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

[DGM]

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

start at about 5 mins into it.

He forgot the water.

 

[BasqueArch]

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

This is at least the second time you fabricate this. He didn't say that take it back.
You are comfortable with making things up and unapologetic when caught.

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?

This quote is from October 2001 and much more is known now. He could not have determined at the time whether the thinning would have occurred before or after the collapse.

What Astaneh really said was:

Quote:
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

I read in JREF that the Colby quote is a lie and that those that knowingly repeat it are frauds.

 

[funk de fino]

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?

Reading comprehension is not your finest skill.

 

[minnemouse]

Marookkan; sure he didn´t see the melting girdles?

 

[Senenmut]

This is at least the second time you fabricate this. He didn't say that take it back.
You are comfortable with making things up and unapologetic when caught.

haha....cover your eyes and put your fingers in your ears...

here is the quote:
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


it burned first (lost 15.9mm of steel) then buckled. how could it be anymore clear than that?

This quote is from October 2001 and much more is known now. He could not have determined at the time whether the thinning would have occurred before or after the collapse.

he relates it happening in the fires. that means before the collapse. also, this is only 8-18 days out. one inch of steel turned to razor thin in that short of a time frame.......wow.

 

[Miragememories]

"...No steel melted.

Even in these pieces (studied in detail by Barnett, Beiderman & Sisson at WPI, and reported on in detail by both FEMA & NIST), no steel melted.

A36 (used predominantly in the towers) is a mild, low carbon steel which melts at ~1400°C. It is highly probable that the fires never got that hot.

Now, both iron sulfide & iron oxide also have melting temperatures around 1400°C (IIRC). They also would not melt in the debris pile fires.

But when iron-sulfide & iron-oxide mix, the mixture's melting temp will drop to about 950°C. This was the infamous "eutectic mixture" that melted.

No steel melted. Even if someone looks at a steel beam and sees holes in it. And misinterprets it (or informally states it) as "the steel melted", that statement is still not true..."tk

"Once again:
The fires were measured to be up to 2,800 degrees in places. One source for this is in an article published in May 2002 (Professional Safety, "SH&E at Ground Zero"), a source that also repeated the news that the fires were "officially" extinguished on December 19 (a date outside the "7,8 weeks after 9-11"). So again, regardless of what we think caused the fires, it is beyond question that they were hot for a very long period of time, hot enough to melt metals, and in the spots measuring 2,800 degrees, hot enough to melt steel.
Given the acknowledgement that the fires existed, given both this heat level and timeframe, and given the relative dearth of proof of thermite use, how can any hypothesis citing these sightings reasonably include thermite? Because once again, the fires were measured to be hot enough and acknowledged to have burned long enough - beyond 7 to 8 weeks - to account for any molten metals including steel without resorting to thermite. Once again, as I said in previous posts, these sightings can not be used to support the thermite hypothesis, because regardless of any arguments about heat retention, fuel for the fires, etc., we know the fires were hot enough as late as mid December, and we know that thermite, even in sizes on the order of pounds burns out through within seconds (here's one article discussing "Burn Rate Measurements of Nanocomposite Thermites": http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMASM03_582/PV2003_241.pdf"... someone else can do the calculation for how much would be needed for the proposed scenarios). So thermite cannot be thought of as the fuel that resulted in the temperatures in December 2001. And any proposition that thermite only melted the steel initially and the fire kept it molten for the rest of the time is unsupported because, again, there's no proof of molten steel existing prior to these sightings, and the fires on their own could account for molten metals, including steel.
I apologize for not only being didactic but also repetative. I'm not aiming this comment at any one person, but: It seems as though we've had this answer several pages ago but are still discussing elements of the story as if these givens are not being taken into consideration. Many here are indeed acknowledging these factors, but a few posters have not, and I hope that those few people will take these pieces of information into account."

bolding is mine

MM

 

[Grizzly Bear]

''he relates it happening in the fires. that means before the collapse. also, this is only 8-18 days out. one inch of steel turned to razor thin in that short of a time frame.......wow.

Your use of a quote from 2001 is akin to Chris Sarns' obsession with using the draft version of the NIST report as if it's a final. You're stuck in the early, as-yet-to-be-researched quotes, you can't seem to move on to the finals...

 

[Senenmut]

Your use of a quote from 2001 is akin to Chris Sarns' obsession with using the draft version of the NIST report as if it's a final. You're stuck in the early, as-yet-to-be-researched quotes, you can't seem to move on to the finals...

the finals are that sisson can get "little metel" to dissolve even at 1100C in 24 hrs. ive emailed him and he will NOT state how little that little is. he uses powders instead of office/debris material at that bypassing how the office/debris fire actually created the eutectic in the fist place. are you ok with the "final" sisson is giving you? sounds like im the one being skeptic here!!

