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

[Oystein]

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

Could you please first agree that your answer to my actual question goes like this:

Oystein: "What does that mean - "searing"? Can you put a number to it? In °C/°F - lower bound?"
Senemut: "No, I cannot give you a lower bound, and don't know what it means"

before moving on to speculate about things you don't understand?

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.

...because "the effects seen on the wtc steel" by Sisson are the same effects seen by Astaneh-Asl, and we can put lower bounds to the required temperatures, and we can say what it means - AND we do know that it is unlike the effect that would be produced by thermate in a high-temperature attack that removes this amount of steel in seconds or less.

...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...

Speculation, right?

 

[Spanx]

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

Thank you for your reply. Although I am only asking questions I thought it would be obvious to most people that I am infact cherry picking ,the same as yourself.

You seem to be using the Berkeley link as a factual report carried out by Asteneh himself. As far as I am aware it is a news article and not a report carried out by Asteneh. I can only assume you are claiming Asteneh had completed a full report in ten days

Perhaps you could answer a few questions for me ? .......

Is 5/8 of an inch closer to half inch or an inch ?

How thick is paper

How thick is the steel in the Berkeley photo.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

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

I didn't link an email, I linked a post you made, which reads:

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

Regarding your claim that Astaneh-Asl never said this in an email; I suppose there's a possibility that he responded by letter rather than by email, but I have to say this is a little pedantic

You reproduced a small part of Astaneh's written follow-up to a telephone conversation between him and Chris Bollyn, referenced earlier in the thread, and presented it shorn of context and with the quote tags all messed up.

Here's the full text:

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 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.

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

Here's another response from Asteneh-Asl, again from earlier on in the same thread, this time to Sizzler's query about "melting" WTC girders:

Dear Mr. _______: Thank you for your interest in our research. We publish our findings in public domain and considering a great deal of e-mail I get on our research, in order to provide you with more information, I need to know a bit more about you including your affiliation and possibly a phone contact number. This is due to the fact that I have seen the statements made by the WTC researchers have been taken totally out of context by conspiracy theorists and used as evidence on the Internet that there was a conspiracy of some sort in the collapse of WTC towers. Our research and that of others have shown no evidence of any conspiracy. I find it very unfair and unjustified and to blame the collapse of these towers on conspiracy , which distract the attention from the lessons that we can learn from this tragedy to make our structures more resilient to prevent such a loss of life in the future. Those 19 murderers and their organizers and supporters , who attacked us and killed so many of our loved ones, were the perpetrators of this crime. In my opinion , and in the opinion of any 9/11 victims' family members that I have talked to, the conspiracy theorists are committing a second act of injustice , perhaps unknowingly, by blaming it on some conspiracy. Not knowing you and your motives in seeking the information in your e-mail, I prefer not to get involved with aiding such conspiracy theorists and hope that they will stop such acts. However, to show my courtesy, I am responding to your e-mail and hope that you are not one of the conspiracy theorist or a believer in what they promote.Hope to hear from you on who you are and what do you think of these conspiracy theories.Thank you.A. Astaneh

The point was, and is; Astaneh-Asl really doesn't like truthers misrepresenting him.

(apologies for the derail, folks)

 

[Miragememories]

"...The point was, and is; Astaneh-Asl really doesn't like truthers misrepresenting him.

(apologies for the derail, folks)"

Years later, it is quite obvious that the doctor does not wish to become a pariah.

As a professor of structural engineering at a major university, he is now concerned about the potential fallout to his position and status within the academic community because his work is being used to support 9/11 Truth.

But he cannot undo the original appraisals and comments he recorded after directly examining the WTC steel.

Just a couple of weeks after 9/11, freshly extracted WTC steel lay on flatbed trucks parked in front of his residence for hours at a time, held up by a regular delay at the end of each day.

He knew these were WTC remains, he was professionally excited and curious, and he was not likely thinking about how his studies and comments given to the NY Times might bite him later.

Steel that faced such searing heat that I-beam portions of up to 5/8" were observed to be vaporized; were part of his story printed in the NY Times only a month after 9/11.

The notes he kept, the observations he made, and the findings he determined, represent those of a major university professor and thus have major lasting value. Authorizing the NY Times to print his story moved his study from private record to the public record.

Years later, if he wants to retract that study, he has to explain away the NY Times story.

MM

 

[Sunstealer]

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?

Which is why I asked the truthers to define the word "vaporize" in their own words.

They simply don't understand that the word "vaporize" has a specific technical/scientific meaning. They grasp onto the word because they believe that word supports their argument when in fact if they knew the scientific definition then they'd start looking at the energy and heat requirement to vaporize.

