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

[Senenmut]

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

Nowhere.

yes he did. try and email him.

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

he relates the fire to the steel wastage.

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".

from the article:
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.

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.

yes he did.
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.''

Furthermore, please show me the "charred" areas you seem to assume run hand in hand with "steel wastage" on the beam photo you posted.
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/knifebeam_zps972f8433.jpg[/qimg]

i think you can see the damage yourself.

 

[Gamolon]

yes he did. try and email him.

I did.

We'll see what he says, if anything.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

yes he did. try and email him.

Speaking of emails, are you up for sharing the full text of Kenneth Chang's response to your recent email?

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

he states in the email "parts of the I-beam were indeed gone"

I'd be interested in seeing the entirety of his reply, rather than the little snippet in the above quote.

 

[Gamolon]

I did.

We'll see what he says, if anything.

Well that was a quick reply.

Dear Mr. xxxxxx

Thank you for your e-mail and inquiry. In response to your inquiry, in my more than 10 years of studying WTC, I have not seen any shred of evidence that supports any conspiracy theory. My research findings have been distorted , changed, mus-interpreted by some in these conspiracy theory circles to serve their mis-guided purporposes. I have clarified the point several times to them in the past but they just simply do not want to give up interpreting our data in totally incorrect way to serve their totally mis-guided and false theories which have absolutely no scientific evidence for. The quotes that you are referring to are all false and should not be attributed to me. I presented my findings at the May 6, 2002 hearings of the Committee on Science of U.S. House of Representative on WTC a transcript of which is available on the Internet.


Best regards.

A. Astaneh, Professor
www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh

 

[beachnut]

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."

The old open-loop meth web site of woo, where all claims are debunked by the sources presented. Like the guy is nuts. He claims the thermite was in the ceiling tiles with radio controlled detonators, 100,000 ceiling tiles, maybe a million. The web site is nonsense, with references that debunk the delusional comments.

The chief engineer of the WTC said the design for impact was 187 pounds of TNT, a jet going 180 mph. On 911 the jets had 7 and 11 times more Kinetic Energy, at 1300 and over 2000 pounds of TNT. Exactly like bombs, but in the shape of aircraft Kinetic Energy Weapons. The heat energy of the jet fuel on each plane equal to 315 tons of TNT, dwarf by the office fire which had more heat than 2,500 TONS of thermite.

A later study after 911, confirmed an impact of 200 mph by the jets would have repelled most the aircraft. Anything over 200 mph would enter the WTC, it is an energy kind of thing based on the strength of steel. The WTC were very strong, fire/heat wins in battles with steel.

It is extremely easy to fly a 767/757 and crash into the largest buildings in the USA.

Reasons why hitting the WTC is easier than landing on a runway.
1. Landing on a runway requires on course, hitting the WTC has infinite courses to pick. Infinite easier to hit the WTC based on required course.
2. Landing on a runway requires a glide path of 2 to 3 degrees, hitting the WTC can use a large glide path variance, 4 degrees, zero degrees, 10, 6, -10, 15. Albeit, any angles down greater than 6 degrees over time will result in great speed, but short term will result in acceleration ease.
3. Landing requires configuration with flaps and landing gear, both require power changes and experience to understand and control the attitude. Hitting the WTC can be done at any airspeed, landing is done in a narrow range of appropriate speeds for flaps. Hitting the WTC any flying speed, landing a narrow +- 5 knots on speed.
4. Attitude, the landing attitude is fixed and related to speed. There is on landing attitude, but hitting the WTC can be done at any speed, any attitude that is appropriate with the wide range of speed, from 200 mph to 600 mph. You can't land upside down, you can crash into the WTC upside down.
5. You can't land in a large bank angle, you can hit the WTC at any bank angle. Make crashing much easier than landing safely.

I flew small planes until 1976. My first flight in a KC-135 1976, I landed exactly on centerline, on speed, and in the proper attitude. First time in a large jet. It is easy to fly if you don't have to take off and land, or fly in the weather. If there had been weather on 911, there would be zero buildings hit. The terrorists were terrible pilots, it is proved by FDR which shows them hand flying worse than kids I have put in simulators of Large Jets. It makes sense they crashed and died, that is the best they can do. The only pilots on earth worse than the terrorists, Balsamo and his band of failed nuts at pilots for truth - they brag they can't hit things with a jet in the safety of a simulator. Bad pilots - Balsamo and his nuts.

