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

[Oystein]

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.


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

Sorry, I have to ask you again. Please answer the question that I ask, not some other question that you make up:

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?​

Note that the question in the second paragraph refers to the statement in the first paragraph, and that "yes", "no" and "I don't know" completely enumerates the natural answers to the question.

So please make sure that your reply starts with one of the following, before you add explanations:

• YES, I, senemut, agree that the first paragraph is what Sisson says and implies, judging from what you quoted
• NO, I, senemut, don't agree that the first paragraph is what Sisson says and implies, judging from what you quoted
• I, senemut, don't know what Sisson said and implied

Thank you.

 

[Senenmut]

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.

ive seen the curves in sisson's paper. how much steel wastage would one see by putting those powders that sisson used on the steel at 940C?? it hasnt been done. that is why i stated the lower limit to be 1100C. he actually did an experiment at that temp and showed how a eutectic attacked steel. of coarse we dont know how much steel got affected.

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.

please email sisson and ask exactly how much metal got dissolved! he will not answer the question.

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.

i understand what you are saying. i am not ignoring evidence. what i dont understand is how 1 inch of steel was gone when prof astaneh saw it only just over a week or two after 911.

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.

they are wrong by bypassing the actual mechanism of creating the eutectic in the fist place (office/debris fire) and then not even telling us how little metal was dissolved after 24 hrs at 1100C.

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.

WOW!! its on. i bet you cold hard cash that you dont have the knowledge or experience to created an environment that will produce the severe steel wastage astaneh and barnett spoke about in the time frame needed.

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

sisson knows that by bypassing the creation of the eutectic and going straight to powders, that some form of eutectic will occur and some corrosion will take place. the corrosion rate is known by barnett and astaneh's observations.

 

[Senenmut]

Sorry, I have to ask you again. Please answer the question that I ask, not some other question that you make up:

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, he has to conclude that it took 1100C to produce the "little" metal he saw dissolve. from how much "little metal" he saw actually dissolve, one would have to conclude that it took a prolonged period of time. how little metal was dissolved is the question.

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

​

please elaborate.

 

[beachnut]

Evidence proves no thermite. 911 truth nuts quote-mined Dr A, and came up empty. Truth = quote-mining stuff does not count as evidence.

Why is 911 truth not supported by Chemical Engineers? Or rational engineers?

From: Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl
January 21, 2010

All those who use my quote in this context of conspiracy theories are absolutely wrong ...

Who is wrong? 911 truth.

The correct way to use a "quote-mine". Reality, in context.

 

[Sunstealer]

ive seen the curves in sisson's paper. how much steel wastage would one see by putting those powders that sisson used on the steel at 940C?? it hasnt been done. that is why i stated the lower limit to be 1100C. he actually did an experiment at that temp and showed how a eutectic attacked steel. of coarse we dont know how much steel got affected.


please email sisson and ask exactly how much metal got dissolved! he will not answer the question.



i understand what you are saying. i am not ignoring evidence. what i dont understand is how 1 inch of steel was gone when prof astaneh saw it only just over a week or two after 911.


they are wrong by bypassing the actual mechanism of creating the eutectic in the fist place (office/debris fire) and then not even telling us how little metal was dissolved after 24 hrs at 1100C.


WOW!! its on. i bet you cold hard cash that you dont have the knowledge or experience to created an environment that will produce the severe steel wastage astaneh and barnett spoke about in the time frame needed.


sisson knows that by bypassing the creation of the eutectic and going straight to powders, that some form of eutectic will occur and some corrosion will take place. the corrosion rate is known by barnett and astaneh's observations.

You didn't read a single thing I wrote nor did you respond to the questions.

We know what caused the severe wastage - it's called high temperature corrosion due to sulphidation and oxidation causing a eutectic slag that further attacked the steel.

We don't need to knock down buildings with aeroplanes in order to recreate conditions to show that because we can get everything we need to know from this

which I can read like a book. I've even put helpful markings to show what's happened.

CONCLUSIONS

WTC 7

Rapid deterioration of the A 36 steel was a result of a hot corrosive attack involving decarburization, oxidation, and sulfidation. Heating A 36 steel in an environment containing oxygen and sulfur resulted in intergranular melting which transformed to an iron oxide-iron sulfide eutectic mixture on cooling.
The reaction forming the eutectic lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel to about 940 ºC, or possibly lower, depending on the amount of silicon, carbon, and other impurities dissolved into the liquid eutectic. Isothermal furnace experiments at 1100 ºC using iron sulfide powder placed on ground A36 steel produced a hot corrosive reaction with liquid penetration similar to that found in the steel in the WTC 7 fire.

WTC 1or 2

Severe thinning of the HSLA steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation. Sulfidation of the grain boundaries in the HSLA steel accelerated the degradation of the steel. The high concentration of sulfides in the grain boundaries in the corroded regions of the steel involved copper diffusing from the alloy combining with iron, manganese, silicon and sulfur forming both discrete and continuous sulfides in the grain boundaries of the steel suggesting the presence of a liquid phase.

Highlight what you disagree about that conclusion and argue why that conclusion is wrong. You can't, you can't even write properly let alone argue against it. Why would Sissons reply to a crazy truther who can't write properly? It's a waste of his time. You only get attention at JREF and I'm most likely going to put you back on ignore because you have zero understanding and zero reading comprehension. What's the point in replying to you when you willfuly refuse to understand such simple points?

 

[Gamolon]

no, he has to conclude that it took 1100C to produce the "little" metal he saw dissolve. from how much "little metal" he saw actually dissolve, one would have to conclude that it took a prolonged period of time. how little metal was dissolved is the question.

So you don't have a problem that the experiment was able to produce the same type of effect seen on steel from the debris from a microstructure standpoint?

