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

[Oystein]

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.



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".

I just read the Sisson (e.al.) paper.

I didn't read the part where he said or implied that 1100 °C would be a lower bound to the "searing" temperature experienced by the steel piece that Asataneh-Asl and Chang told of - you know, thich Chang refered to in the quote that gave rise to my question.

So - Sisson quote and reference, please

 

[Senenmut]

I just read the Sisson (e.al.) paper.

I didn't read the part where he said or implied that 1100 °C would be a lower bound to the "searing" temperature experienced by the steel piece that Asataneh-Asl and Chang told of - you know, thich Chang refered to in the quote that gave rise to my question.

So - Sisson quote and reference, please

elmondo posted this yrs back:
Originally Posted by Sisson, Biederman
The microstructural changes in the steel must have occurred at temperatures between 550 and 850 °C. These changes would require times on the order of hours.

The microstructure of the slag with the eutectic structure and the primary FeO indicates temperatures in this region above 940 °C and maybe up to 1100 °C, as indicated by the phase diagram[4]...

... However, preliminary experiments[5] at 1100 °C with mixtures of FeS and FeO placed on the steel surface and heated in air indicated that the reaction was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h. This observation indicates that the liquid slag attack probably took place during the prolonged exposure to the fire in the rubble.

4. P. Asanti and E. Kohlmeyer: Z. Anorg. Chem., 1951, 265(94).

5. R.R. Biederman, E. Sullivan, and R.D. Sisson, Jr., Worcester
Polytechnic Institute, and G.F. Vander Voort, Buehler:
“Microstructural Analysis of the Steels from Buildings 7,
1 and 2 from the World Trade Center,” private communication.





i said 1100C b/c that is the temp he used in an actual experiement.

 

[Sunstealer]

I just read the Sisson (e.al.) paper.

I didn't read the part where he said or implied that 1100 °C would be a lower bound to the "searing" temperature experienced by the steel piece that Asataneh-Asl and Chang told of - you know, thich Chang refered to in the quote that gave rise to my question.

So - Sisson quote and reference, please

I went into a restaurant the other day and ordered steak, which the waiter said would be cooked to my liking (medium-rare thank you). I was astounded when he came back 20 mins later with a plate of chips (fries) and salad. I asked where the steak was and he replied that, "the searing temperature had evaporated the steak".

 

[Sunstealer]

elmondo posted this yrs back:
Originally Posted by Sisson, Biederman
The microstructural changes in the steel must have occurred at temperatures between 550 and 850 °C. These changes would require times on the order of hours.

The microstructure of the slag with the eutectic structure and the primary FeO indicates temperatures in this region above 940 °C and maybe up to 1100 °C, as indicated by the phase diagram[4]...

... However, preliminary experiments[5] at 1100 °C with mixtures of FeS and FeO placed on the steel surface and heated in air indicated that the reaction was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h. ]This observation indicates that the liquid slag attack probably took place during the prolonged exposure to the fire in the rubble.

4. P. Asanti and E. Kohlmeyer: Z. Anorg. Chem., 1951, 265(94).

5. R.R. Biederman, E. Sullivan, and R.D. Sisson, Jr., Worcester
Polytechnic Institute, and G.F. Vander Voort, Buehler:
“Microstructural Analysis of the Steels from Buildings 7,
1 and 2 from the World Trade Center,” private communication.





i said 1100C b/c that is the temp he used in an actual experiement.

For god's sake, learn to use the quote function, learn to post links for your posts! Learn to capitalise, learn how to write properly! I can understand if English isn't your first language, but your posts are always all over the place. Why do you not take the time to make your posts readable and readily understandable?

Nowhere in the original document (Metallographic Examination of Heavily Eroded Structural Steel from World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and 7) is the word "must" used. Who are you quoting? Why are you quoting them? Your post is not clear. Are you drunk? (That's a valid excuse btw because it's New Years - I'm off out as soon as the GF is ready or 9pm arrives)

Take care and time when you post. By this I mean if it takes you 10 minutes to compose something then STOP and think hard, really, really, really hard - re-read what you have written several times, make sure all the links and quotes are all perfect. Can anyone follow you? Are you making sense?