And Dr A says 911 truth is full of bull, on the topic related to the OP.

 

[Senenmut]

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

i had to get magnetite powder.....couldn't find thin sheets of it.

 

[Senenmut]

Well that was a quick reply.

could you share exactly what you sent him?

 

[Senenmut]

Speaking of emails, are you up for sharing the full text of Kenneth Chang's response to your recent email?



I'd be interested in seeing the entirety of his reply, rather than the little snippet in the above quote.

i will if gamolon shares what he sent to astaneh. i would like to know how he worded it.

 

[Spanx]

i will if gamolon shares what he sent to astaneh. i would like to know how he worded it.

He probably sent a link to this thread.

 

[Spanx]

i had to get magnetite powder.....couldn't find thin sheets of it.

http://www.ideasbynet.com/ultra_thin_fridge_magnets.htm

You can never get fridge magnets when you want them.

 

[jaydeehess]

yes he did. try and email him.


he relates the fire to the steel wastage.




from the article:
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.


yes he did.
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.''



i think you can see the damage yourself.

NOTHING in what you posted indicates that he believes that the steel wastage occured while the building was still upright. He does say that the beam "buckled" before collapse but that simply does not indicate wastage.

His reply to Gamalon is a reiteration of his complaint that you and your compatriots have steadfastly misinterpreted and misused his findings over and over. He also states OUTRIGHT that he found NO evidence AT ALL that anything untoward is suggested by his findings.

Despite this you attempt to have his research support your outlandish contention.

Its been asked before but perhaps if it gets asked yet again you can show us an example of thermite having caused similar thinning of a steel beam.

Suck it up and realise you are wrong!

 

[jaydeehess]

i will if gamolon shares what he sent to astaneh. i would like to know how he worded it.

Why now? You have been asked to supply this email many times to support your contentions.

Your contention should be supported by you and not contingent on Gamalon supporting his. Your petty peeve strikes me as something one might hear in an elementary school playground.

Gamalon can then choose to show the entire context of his exchange on his own.

 

[jaydeehess]

''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''

Not :


''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had thinned first, then buckled.''



Yes, steel that is heated (ie. 'burned' in a colliquial sense) buckles under load.

Quell surprise

 

[ozeco41]

Forgive me, but I'm I'm missing the point of the extended discussion on this topic....

The only purpose of this extended discussion is to allow Senemut to keep avoiding the issues raised and keep the discussion going round in circles so it does not approach the truth. The truth about Astaneh-Asl's position has been confirmed multiple times. No CD. No basis for conspiracies related to CD.

On other forums it would be called trolling.

... So what's the problem?

The main problem is that we keep playing Senemut's game.

But you knew that didn't you??

It was a rhetorical question???

 

[Oystein]

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.


please elaborate.

You still didn't answer the question I asked. You answered a made-up question, approximately "What does Sisson have to conclude...?"

However, I asked:

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?​

Please note that I want you to tell us what Sisson does in fact conclude, and what he does in fact imply, and not what you think he ought to.

To help you gain focus, here is Sisson again, as you quoted him yourself some posts back:

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.

Please take special notice, and do not forget to appreciate, the parts I hilited when you try to remember that I asked you a question about what Sisson said and implied.

Note very particularly the use of the phrase "up to" in Sisson's words!


And remember that "yes", "no" and "I don't know" completely enumerates the natural answers to the question. So I'd expect you to begin your reply with one of the three.

I hope this helps. Thank you.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

i will if gamolon shares what he sent to astaneh.

Of course you will

Bear in mind that Gamolon has already shared the response he got from Astaneh-Asl, whereas you've only shared the tiniest snippet of Chang's alleged response to you. The correct way to proceed would be for you to now print the full response from Chang to you, and THEN to ask for the message that Gamolon sent to Astaneh-Asl, with the promise that you will then print your message to Chang.

While we wait, can you acknowledge that you understand that neither Barnett nor Astaneh-Asl support truther demolition theories, and that both men have repeatedly had their comments mangled, misquoted and misrepresented by truthers?

Here's some more statements to help you, in case you missed them the previous times they've been shown to you by myself and others in this thread and others:

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.

...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.

