyone had the idea that beams buckled sideways and had detached from the columns causing their failure.

Say, aren't you the guy that knowingly keeps repeating the lie that "The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
--Former CIA Director William Colby

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7135545#post7135545

 

[Grizzly Bear]

it is interesting where he thinks that wasted away steel came from.....the floors engulfed in flames!:

"For example, valuable information could come from analysis of the blackened steel from the floors engulfed in flame after the airplane collisions. Steel flanges had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin, Astaneh said."
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/10/03_grou.html

and of coarse that is only 8 -18 days after 911. that 25mm of steel wasted away in only a short amount of time!! and he thinks its from the floors engulfed in flame!

I'm not surprised at the denial though.

It's what you Official Story zealots always do.

MM

For both of you, from the previous page in response to CSC:

Originally Posted by Bollyn
Astaneh wanted to know what I thought had caused the collapse of the Twin Towers. When I told him that I thought the towers had been demolished with explosives including Thermite and a nano-composite of thermite, he began to attack me saying that I was wasting my time and hurting the feelings of the victims' relatives. When I asked him about Dr. Steven E. Jones' discovery of chips of nano-thermite in the dust of the towers, Astaneh dismissed it, saying that Jones is not an engineer.

Astaneh then responded to my email request:

Originally Posted by Astaneh-Asl
Dear Mr. Bollyn: As I clearly stated in our phone conversation a few minutes ago, I am very disturbed by the people such as yourself, who are part of this "Conspiracy theorist" regarding World Trade Center collapse. These people have used my name and research results in totally incorrect way, and in completely opposite way of what the research results had indicated. By doing so, you and all others have implied that our research somehow support your totally incorrect theories. 

I hereby officially notify you in writing that if you use my name or the results of our research in any publication implying that the data that we have collected on the WTC somehow supports or provides you with evidence in support of your totally baseless conspiracy theories, I reserve the right to take any legal action necessary to protect my reputation as well as integrity of my research. 

Let me state again that after 6 years of studying the collapse of World Trade Center, I have not found any evidence to support any of the claims of "conspiracy theorists".
In my opinion, and based on scientific facts, the only cause of collapse was the structural and fire damage to the towers that had many unusual features and were not designed according to the buildings codes, standards and the practice.

A. Astaneh, Professor

While you guys key in on a single key word, the real skeptics are paying attention to the actual analysis and conclusions he drew from them. The matter has been discussed for years; suggesting that he supports your "theories" when he's very clearly stated he found nothing to support "controlled demolition." And y'all continue accusing us of denial?

 

[twinstead]

All it shows is that Astaneh-Asl saw the same evidence that you truthers see, yet came to a totally different conclusion. Somehow, however, you seem to think this is evidence to support you.

I find that odd

 

[Senenmut]

And this was before anyone had the idea that beams buckled sideways and had detached from the columns causing their failure.

Say, aren't you the guy that knowingly keeps repeating the lie that "The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
--Former CIA Director William Colby

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7135545#post7135545

this is wtc7 steel we are talking about here. he was one of the few people to see the actual forensic evidence. he states that it lost 15.9mm then buckled, not as it lay in the debris pile.

take the quote up with the author. it is in derailing democracy. i bought the book and its there.

 

[Senenmut]

Astaneh then responded to my email request:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Astaneh-Asl

Let me state again that after 6 years of studying the collapse of World Trade Center, I have not found any evidence to support any of the claims of "conspiracy theorists".
In my opinion, and based on scientific facts, the only cause of collapse was the structural and fire damage to the towers that had many unusual features and were not designed according to the buildings codes, standards and the practice.


A. Astaneh, Professor


i havent seen him say anything about wtc7. as the bolding states, he thinks fire damage and when he speaks of fire damage, he is also speaking of one inch of steel that turned to razor then as being from fire damage. and when he speaks of the 15.9mm of a36 steel that was gone only 8 days after 911, he speaks of it being from fire damage.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

i havent seen him say anything about wtc7. as the bolding states, he thinks fire damage and when he speaks of fire damage, he is also speaking of one inch of steel that turned to razor then as being from fire damage. and when he speaks of the 15.9mm of a36 steel that was gone only 8 days after 911, he speaks of it being from fire damage.

And after three years this is the sole argument I've ever seen from you... repeating the same point over and over and over and over. Using the same scare quotes as MM at times to support your point. So my question is thus; at what point will you stop asking the same questions, prying on the passing statements of people before the more thorough analyses were done, and actually provided criticism of the conclusions and the research which led to them?

Are you not interested in the research?

 

[Senenmut]

And after three years this is the sole argument I've ever seen from you... repeating the same point over and over and over and over. Using the same scare quotes as MM at times to support your point. So my question is thus; at what point will you stop asking the same questions, prying on the passing statements of people before the more thorough analyses were done, and actually provided criticism of the conclusions and the research which led to them?

and you repeat the same arguements too!! ive already stated the criticism of sisson et el's research.

Are you not interested in the research?

yes i am. john cole did a good job with the eutectic experiment. sisson did a bad job replicating office/debris fires to create a eutectic to attack the steel.

 

[triforcharity]

John Cole did not do an experiment for an eutectic reaction. He did an experiment for thermite melting steel. Since we know that the steel that Sisson et al. researched never reached about 1800 deg. F, (IIRC, it could be less than that) it rules out thermite.

Unless of course you can show proof of intergranular melting in John Cole's experiments......

 

[Senenmut]

John Cole did not do an experiment for an eutectic reaction. He did an experiment for thermite melting steel. Since we know that the steel that Sisson et al. researched never reached about 1800 deg. F, (IIRC, it could be less than that) it rules out thermite.

Unless of course you can show proof of intergranular melting in John Cole's experiments......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YuDKUCALtU

start at about 5 mins into it.

 

[BasqueArch]

And this was before anyone had the idea that beams buckled sideways and had detached from the columns causing their failure.

Say, aren't you the guy that knowingly keeps repeating the lie that "The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
--Former CIA Director William Colby

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7135545#post7135545

this is wtc7 steel we are talking about here. he was one of the few people to see the actual forensic evidence. he states that it lost 15.9mm then buckled, not as it lay in the debris pile.

So am I, you're lost. And no that's not what he stated.

One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. 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.

This is what the journalist said not Asl. The "vaporized' could have occurred after collapse in the pile. We know that the "charred" occurred before the collapse because ...

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/sc...pagewanted=all

He says it burned first then buckled, because the beam was charred and buckled. He didn't say nor could he have known whether the "vaporization" could have occurred in the pile. Nor does it matter.

take the quote up with the author. it is in derailing democracy. i bought the book and its there.

I read in JREF that this quote is a lie and that those that knowingly repeat it are frauds.
I read it, it's there.

 

[Senenmut]

So am I, you're lost. And no that's not what he stated.

This is what the journalist said not Asl. The "vaporized' could have occurred after collapse in the pile. We know that the "charred" occurred before the collapse because ...

He says it burned first then buckled, because the beam was charred and buckled. He didn't say nor could he have known whether the "vaporization" could have occurred in the pile. Nor does it matter.

I read in JREF that this quote is a lie and that those that knowingly repeat it are frauds.
I read it, it's there.

he said it lost 15.9 mm then buckled as it was attached to the column not in the debris pile.

here is another instance where he relates the steel wastage to the fires:
For example, valuable information could come from analysis of the blackened steel from the floors engulfed in flame after the airplane collisions. Steel flanges had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin, Astaneh said."
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/10/03_grou.html

wow!! did he just say one inch! that is alot of steel. do the skeptics agree?