15.9mm of steel gone in 8 days and prof astaneh relates it being done by the fire before the collapse.

one inch of steel gone in 8-18 days and he relates it to the fires pre collapse.

sometimes with science you gotta move back and analyze the evidence before you can move forward again.

 

[leftysergeant]

the finals are that sisson can get "little metel" to dissolve even at 1100C in 24 hrs. ive emailed him and he will NOT state how little that little is. he uses powders instead of office/debris material at that bypassing how the office/debris fire actually created the eutectic in the fist place.

The debris of that fire also included vast quantities of sulphuric acid. Stating that the corrosion occurred pre-collapse seems rather hard to defend. Certainly the distortion could have occurred in the collapse or the fire. The corrosion is consistant with a hot acid bath, thus could have occcurred after collapse. The temperatures possible in an office fire are more than adequate to weaken the beam more than the amount of corrsion that we see.

sometimes with science you gotta move back and analyze the evidence before you can move forward again.

And some times, people with seemingly unrelated experience or skills sets will notice things that other trained investigators with more experience as investigators will miss.

 

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

Hi Oystein and all,

Can you please point out to me where Astaneh attributed the "melting of girders" he specifically saw to "eutectic corrosion" and "intergranular melting" to explain the "melting of girders" he describes?

Furthermore can you all explain to me how this "eutectic corrosion" which takes place at lower temperatures created steel beams dripping molten steel? And hotspots with pools and channels of molten "steel" (ie not described as "aluminum", "silver", or anything associated with "aluminum").

Also, can you all tell me why you disagree with Astaneh on the important point that the steel needed further forensic study and should not have been shipped away and recycled? Especially considering they passed legislation regarding it.

 

[triforcharity]

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

start at about 5 mins into it.

Awesome, a tiny little bit of plastic, some diesel fuel, etc. At least he made an attempt.

However, one thing I did miss. When does he do a microscopic analysis of the steel? Perhaps there was some intergranular melting on a small scale, but wouldn't have been seen with the naked eye.

And this guy claims to be a scientist? He's a moron, as usual.

 

[tfk]

bolding is mine

MM

Please explain your point.

tfk

 

[pgimeno]

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

start at about 5 mins into it.

Interesting. The I-beam went "red hot"? That's precisely what was described by the cleanup workers. Others described them as "molten steel".

A quote from the video:

If the concrete, drywall, aluminum and diesel fuel did not cause the intergranular melting and sulfidation, then some uncommon substance that is not normally found in buildings must have caused it.​

I agree: IF these elements did not (something that he doesn't really establish), THEN an uncommon substance not normally found in buildings must have caused it.

Such as... sulphuric acid?

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

Though it was probably not necessary, as I don't think his experiment really had enough value.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

sometimes with science you gotta move back and analyze the evidence before you can move forward again.

Problem is analysis is not among the things you're doing. Look at your own posts. You quoted the article which provided this:

''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.''

What you need to do is stop dallying around scare quotes which you haven't even bothered to look further into, and argue the substance.

Just like the "reports of witness explosions" that are always cited by the truth movement, you're interested in nothing more than literal interpretation and projection. To competent readers his early remarks clearly imply the first softened the steel until it buckled. Any confusion a laymen would have is resolved by his successively statements and the subsequent analysis of the samples. You're making a ten year old mistake that's been answered to death properly for years already

 

[beachnut]

Hi Oystein and all,

Can you please point out to me where Astaneh attributed the "melting of girders" he specifically saw to "eutectic corrosion" and "intergranular melting" to explain the "melting of girders" he describes? ...

Did you take Chem engr courses in college? Why have you failed to study 911 and find the study done all those years ago?

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf You have never read this?

When will you read this?

... explain to me how this "eutectic corrosion" which takes place at lower temperatures created steel beams dripping molten steel? And hotspots with pools and channels of molten "steel" (ie not described as "aluminum", "silver", or anything associated with "aluminum"). ...

There was no dripping steel, no pools, no rivers. Where is 911 truth's evidence? 911 truth has hearsay, no evidence.

Can you explain why 911 truth followers use hearsay and lies as evidence of melted, flowing steel? Are you supporting the lie of thermite?

... Astaneh on the important point that the steel needed further forensic study and should not have been shipped away and recycled? Especially considering they passed legislation regarding it.

Source for the legislation please.
It took over 7 months to clean up the WTC, and steel was studied. Are you saying no one studied the steel? Where have you been for 10 years?
Why is Astaneh seen here doing forensic study of steel?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/NotMelted.jpg

Astaneh is not looking evidence of CD. He is looking to study steel, so he can improve steel.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtclookingforThermitenotfound.jpg
Steel saved to study. I thought you said it was all shipped away? What is your point? Got some evidence of melted steel yet?