 

[Senenmut]

For god's sake, learn to use the quote function, learn to post links for your posts! Learn to capitalise, learn how to write properly! I can understand if English isn't your first language, but your posts are always all over the place. Why do you not take the time to make your posts readable and readily understandable?

i can read them just fine!!

Nowhere in the original document (Metallographic Examination of Heavily Eroded Structural Steel from World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and 7) is the word "must" used. Who are you quoting? Why are you quoting them? Your post is not clear. Are you drunk? (That's a valid excuse btw because it's New Years - I'm off out as soon as the GF is ready or 9pm arrives)

elmondo posted it. it says private communication so i thought it was between elmondo and sisson. your right, the paper is worded differently and his experiment in the paper is only 12 hrs instead of 24.

Take care and time when you post. By this I mean if it takes you 10 minutes to compose something then STOP and think hard, really, really, really hard - re-read what you have written several times, make sure all the links and quotes are all perfect. Can anyone follow you? Are you making sense?

got it.

 

[ozeco41]

(That's a valid excuse btw because it's New Years - I'm off out as soon as the GF is ready or 9pm arrives)

So far 2013 is 8 hours old and it seems to be working OK. It arrived all by itself with no help from me - I have learned that I am redundant in the practice of "Welcoming the New Year."

 

[pgimeno]

I should not be doing Senenmut's work but here's the link:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4214721&postcount=436

Nowhere in the original document (Metallographic Examination of Heavily Eroded Structural Steel from World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and 7) is the word "must" used. Who are you quoting?

Elmondohummus is quoting an article with a different title:

Source: "Metal Removal via Slag Attack of the Steel from Building 7 of the World Trade Center— Some Observations" R.D. Sisson, Jr., and R.R. Biederman, Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention, Volume 6(5) October 2006 (Submitted August 25, 2006; in revised form September 7, 2006)
​

and points to this link:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1361/154770206X129006

Senenmut, please, it's not that difficult to post a link to the cited text. I could find it on Google in seconds using a relevant fragment of the text you quoted. No idea of what your excuse is but

 

[beachnut]

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

High temperatures, but less than 1,000 C. Oops, no thermite, no thermite, no lies from Dr Jones are more than delusional claptrap, made up to fool the gullible.

Why is all the steel at the WTC show damage at temperatures below that of the thermite reaction? lol, 11 years and 911 truth can't figure out 911, happy new year.

 

[Spanx]

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

Let me guess why he won't talk to a truther ?

Would it be that he is being paid not to ?

Or

Would it be that he knows that whatever he says will be cherry picked and taken out of context by every low life truther in the world ?

 

[pgimeno]

Senenmut, please, it's not that difficult to post a link to the cited text. I could find it on Google in seconds using a relevant fragment of the text you quoted. No idea of what your excuse is but

Apologies, too late to edit that out.

 

[Senenmut]

Apologies, too late to edit that out.

my excuse is i thought it was a private communication between elmondo and sisson.

 

[Oystein]

Quoting for context:

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

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.

I didn't read the part where he said or implied that 1100 °C would be a lower bound to the "searing" temperature experienced by the steel piece ... So - Sisson quote and reference, please

Originally Posted by Sisson, Biederman
The microstructural changes in the steel must have occurred at temperatures between 550 and 850 °C. These changes would require times on the order of hours.

The microstructure of the slag with the eutectic structure and the primary FeO indicates temperatures in this region above 940 °C and maybe up to 1100 °C, as indicated by the phase diagram[4]...

... However, preliminary experiments[5] at 1100 °C with mixtures of FeS and FeO placed on the steel surface and heated in air indicated that the reaction was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h. This observation indicates that the liquid slag attack probably took place during the prolonged exposure to the fire in the rubble.