Now it's obvious that truthers simply aren't up to the task of doing the calculation. They will never answer because they can't. If they could then they wouldn't be truthers! Even if someone did the calculation for them then it still wouldn't make any difference because they simply do not have the knowledge to assess whether the answer is correct or not.

I've been through this "vaporize" nonsense before giving clear reasoning as to why it's either a reporter mis-quoting or the word being used outside of it's scientific context.

If the steel had been vaporized then we wouldn't see the steel microstructures we observe nor evidence of de-carburisation, recrystallisation, sulphidation, oxidation, grain-boundary attack, FeO-FeS solid eutectic all due to high temperature corrosion.

Truthers will still ignore all this and in a month or two you'll see the word "vaporize" highlighted in their usual wilful ignorance.

P.S They will need these to start them off.

Fe Atomic weight = 55.845
Fe Delta H_(vap) = 349.6 kJmol^-1
To vaporize 1Kg Fe assuming 1 atm.

1Kg = 1000g.

1000g x 1molFe/55.845g x 349.6/mol

=1000 x (349.6/55.845)

= 6260kJ

Which is a little above the 6090 often quoted most likely due to using a source quoting delta H as 349.6 instead of 340.

 

[LSSBB]

He knew these were WTC remains, he was professionally excited and curious, and he was not likely thinking about how his studies and comments given to the NY Times might bite him later.

Exactly, they were off-the-cuff, heat of the moment impressions and not rigorous scientific analysis. Because of that, why cherish them like gold and why hold him to them?

My impression from his remarks about inquiries don't strike me as job protection, and in the absence of any other proof on your behalf, my impressions are just as valid as yours. It seems to me he is really, truly and sincerely pissed off by people he considers are wrong. Why not read them at face value?

 

[Senenmut]

I didn't link an email, I linked a post you made, which reads:


The point was, and is; Astaneh-Asl really doesn't like truthers misrepresenting him.

(apologies for the derail, folks)

he never sent me an email that stated that. sorry if i confused ya. yeah i know he is not a "conspiracy theorist". how is it misrepresenting when we speak of the observations he made and the timeframe when he made them. it gives us a good idea about how fast the "corrosion" took place that could turn an inch of steel to razor thin.

 

[Senenmut]

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?

i emailed the guy that wrote the article and he stated that he saw it and it was litterally "gone."

 

[Gamolon]

Project for truthers: If we literally take Dr. Astaneh's remark that part of the steel had been "vaporized",

Can someone please show me the actual quote where Dr. Astaneh said the steel was vaporized?

 

[Gamolon]

i emailed the guy that wrote the article and he stated that he saw it and it was litterally "gone."

So he never actually said "vaporized"?

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

he never sent me an email that stated that. sorry if i confused ya.

No need to apologise.

how is it misrepresenting when we speak of the observations he made and the timeframe when he made them.

It's misrepresenting because you're going with an 11 year old article written by a journalist, rather than going with direct (and more recent) quotes from Astaneh-Asl himself. Kenneth Chang used the word "vaporized", not Astaneh-Asl.

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....

Now, how about sharing the full text of Kenneth Chang's email with us so we can see what he has to say beyond "parts of the I-beam were indeed gone"?

 

[Sunstealer]

There is a metallurgical report available.

http://www.georgevandervoort.com/fa_lit_papers/World_Trade_Center.pdf

Truthers just don't understand a word of it, but instead think it supports their thermite/thermate nonsense when it actually shows the opposite.

 

[Sunstealer]

For those that are not aware Kenneth Chang wrote this article

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

Here is the specific paragraph:

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.

Notice how there are no quote marks around the paragraph with the word "vaporized" in and compare it to other quotes from more than one person which are always in quotation marks.

Also notice how the word vaporized only appears once in the article and it's not attributed to anyone. And look there is the phrase "searing temperatures" in the same paragraph. It's clear that these are Chang's own words (typical of journalists who have never passed a science class) yet truthers are using them as if they have come from Dr Astaneh-Asl.

Me thinks truthers have been playing fast and loose with this. Dishonesty at it's finest.

 

[The Big Dog]

Years later, it is quite obvious that the doctor does not wish to become a pariah.

As a professor of structural engineering at a major university, he is now concerned about the potential fallout to his position and status within the academic community because his work is being used to support 9/11 Truth.

But he cannot undo the original appraisals and comments he recorded after directly examining the WTC steel.

Just a couple of weeks after 9/11, freshly extracted WTC steel lay on flatbed trucks parked in front of his residence for hours at a time, held up by a regular delay at the end of each day.

