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

[The Big Dog]

Nice find Senenmut.

A professor of structural engineering, has unimpeded access to WTC steel, transported fresh from Ground Zero, two weeks after 9/11.

The importance of his on-the-record observations cannot be ignored.


bolding is mine

MM

And you think that he supports truthering?

Bwhahahaha!!!

Quote him again, MM!

 

[Spanx]

if we can get astaneh to start talking about those beams that showed steel wastage then maybe we could figure it out.
from an article:
"Dr. Astaneh-Asl, a professor of structural engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, changed out of his nightclothes and went downstairs for a closer look. Over the next few nights, he cataloged 30 to 40 of the mighty beams and columns as trucks stopped in front of the hotel.

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

that piece of steel pictured was on the back of a truck... probably one he catalogued.

If Astaneh made his observations (over the next few nights) why is the I beam picture taken in day time ?

 

[Oystein]

Nice find Senenmut.

A professor of structural engineering, has unimpeded access to WTC steel, transported fresh from Ground Zero, two weeks after 9/11.

The importance of his on-the-record observations cannot be ignored.


bolding is mine

MM

You bolded "searing temperatures".

What does that mean - "searing"? Can you put a number to it? In °C/°F - lower bound?

Thanks.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Nice find Senenmut.

Not really. He's been trotting out the 2001 Kenneth Chang article as proof of this that and the other for several years.

2008:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4186405&postcount=238

2009:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4819230&postcount=47

2010:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5583527&postcount=311

2011:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7772901&postcount=925

A professor of structural engineering, has unimpeded access to WTC steel, transported fresh from Ground Zero, two weeks after 9/11.

The importance of his on-the-record observations cannot be ignored.

Neither can his email response to Senenmut:

"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"

 

[remo]

Hells kitchen.

"Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."
I'm no expert. You tell me. How hot does it have to be to vaporize steel? How hot does it have to be to spray molten iron spheroids over Manhattan 6% by mass in hundreds of acres of dissolved concrete ? Or create molybdenum microspheres? or drop 81 vertically columned 47 storied steel framed high rises straight down at gravitational acceleration?
How hot does it get to have all current metallurgic studies into what evidence was retrievable after the 'bordering on criminal' WTC evidence disposal state categorically extreme and unusual material damage inconsistent with 'normal office furnishings fires' but NONE go that one step further and ask WHAT?

Thats pretty hot.

 

[Sunstealer]

"Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."
I'm no expert. You tell me. How hot does it have to be to vaporize steel?

Explain in your own words what you mean by the term"vaporize".

 

[Sunstealer]

How hot does it get to have all current metallurgic studies into what evidence was retrievable after the 'bordering on criminal' WTC evidence disposal state categorically extreme and unusual material damage inconsistent with 'normal office furnishings fires' but NONE go that one step further and ask WHAT? .

I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you writing in your native language and then using google to translate it into English?

 

[Reactor drone]

...or drop 81 vertically columned 47 storied steel framed high rises straight down at gravitational acceleration?
...

Wow, I didn't know that many buildings had collapsed.

 

[BasqueArch]

Hell's Bells

"Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."
I'm no expert. You tell me. How hot does it have to be to vaporize steel? How hot does it have to be to spray molten iron spheroids over Manhattan 6% by mass in hundreds of acres of dissolved concrete ? Or create molybdenum microspheres? or drop 81 vertically columned 47 storied steel framed high rises straight down at gravitational acceleration?
How hot does it get to have all current metallurgic studies into what evidence was retrievable after the 'bordering on criminal' WTC evidence disposal state categorically extreme and unusual material damage inconsistent with 'normal office furnishings fires' but NONE go that one step further and ask WHAT?

Thats pretty hot.

Stream of consciousness writing is sometimes rewarded in the literature and psychology fields.
The rationals know there's no evidence of the use of thermite or explosives. The fires caused the failures of the three towers.

 

[Senenmut]

Not really. He's been trotting out the 2001 Kenneth Chang article as proof of this that and the other for several years.

2008:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4186405&postcount=238

2009:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4819230&postcount=47

2010:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5583527&postcount=311

2011:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7772901&postcount=925




Neither can his email response to Senenmut:

"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 is funny you link an email because astaneh never has said that in any email. NEVER

 

[Senenmut]

Explain in your own words what you mean by the term"vaporize".

now i have emailed chang...the author of the article.

he states in the email "parts of the I-beam were indeed gone" ....that is what vaporized means. gone....

 

[Senenmut]

If Astaneh made his observations (over the next few nights) why is the I beam picture taken in day time ?

that was from the chang article. the pic of the I beam was from the Berkleyan. it states he collected data for 10 days.
“In just 10 days looking at the pieces that are coming out, I have learned so much important data about the collapse"

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/10/03_grou.html

 

[Senenmut]

You bolded "searing temperatures".

What does that mean - "searing"? Can you put a number to it? In °C/°F - lower bound?

Thanks.

is 1100C searing enough. remember, with 1100C sisson only got "little metal" to dissolve in 24 hrs. he will not give how little that little is. maybe it was much much higher!

