• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

deeper said:
No ones forgot, it's just that you don't realise that when you compared this,
[qimg]http://i1129.photobucket.com/albums/m514/TheRagingSea/NotThermite_zps3e9a650a.jpg[/qimg]


to this,
[qimg]http://i1129.photobucket.com/albums/m514/TheRagingSea/Thermite_zps9dddb5d7.jpg[/qimg]

your argument (that the features of both pieces were created by the same mechanism) was revealed to be so ridiculous that there is nothing more to be said, it really is over (as if the thread hadn't been over about fifty times already).

Senenmut, you have revealed all your cards now, sadly they are a busted flush and there is no way back. All other claims, such as Astaneh changing his story to protect his job, what he actually meant, etc, are all irrelevant now in light of your above comparison which is clearly without merit. If you refuse to let go of that last, desperate straw why don't you tout that photograph and video around some qualified experts and try and drum up some support for your claim and then come back here and report who those supporters were.
Click to expand...
quite literally could not have said it better

Sennemut believes that because a thermite cut can produce a sharp edge that it therefore resembles the wtc steel samples is nothing but wishful thinking on his part.
Nor does any of his characterisation of Astenah or his paper hold any water other than in a mind grasping at straws to keep a failing contention alive
 
jaydeehess said:
quite literally could not have said it better

Sennemut believes that because a thermite cut can produce a sharp edge that it therefore resembles the wtc steel samples is nothing but wishful thinking on his part.
Nor does any of his characterisation of Astenah or his paper hold any water other than in a mind grasping at straws to keep a failing contention alive
Click to expand...

people didnt think thermite could produce a sharp edge. i showed them it could. what characterisation of astenah are you speaking of? what paper of his have i linked too? what are you ranting about?
 
Senenmut said:
people didnt think thermite could produce a sharp edge. i showed them it could. what characterisation of astenah are you speaking of? what paper of his have i linked too? what are you ranting about?
Click to expand...

You have no evidence thermite was use on 911. Therefore your discussion of thermite is nonsense.
 
 
Senenmut said:
people didnt think thermite could produce a sharp edge. i showed them it could.
Click to expand...

You are TOTALLY missing the point.

It's NOT the fact that thermite can create a sharp edge it's the fact that the two sharp edges are not the SAME.

The edge in Astaneh's photo is flimsy, gradual thickness degradation whereas the thermite edge created in the video is NOT.
 
Ape of Good Hope said:
Your track record says otherwise...
Click to expand...
my track record? so we went from the articles speak for themselves to my track record says otherwise? its nice we can actually put a max amount of days that the corrosion is suppose to take place by using the articles and the dates provided along with the amount of steel gone. one inch of steel that turned paper thin this is pretty impressive when sisson could only get little metal to dissolve in 24hrs at 1100C. just cover your eyes and plug your ears and pretend astaneh didnt say these things....
 
Senenmut said:
my track record?
Click to expand...


Yes. Same articles, same quote-mining, same responses from other forum members, same reluctance to learn on your part. A tragic roundabout of Déjà vu, up to and including your latest post:


2013
Senenmut said:
just cover your eyes and plug your ears and pretend astaneh didnt say these things....
Click to expand...

2011
Senenmut said:
haha....cover your eyes and put your fingers in your ears...
Click to expand...


Further progress is unlikely to be made in this thread until you acknowledge that neither Barnett nor Astaneh support truther demolition theories, and that both men have repeatedly had their comments mangled, misquoted and misrepresented by truthers.



And, as a gesture of honesty and openness, it wouldn't do any harm to treat us to the full text of Kenneth Chang's response to your email.

:)
 
Senenmut said:
people didnt think thermite could produce a sharp edge. i showed them it could. what characterisation of astenah are you speaking of?
Click to expand...

People wanted it demonstrated that thermite could produce an erosion in the fashion seen in the WTC steel samples. A gradual, widespread thinning of the steel member, with no globs of slag associated with the erosion. Cole's videos never demonstrate that.

You have continually characterized Asteneh as having said that the steel failed in place during the fire phase of the standing structures have you not?