 

[Senenmut]

Problem is analysis is not among the things you're doing. Look at your own posts. You quoted the article which provided this:

What you need to do is stop dallying around scare quotes which you haven't even bothered to look further into, and argue the substance.

Just like the "reports of witness explosions" that are always cited by the truth movement, you're interested in nothing more than literal interpretation and projection. To competent readers his early remarks clearly imply the first softened the steel until it buckled. Any confusion a laymen would have is resolved by his successively statements and the subsequent analysis of the samples. You're making a ten year old mistake that's been answered to death properly for years already

you forgot to quote a few sentences up to make the case more clear:
from the article:
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.''

it burned (lost 15.9mm of A36 steel) then buckled from his expert opinion. remember this is only 8 days after 911. email the guy. i have. i got an answer to what i wanted to know about.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

you forgot to quote a few sentences up to make the case more clear:
from the article:
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.

You're quoting the content written by the article's author, not Astanah. News paper articles are written at a 6th grade level, to be accessible to a general reading population, not to speak like trained engineers with all of the vernacular terms of the profession. Astanah's statement was made as a preliminary as well. Again, you're honing in on incomplete analyses as if it's final, and you're not even trying to read it in such context.

 

[tfk]

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

Please provide a link to your source that claims that Dr. AA says that he believes that the erosion happened before collapse.

 

[Oystein]

Hi Oystein and all,

Can you please point out to me where Astaneh attributed the "melting of girders" he specifically saw to "eutectic corrosion" and "intergranular melting" to explain the "melting of girders" he describes?

It would have been better if you had not simply addressed your post at me, but also quoted me. The post that you refer to was 2 pages ago:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7769441&postcount=879
Please note that I did NOT say that "Astaneh attributed the "melting of girders" he specifically saw to "eutectic corrosion"" etc.. Instead, I mentioned "a detailed study of the very same specimem by Barnett, Biederman and Sisson of WPI for FEMA". This study is linked above. Astaneh is a structural engineer, not a metallurgist, and he inspected that specimen by sight only, which is not sufficient to find out what happened.

Furthermore can you all explain to me how this "eutectic corrosion" which takes place at lower temperatures created steel beams dripping molten steel?

No. There was no molten steel. No reports of molten anything have any logical, temporal, spacial or personal connection to Astaneh's specimen. This question is stupid.

And hotspots with pools and channels of molten "steel" (ie not described as "aluminum", "silver", or anything associated with "aluminum").

There was no molten steel It is not unusual at all that molten steel is reported in a fire even if no steel did in fact melt. Common usage of the word "molten" often refers to metal that is only glowing, or bending, but still solid. People often say "steel" when they mean "metal". There is no way to tell by eye sight only what chemical element you are looking at when you see molten metal.

Also, can you all tell me why you disagree with Astaneh on the important point that the steel needed further forensic study and should not have been shipped away and recycled? Especially considering they passed legislation regarding it.

We do not disagree with Astaneh.
But before we answer yiuz (loaded!) question, please extend the curtesy to also answer a few questions, already asked of you:


Do you agree that Astaneh HAS examined and investigated the "crimes scene evidence" steel before it was removed and recycled?

Do you agree that Dr. Astaneh has concluded, based on his actual examination and investigation the "crimes scene evidence" steel and ALL the available evidence, that "the only cause of collapse was the structural and fire damage to the towers"?

Do you agree that Dr. Astaneh is on record stating "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 base less conspiracy theories, I reserve the right to take any legal action necessary to protect my reputation as well as integrity of my research." - in other words, that Dr. Astaneh considers you ilk, CuriousAsCouldBe, to be liars, frauds and a general nuisance for making exactly the kinds of claims and implications about Astaneh's words that you do, CuriousAsCouldBe?

 

[Edx]

Furthermore can you all explain to me how this "eutectic corrosion" which takes place at lower temperatures created steel beams dripping molten steel? And hotspots with pools and channels of molten "steel" (ie not described as "aluminum", "silver", or anything associated with "aluminum")..

Excuse me have you blocked me or something?

fire "Melting steel beams":
https://www.google.com/search?pz=1&...&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1900,cd_max:2000&authuser=0

"fire "Melted steel girders"
https://www.google.com/search?pz=1&....,cf.osb&fp=8c65e6ecd47f0d2c&biw=1440&bih=754

fire "pool of molten metal"
https://www.google.com/search?pz=1&....,cf.osb&fp=8c65e6ecd47f0d2c&biw=1440&bih=754



I especially like this one:

"You can see what it did to the steel", said Assistant Fire Chief Stephen Clancy, "when it melts steel girders like butter , then you know what you ve got"
-
Herald Journal - Jul 25, 1984



But as you can see theres plenty more.

Please go read all the other times where people describe fire causing these things