As a structural engineer and as a fire protection engineer and as someone who did his PhD research on the effect of fires on steel structures, I am not at all surprised that the towers collapsed on 9/11. The collapse mechanism makes perfect sense and is clearly understandable by someone with my background.

I will admit I cannot prove that explosives were or were not present. But I reiterate the most important point, explosives were not needed to cause the collapse of the towers. The towers collapsed as an engineering analysis would predict.

Finally, I don't see why you need to have explosives present to prove or disprove your theories. Why don't you just assume that the buildings collapsed due to the impacts of the planes? That will not change your conspiracy theory one iota, but will eliminate the need for you to prove that explosives were in the building. You can then focus on the crux of your message instead of fighting an engineering battle that you are incorrect on.

Also, I notice you're getting your quotes/sources of quotes confused again. In your response to Gamolon's request you wrote:

from the article:
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.

This quote is not from the Kenneth Chang nytimes article that Gamolon was referring to, it's from the berkeley article, and once again you've reproduced a small part of a larger quote, which is also not a DIRECT quote from Astaneh-Asl (a gambit you've tried before, in November 2011 in this very thread).

The full paragraph reads:

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.

Come on Senenmut, you've being banging away for over four years now. You could have got yourself an engineering degree in less time.

Why not make 2013 the year you finally put this nonsense aside and move forward?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

It was a rhetorical question???

Sort of. More like a reminder for us all not to get lost in the forest by arguing incessantly over the trees. For example, we could go over the Astanel-Asl quote for years to come, but unless we also include the Worcester research as context, it's useless talk. That research demonstrates that the corrosion happened in the pile simply due to the reaction kinetics being too slow to have happened elsewhere. And that in turn means that if Astaneh-Asl's observation about the sequence of eroding -> buckling is correct, the logical conclusion is that the buckling happened post collapse in the rubble pile. Given the work that it took to extract the pieces for investigation anyway, that's hardly an unreasonable conclusion.

The bottom line is that there's nothing about the Worcester team's or Astaneh-Asl's work that contradicts anything that's known about the collapse. On the contrary, what they've generated has built what we know about the collapse to begin with. All of their findings ultimately point to Astaneh-Asl's initial observations of holes and thinning to be due to sulfur attack. And all of it rules out thermite since, again, the microstructures wouldn't even exist had that been used. So of course, what's the point of going over and over the quotes for the umpteenth time? All of what the Worcester researchers as well as everything that Astaneh-Asl says all point at the same thing. Trying to twist individual statements without the overall context of all that has been said and researched is pointless. Trying to make earlier observations more significant than subsequent statements is also rather useless, not to mention deceptive.

It helps us all to remember that truthers have evolved their debate tactics in order to misdirect instead of illuminate. Again, I point to Jay Windley's statement about CT'ists goals: They want to create the illusion that there's something legitimate to debate. One method is to pretend that the sum of the minute details add up to something other than what they genuinely add up to, and that's what's happening here. The sum of the Worcester team's research is pretty definitive. So is Astaneh-Asl's opinion about truther interpretations of his work, which he's directly stated. That renders alternate interpretations of their work and statements moot.

We know what they think. Both Astaneh-Asl and at least Barnett of WPI has come out and explicitly stated it. Therefore revisiting earlier statements just ends up being exactly what Windley said: Creating the illusion of debate. There is none here, at least none that's legitimate. And that's why I asked "What's the problem?". Because just going over and over their statements doesn't reveal one. Not when you know the entire context and what everything adds up to.

 

[Senenmut]

Of course you will

Bear in mind that Gamolon has already shared the response he got from Astaneh-Asl, whereas you've only shared the tiniest snippet of Chang's alleged response to you. The correct way to proceed would be for you to now print the full response from Chang to you, and THEN to ask for the message that Gamolon sent to Astaneh-Asl, with the promise that you will then print your message to Chang.

While we wait, can you acknowledge that you understand that neither Barnett nor Astaneh-Asl support truther demolition theories, and that both men have repeatedly had their comments mangled, misquoted and misrepresented by truthers?

Here's some more statements to help you, in case you missed them the previous times they've been shown to you by myself and others in this thread and others:

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.

in both articles, when he speaks of severe steel wastage, he speaks of fire damage.