He knew these were WTC remains, he was professionally excited and curious, and he was not likely thinking about how his studies and comments given to the NY Times might bite him later.

Steel that faced such searing heat that I-beam portions of up to 5/8" were observed to be vaporized; were part of his story printed in the NY Times only a month after 9/11.

The notes he kept, the observations he made, and the findings he determined, represent those of a major university professor and thus have major lasting value. Authorizing the NY Times to print his story moved his study from private record to the public record.

Years later, if he wants to retract that study, he has to explain away the NY Times story.

MM

Or you know, he could point out that truthers are incompetent and basing their analysis off hearsay in the New York Times is, you know, ridiculous?

16.5

 

[Gamolon]

For those that are not aware Kenneth Chang wrote this article

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

Here is the specific paragraph:



Notice how there are no quote marks around the paragraph with the word "vaporized" in and compare it to other quotes from more than one person which are always in quotation marks.

Also notice how the word vaporized only appears once in the article and it's not attributed to anyone.

Me thinks truthers have been playing hard and fast with this.

Exactly.

Authors very rarely write stories and add their own words that enhance their stories right?



I guess saying "the steel was vaporized" makes more interesting reading than saying "the steel was gone". Kind of gives the reader an impression that something "Star Trek-esque" happened to the steel...

 

[Sunstealer]

Exactly.

Authors very rarely write stories and add their own words that enhance their stories right?



I guess saying "the steel was vaporized" makes more interesting reading than saying "the steel was gone". Kind of gives the reader an impression that something "Star Trek-esque" happened to the steel...

And "searing" is far more dramatic than "high" - I guess he was using his thesaurus that day.

Hey twoofies! How are your calculations coming along regarding Redwood's post? Have you worked out how much thermite is required to vaporize 1Kg of steel yet? lol

 

[Oystein]

@ senemut:
Seems like you overlooked a post with a few questions directed at you:

Could you please first agree that your answer to my actual question goes like this:

Oystein: "What does that mean - "searing"? Can you put a number to it? In °C/°F - lower bound?"
Senemut: "No, I cannot give you a lower bound, and don't know what it means"

before moving on to speculate about things you don't understand?


...because "the effects seen on the wtc steel" by Sisson are the same effects seen by Astaneh-Asl, and we can put lower bounds to the required temperatures, and we can say what it means - AND we do know that it is unlike the effect that would be produced by thermate in a high-temperature attack that removes this amount of steel in seconds or less.


Speculation, right?

 

[Animal]

Or you know, he could point out that truthers are incompetent and basing their analysis off hearsay in the New York Times is, you know, ridiculous?

16.5

I would question anyone that called such steel 'I' beams.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Can someone please show me the actual quote where Dr. Astaneh said the steel was vaporized?

I've yet to find a direct quote from either Professor Astaneh-Asl or Dr Jonathan Barnett where they use the word "vaporized" (or vaporised, or vapourised).


The nearest I can find is Barnett using the phrase "partly evaporated", with several qualifications and caveats:
http://www.aldeilis.net/english/ind...30:correspondence-regarding-the-events-of-911

and the misattribution of the word "vaporized" to Astaneh-Asl in the October 2001 nytimes article that Senenmut keeps linking to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html


ETA:

Notice how there are no quote marks around the paragraph with the word "vaporized" in and compare it to other quotes from more than one person which are always in quotation marks.

Also notice how the word vaporized only appears once in the article and it's not attributed to anyone. And look there is the phrase "searing temperatures" in the same paragraph. It's clear that these are Chang's own words (typical of journalists who have never passed a science class) yet truthers are using them as if they have come from Dr Astaneh-Asl.

Me thinks truthers have been playing fast and loose with this. Dishonesty at it's finest.

^^^
this.

 

[Senenmut]

Could you please first agree that your answer to my actual question goes like this:

Oystein: "What does that mean - "searing"? Can you put a number to it? In °C/°F - lower bound?"
Senemut: "No, I cannot give you a lower bound, and don't know what it means"

sure i can. 1100C. that lower bound was produced by sisson with his experiment that only got little metal to dissove by directly applying powders to the steel to mimic the eutectic that was supposedly produced by the office/debris fire.

...because "the effects seen on the wtc steel" by Sisson are the same effects seen by Astaneh-Asl, and we can put lower bounds to the required temperatures, and we can say what it means - AND we do know that it is unlike the effect that would be produced by thermate in a high-temperature attack that removes this amount of steel in seconds or less.
Speculation, right?

just try and find out how little that little was that sisson got to dissolve. maybe he will talk to a "skeptic" like you. he does not want to answer those tough questions coming from a "truther".