4. P. Asanti and E. Kohlmeyer: Z. Anorg. Chem., 1951, 265(94).

5. R.R. Biederman, E. Sullivan, and R.D. Sisson, Jr., Worcester
Polytechnic Institute, and G.F. Vander Voort, Buehler:
“Microstructural Analysis of the Steels from Buildings 7,
1 and 2 from the World Trade Center,” private communication.

i said 1100C b/c that is the temp he used in an actual experiement.

I asked you to quote Sisspn, where he says that 1100 °C is a LOWER bound.
I see in your quote that Sisson actually wrote it is an UPPER bound.

Just as I thought.

Sisson doesn't conclude from the experiment AT 1100 °C that the steel experienced higher temperatures, because the effect that he observed happens at temps UP TO 1100 °C. Rather, he concludes that it took a prolonged time (longer than 24 hrs).

Do you agree that that is what Sisson says and implies, judging from what you quoted, senemut?

And when you have agreed: Do you see how the scientific results are not compatibel with a thermate attack that severed the steel in the seconds that the collapses took, and not even in the up to 1.5 hours that the towers burned before collapse?

 

[beachnut]

911 truth, lies and delusional nonsense, they can't get anything right. Wait, they have eternal failure locked up tight.

From: Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl
January 21, 2010

All those who use my quote in this context of conspiracy theories are absolutely wrong and are doing a dis-service to the truth, the victims and their families and the humanity. No one should use that specific quote "molten metal" out of context, to indicate that I have seen molten metal and then use my good name and reputation as a researcher to conclude that there was a conspiracy.

All I tell to those who use my name is: "please stop using a phrase "molten steel" from eight years of my work and statements to further your absolutely misguided and baseless conspiracy theories and find another subject for your discussion . You are hurting the victims' families immensely and if you have any humanity you would stop doing so and will not use my name nor the out of context words from my work " .
But will they listen?

Best wishes and hoping that these conspiracy theorists will stop using my name in any context.

911 truth, failure since 911. What else can they do?

All the talk of melted steel is the sign of mental illness, started by Dr Jones. Talk of thermite is dumbed down fantasy, for the weak of mind.
Happy New Year, another great year of failure for 911 truth, Balsamo, and Gage: Gage is the winner, taking in over 1,000,000 bucks for woo - what a winner. A fringe market of nuts, sending, essentially welfare for Gage, from people too stupid to understand murder, hate, and extremism.

 

[Senenmut]

Quoting for context:





I asked you to quote Sisspn, where he says that 1100 °C is a LOWER bound.
I see in your quote that Sisson actually wrote it is an UPPER bound.

Just as I thought.

Sisson doesn't conclude from the experiment AT 1100 °C that the steel experienced higher temperatures, because the effect that he observed happens at temps UP TO 1100 °C. Rather, he concludes that it took a prolonged time (longer than 24 hrs).

no. i said that is my lower bound b/c sisson did an experiment but it only showed that "little"metal dissolved. if he did his experiment at 800c, then i would have said 800C. but yes, he does conclude that it took a prolonged time, longer than 24 hrs! so the question is, how little metal did dissolve in 24hrs. time is not on sisson side. the extreme steel wastage prof astaneh saw was just alittle over a week.

Do you agree that that is what Sisson says and implies, judging from what you quoted, senemut?

he implies / says straight out that he didnt get much steel to dissolve in 24hrs.

And when you have agreed: Do you see how the scientific results are not compatibel with a thermate attack that severed the steel in the seconds that the collapses took, and not even in the up to 1.5 hours that the towers burned before collapse?

and how do you know they are compatable to a natural high temp corrosive attack? a paradigm shift might be in order to understand the extreme steel wastage.

 

[Starving for Truth]

The steel didn't melt. It was dustified. The dust fell to the ground at virtual free fall speed.

Conclusion: Astaneh is a shill.

 

[Spanx]

@senenmut

Next time you decide to make a song and dance about that thermite crap, at least make it a good one, you will get far more followers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh7UgAprdpM&feature=youtube

 

[Sunstealer]

no. i said that is my lower bound b/c sisson did an experiment but it only showed that "little"metal dissolved. if he did his experiment at 800c, then i would have said 800C. but yes, he does conclude that it took a prolonged time, longer than 24 hrs! so the question is, how little metal did dissolve in 24hrs. time is not on sisson side. the extreme steel wastage prof astaneh saw was just alittle over a week.