...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.

he is acting like a gatekeeper and not sharing information with the rest of the scientific community. take for instance when he speaks of sending metal to be analyzed by a coworker here:
from the new york times article:
"Dr. Astaneh-Asl also hopes to send samples of steel to Dr. Claudia P. Ostertag, a professor of civil engineering at Berkeley, for metallurgical testing. Above about 1,600 degrees Fahrenheit, the crystal structure of steel shifts to a softer, weaker form."

then from another article that states he actually sent those samples via fed ex:
"He has catalogued and photographed a few dozen members and set aside about ten key pieces for further study. He has also kept assorted smaller fragments, which he took back to Berkeley for chemical analysis. Fearing that airport security might look askance at an Iranian whose suitcase was filled with chunks of charred steel from the World Trade Center, he Fed-Exed these to California."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/07/attack/main503217.shtml
so he catalogued and photographed a few dozen members (which no one has seen the data for) and sent a box to california with small samples. he told me via email that b/c of the national construction safety team act passed, he sent his samples back to nist. i wonder if the ever got them or analyzed them....hummmm maybe a FOIA would work. but the act didnt take place until a full yr after 911. he still could have had his coworker analyze the data and just not actually act or release it. FEMA still analyzed the wtc samples in their fema bpat report so i dont know why prof astaneh backed out?

As a structural engineer and as a fire protection engineer and as someone who did his PhD research on the effect of fires on steel structures, I am not at all surprised that the towers collapsed on 9/11. The collapse mechanism makes perfect sense and is clearly understandable by someone with my background.

I will admit I cannot prove that explosives were or were not present. But I reiterate the most important point, explosives were not needed to cause the collapse of the towers. The towers collapsed as an engineering analysis would predict.

Finally, I don't see why you need to have explosives present to prove or disprove your theories. Why don't you just assume that the buildings collapsed due to the impacts of the planes? That will not change your conspiracy theory one iota, but will eliminate the need for you to prove that explosives were in the building. You can then focus on the crux of your message instead of fighting an engineering battle that you are incorrect on.

haha.. i like that line above bolded.

Also, I notice you're getting your quotes/sources of quotes confused again. In your response to Gamolon's request you wrote:



This quote is not from the Kenneth Chang nytimes article that Gamolon was referring to, it's from the berkeley article, and once again you've reproduced a small part of a larger quote, which is also not a DIRECT quote from Astaneh-Asl (a gambit you've tried before, in November 2011 in this very thread).

i was demonstrating that when he speaks of severe steel wastage, he also speaks of fire damage. its in both articles. i was not confusing them. im glad you read them both.

Why not make 2013 the year you finally put this nonsense aside and move forward?

you sound like that barnett quote i bolded above. its like...come on man, just toe the line and believe what i say....

 

[ozeco41]

Sort of. More like a reminder for us all not to get lost in the forest by arguing incessantly over the trees....

Alternatively stated in terms of alligators and swamp drainage.

...It helps us all to remember that truthers have evolved their debate tactics in order to misdirect instead of illuminate. Again, I point to Jay Windley's statement about CT'ists goals: They want to create the illusion that there's something legitimate to debate...

Whether that is a deliberate tactic or not. I have several times postulated my own hypothesis that it results from limited reasoning skills. As per your next bit:

One method is to pretend that the sum of the minute details add up to something other than what they genuinely add up to, and that's what's happening here....

Exactly what is happening here and on many other threads where we are chasing trolling down rabbit burrows.

my postulation being than many truthers/troll simply cannot add bits up in the sense of identifying relevant and significant factors and assembling them into a coherent hypothesis. From years following/partaking in these debates I become convinced that it is often "cannot" rather than "choose not".

Therefore revisiting earlier statements just ends up being exactly what Windley said: Creating the illusion of debate. There is none here, at least none that's legitimate. And that's why I asked "What's the problem?". Because just going over and over their statements doesn't reveal one. Not when you know the entire context and what everything adds up to.

Yes - I fully understood and agree.

 

[Senenmut]

To help you gain focus, here is Sisson again, as you quoted him yourself some posts back:


Please take special notice, and do not forget to appreciate, the parts I hilited when you try to remember that I asked you a question about what Sisson said and implied.

Note very particularly the use of the phrase "up to" in Sisson's words!


And remember that "yes", "no" and "I don't know" completely enumerates the natural answers to the question. So I'd expect you to begin your reply with one of the three.

I hope this helps. Thank you.

did sisson do an experiment at 940C that i missed?