 

[Oystein]

is 1100C searing enough.

Is that a question? What do I know? You bolded "searing temperatures", that means you somehow think it's important. That means you must have an idea what it is important for and that it is "enough" for whatever you think!

So tell us: Is it "enough", yes or no, and what for?

remember, with 1100C sisson only got "little metal" to dissolve in 24 hrs.

How much is little, and what is so special about 24 hrs. - would it be plausible that he got twice as much metal to dissolve in 48 hrs and five times as much in 120 hrs?

I.o.w., what's your point?

he will not give how little that little is. maybe it was much much higher!

Well, yeah, maybe. Maybe not. Maybe the opposite. Right?


So your answer to my question "What does that mean - "searing"? Can you put a number to it? In °C/°F - lower bound?" really is:

No, I, senemut, cannot give you a lower bound, and don't know what it means

Agreed?

 

[plague311]

if we can get astaneh to start talking about those beams that showed steel wastage then maybe we could figure it out.
from an article:
"Dr. Astaneh-Asl, a professor of structural engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, changed out of his nightclothes and went downstairs for a closer look. Over the next few nights, he cataloged 30 to 40 of the mighty beams and columns as trucks stopped in front of the hotel.

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

that piece of steel pictured was on the back of a truck... probably one he catalogued.

I thought the evidence was removed before any real investigating could be done. That's kind of weird.

Hasn't Astaneh-Asl been completely covered? I found this thread which has a lot of information in it on the subject. I don't think he believes in conspiracy theories

 

[Senenmut]

Is that a question? What do I know? You bolded "searing temperatures", that means you somehow think it's important. That means you must have an idea what it is important for and that it is "enough" for whatever you think!

So tell us: Is it "enough", yes or no, and what for?


How much is little, and what is so special about 24 hrs. - would it be plausible that he got twice as much metal to dissolve in 48 hrs and five times as much in 120 hrs?

I.o.w., what's your point?

im just going to repost what i told chris b/c it answers your question:

of coarse something like that would take way longer than 24 hrs under ideal conditions(im speaking about the extreme steel wastage). HOW LONG is the question. if it is not feasible under normal office fire/debris fire scenario, then a paridigm shift might be needed. sisson (another professor at WPI) has done an experiment trying to reproduce the effects seen on the wtc steel using powders. he could only get "little metal" to dissolve the steel even at 1100C in 24 hrs!!! he will not tell us how "little" it was. consider this. from professor astaneh's observations and measurements, we learn that 1 inch of steel was gone after 0 to 18 days after 911. thats min and max corrosion rate.
"Steel flanges had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin, Astaneh said."
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkele...0/03_grou.html

and another piece that experienced 15.9mm of steel wastage in only 0 to 8 days. the article does say he spent a fews days collecting samples so it might be alittle higher than 8 days. but i bet if astaneh would be willing to share his data with us, we could get the precise days of his observations.

so if sisson only got 5 micrometers of steel to dissolve in 24 hrs, we could multiply that out by days and get a number. would we see 1 inch gone at a max of 18 days or even 15.9 mm in alittle over a week. remember, he bypassed the office/debris fire even creating the eutectic. sisson just put it right on top of the steel and heated it up!!

 

[Senenmut]

Nice find Senenmut.

A professor of structural engineering, has unimpeded access to WTC steel, transported fresh from Ground Zero, two weeks after 9/11.

The importance of his on-the-record observations cannot be ignored.


bolding is mine

MM

read this a few times. what is even more interesting is what he thinks happened after the steel got "vaporized"!!

"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.''


BURNED FIRST THEN BUCKLED. wow, he just said that the beam experienced extreme steel wastage and then buckled. Not as it fell.....not as it lay in the debris pile. while on the building it experienced the extreme steel wastage!!

 

[The Big Dog]

BURNED FIRST THEN BUCKLED. wow, he just said that the beam experienced extreme steel wastage and then buckled. Not as it fell.....not as it lay in the debris pile. while on the building it experienced the extreme steel wastage!!

WOW! No he didn't!!!

"burned" does not equal "extreme steel wastage."

But, ohhhhh, so close and only what 11 years later?

Good for you

 

[plague311]

read this a few times. what is even more interesting is what he thinks happened after the steel got "vaporized"!!

"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.''


BURNED FIRST THEN BUCKLED. wow, he just said that the beam experienced extreme steel wastage and then buckled. Not as it fell.....not as it lay in the debris pile. while on the building it experienced the extreme steel wastage!!

He didn't say that, he said that it burned and buckled first. It has also been proven that he doesn't believe in any of the conspiracy theories, but does agree with the NIST report.

ETA: Bah, 16.5 beat me to it. My bad.

 

[Redwood]

Project for truthers: If we literally take Dr. Astaneh's remark that part of the steel had been "vaporized", figure the energy necessary to heat steel to the boiling point, plus the heat of vaporization (340 Kj/mole; compare to thermite's ~4Kj/mole) and tell us how much th*rmite was needed to accomplish this. Or could it be that Dr. Astaneh was speaking figuratively?