The problem you have is with the amount of steel that was dissolved/vaporized/melted/etc. in the experiment compared to the actual amount of steel dissolved/vaporized/melted/etc. from structural members removed and cataloged from the debris pile?

So you think that the aftereffects created from burning/igniting thermite created better conditions that fit your "just over a week" timeframe for the steel to "cook" within the debris pile to produce the holes and "knife edges" is a better explanation than burning/smoldering gypsum planking and/or other combined "ingredients"?

 

[carlitos]

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

Then why did you quote him as saying that in an email response to you?

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.

Is it a fake quote like your signature line?

 

[Gamolon]

''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?

How are you making the transition from "it burned first" to "meaning "lost 15.9mm of steel"? This is a HUGE mistake and why you are having an issue understanding what people are explaining.

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.

No, YOU'RE relating it to happening in the fires. Nobody else is.

Can you please explain how a thermite/thermate can create a "knife edge to 1" thick (or 5/8") gradual thickness degradation in the steel? How is this more likely than a steel member cooking in a debris pile for 8 or more days?

Can you tell me why, in the video below at 9:52, we don't see the same "gradual knife edge to web thickness" degradation we see on the beam in the photo you provided earlier?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Forgive me, but I'm I'm missing the point of the extended discussion on this topic. The microstructures present pretty much dictate what the temperature range must be, and that range pretty much rules out thermite in that those very microstructures would've been obliterated by the temperatures achieved by that reaction. The experiments done by the Worcester researchers were partially to determine kinetics, and partially to verify the theorized mechanism. This is all accepted - legitimately accepted and published - research. So what's the problem?

 

[Senenmut]

How are you making the transition from "it burned first" to "meaning "lost 15.9mm of steel"? This is a HUGE mistake and why you are having an issue understanding what people are explaining.

you are having the issue with what he is saying.

No, YOU'RE relating it to happening in the fires. Nobody else is.

me and prof astaneh are relating it 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

see how he relates the fires to the blackened steel to the extreme steel wastage.

Can you please explain how a thermite/thermate can create a "knife edge to 1" thick (or 5/8") gradual thickness degradation in the steel? How is this more likely than a steel member cooking in a debris pile for 8 or more days?

looks like you found you answer from the link you provided below. but my experiment is going to be alittle different. i just gotta find some magnetite.

Can you tell me why, in the video below at 9:52, we don't see the same "gradual knife edge to web thickness" degradation we see on the beam in the photo you provided earlier?

i think what we saw in astaneh picture is some sort of blow torch type device aimed at the connection. im working on building something. ill let everyone know how it turns out.

 

[Senenmut]

Then why did you quote him as saying that in an email response to you?




Is it a fake quote like your signature line?

look a few posts up before i posted, it was in grizzleybears post. i must have been responding to him. i never have received an email from astaneh stating that. it was post #911.

 

[Dog Town]

it was post #911.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

Need help responding to Truthers

I realize this has been previously discussed on this forum, but I can't find it. Can somebody point me to the JREF response to this website?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

From that Website: "Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.

Evidence of these studies includes interviews with and papers and press releases issued by engineers who designed and oversaw construction of the World Trade Center.

LINK
1960s-era Jetliners Compared to Boeing 767s

Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated."

 

[Reactor drone]

I realize this has been previously discussed on this forum, but I can't find it. Can somebody point me to the JREF response to this website?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

From that Website: "Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.

Evidence of these studies includes interviews with and papers and press releases issued by engineers who designed and oversaw construction of the World Trade Center.

LINK
1960s-era Jetliners Compared to Boeing 767s

Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated."

That's off topic for this thread but here's one of the previous discussions,

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...ighlight=9/11+aircraft+impact+building+designhttp://www.internationalskeptics.co...ighlight=9/11+aircraft+impact+building+design

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

Thanks for your help. I found the "Search," and the answers I need. Will also check your link.

I have posted a detailed engineering response on that site regarding the flight path of one of the planes to hit the WTC from a P.E. in civil engineering.

 

[Spanx]

yEh,But mAgnetite is reallY hard to find

 

[Sunstealer]

I love the way senenmut selectively quotes from the article (along with his poor writing, inability to capitalise letters and unwillingness to use the "quote function")

Bolded is his cherry picked quote, but notice my highlighted part.

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. He and others suspect that the buildings collapsed because the intense heat of the jet-fuel-fed fire softened the steel to the point that the columns no longer could support the weight of the floors above. As the top 10 or so stories fell, they collapsed the floors below in a cascade of pancaking concrete floor slabs.

Truther dishonesty at it's finest. Selective reading using the twoofer googles - pick the bits you like discard the bits that completely rip your argument to bits.

 

[Sunstealer]

yEh,But mAgnetite is reallY hard to find

It's hilarious - just goes to show how little scientific knowledge these truthers have.

 

[Gamolon]

you are having the issue with what he is saying.

Just plain wrong. Nowhere in his quote is he saying that the "steel wastage" happened before the collapse, in the fire.

Nowhere.

You are saying that the quote "it burned first" meant "steel wastage". That is not the case. You are reaching.

me and prof astaneh are relating it to the fires.

Again, no. He does not relate the "steel wastage" to the fires. Show me in the quote below how Astenah relates the fires to the "steel wastage".

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.''

Read the last part I bolded for you. Nowhere in that article did the author ask when the "steel wastage" or "vaporization" took place. The author was looking for an answer as to when the beam was charred. "Charred" and "vaporized" can be exclusive of one another. "Charred" doesn't mean "vaporization" happened.

Furthermore, please show me the "charred" areas you seem to assume run hand in hand with "steel wastage" on the beam photo you posted.

 

[beachnut]

It is not an inch thick