No. The lower bound for temperatures experienced by the steel can be set at 940°C because that is the eutectic point in the FeO-FeS phase diagram. The only possibility for that figure to go lower is if other impurities such as Silicon are present.

If you had read and understood the metallurgical report you would know this because it is clearly stated:

Toward the right side of Fig. 7 a liquid penetration into the steel had occurred when the steel was hot and transformed on cooling to the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide [2]. If these phases are pure FeO and pure FeS, the eutectic temperature is 940 ºC [3]. However, incorporation of other elements into the liquid would likely lower the eutectic temperature.

he implies / says straight out that he didnt get much steel to dissolve in 24hrs.

So what? The experiment is used to show the concept of sulphidation as the corrosion mechanism, which it does; a eutectic structure with additional loss of metal is observed.

and how do you know they are compatable to a natural high temp corrosive attack? a paradigm shift might be in order to understand the extreme steel wastage.

No. A "paradigm shift" is not required because we understand the nature of high temperature corrosion. I have posted dozens of times explaining the report in laymen's terms - you just choose to ignore the evidence and the explanation.

We know it's compatible because the metallurgical study shows that to be the case. If you disagree with this then you need to go into depth, quoting the relevant sections of the report, and show why this analysis is wrong.

You know, I know and everyone else knows that you haven't got the experience or knowledge to do this. The authors of the paper and I do.

You seem to be claiming that the authors don't know what they are doing, but you won't say why.

 

[Seymour Butz]

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!!

Some thinking and knowledge about the construction on 7 is required on your part in order for you to realize that he was wrong.

We can agree that 7's collapse started at the bottom.

The columns at the bottom were boxed columns, not "I" beams.

The floor beams were "I" beams throughout 7.

Therefore, he was looking at a floor beam and not any load bearing column....

 

[beachnut]

... and how do you know they are compatable to a natural high temp corrosive attack? ...

We know they are not "compatable".

But we know they are compatible... a study was done. It is called science, what 911 truth does no use. By studying the steel you learn. Why can't you figure out 911?

Even 911 truth nuts publish their own debunking and have no clue as they open-loop post woo and keep up the lies perpetrated by their extreme ignorance and inability to connect the dots.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

Then we have the same debunking of 911 truth from the evil empire of FEMA.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...9fQWD3cy0cFYGCTYIh56A&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.cGE

You ask a question which is simple to answer; already answered.

... and how do you know they are compatible to a natural high temp corrosive attack? ...

Because it was studied.

When you learn the steel was not subjected to thermite temperatures, you ignore and repeat the delusion of thermite. Why?

...a paradigm shift might be in order to understand the extreme steel wastage.

What does this mean? I found a pair of dimes. 911 truth need to drop the woo and lies, and learn 911 truth is a fake movement. 911 truth needs a shift to reality, with 12 failed years assured, it is time to drop the fantasy and grow up.

Bottom line, (besides the fact zero steel was found showing signs of thermite exposure) the temperature does not change to thermite temperatures because you can't understand the science. I suggest a course in chemical engineering, or two. Good luck.

 

[jaydeehess]

no. i said that is my lower bound b/c sisson did an experiment but it only showed that "little"metal dissolved. if he did his experiment at 800c, then i would have said 800C. but yes, he does conclude that it took a prolonged time, longer than 24 hrs! so the question is, how little metal did dissolve in 24hrs. time is not on sisson side. the extreme steel wastage prof astaneh saw was just alittle over a week.

............and how do you know they are compatable to a natural high temp corrosive attack? a paradigm shift might be in order to understand the extreme steel wastage.

Do you also get left and right, or black and white confused?
This:

The microstructure of the slag with the eutectic structure and the primary FeO indicates temperatures in this region above 940 °C and maybe up to 1100 °C, as indicated by the phase diagram[4]...

Is a description of an UPPER boundry of 1100 deg C