ASTANEH DOES NOT SAY THAT!
what paper of his have i linked too?
Click to expand...

Sorry have I mistaken you for someone who has actually quoted the man you came here to discuss?
 
Last edited:
Ape of Good Hope said:
Yes. Same articles, same quote-mining, same responses from other forum members, same reluctance to learn on your part. A tragic roundabout of Déjà vu, up to and including your latest post:
Click to expand...
hummm so are u able to explain how 15.9mm of a36 steel disappeared in alittle over 8 days? no one has been able to especially since sisson could only get just alittle metal to dissolve in 24hrs at 1100C. with the microstructure below the slag in sisson's paper (fig4,5,6) showing that the steel temp got between 550-850C, it would be hard to explain that the steel sat in 940-1100C temps for days, weeks, or a month. especially when the steel in fig 3 shows that the piece analyzed (fig 4) showed extreme wastage already.

Ape of Good Hope said:
Further progress is unlikely to be made in this thread until you acknowledge that neither Barnett nor Astaneh support truther demolition theories, and that both men have repeatedly had their comments mangled, misquoted and misrepresented by truthers.
Click to expand...
doesnt matter. when barnett said "steel members" that is plural. he said more than one beam showed signs of "evaporation" from his early observations. how many is what we need to find out. fema did not get there until a month later so i bet much of the steel was already gone and he still saw "steel members" that showed signs of extreme steel wastage. when astaneh states that 15.9mm of a36 are gone or 1 inch of steel turned paper thin, i think people should listen. this was a first for these guys. WPI stated "Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese."

so yeah, its a big deal. if you are trying to downplay it then shame on you.
 
Last edited:
Ape of Good Hope said:
And, as a gesture of honesty and openness, it wouldn't do any harm to treat us to the full text of Kenneth Chang's response to your email.

:)
Click to expand...

me:
Comments:this is related to the article:
Scarred Steel Holds Clues, And Remedies

way back in oct 2, 2001.

Do you have the notes to the interview for that particular article? I am in a heated debate about prof astaneh's observations. when the article states:

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.

we are all wondering if the "vaporized" is his words or yours? what was the condition of the steel he was describing to you? was five eighths of an inch of steel gone?
Your input would be greatly appreciated!!


kenneth chang: I don't have notes that far back. But I did go to the scrap yard with Dr. Asteneh, so I was describing something that both of us saw. Assuming I was accurate, parts of the I-beam were indeed gone. I can't verify that that they were indeed "vaporized."




he said he was describing something that he and astaneh both saw. did he get that input from astaneh? i dont know because the professor will not say either way. so spin it as you see fit. of coarse he cant verify if it was vaporized or not. that is just what it looked like.
 
This continued back-and-forth is totally missing the forest for the trees. The WPI studies showed microstructures that would not exist had thermite been used. We have steel from the collapse initiation zone that does not show any signs of the corrosion the ones Astaneh-Asl identified and Worcester studied. We do not have large, hardened hunks of previously molten iron proving widespread incendiary use. And we have many works from Bazant et al's thought experiment to Purdue's works which show that explosives or incendiaries are simply not necessary.

Given all that, what in God's name is the use of worrying about the specifics of how thermite affects steel? That's akin to taking isolated minutiae about Hiroshima and using it to debate the validity of a theory that an atomic bomb wasn't used. The rest of the supporting evidence is so overwhelming that such nitpickery amounts to inane irrelevancy.
 
Thanks Senenmut :)

See, it's not that difficult, is it?

I'm afraid I'll have to skip over the first of your two responses as it doesn't add anything new, and move on to your second response. Assuming this is indeed a response from Kenneth Chang to you, which really happened, and that it's the entirety of his response, and that you've accurately copied the text from his email, this is what we now have:

Senenmut said:
I don't have notes that far back. But I did go to the scrap yard with Dr. Asteneh, so I was describing something that both of us saw. Assuming I was accurate, parts of the I-beam were indeed gone. I can't verify that that they were indeed "vaporized."
Click to expand...


We see that Chang confirms that the description was HIS, not Astaneh's. He also states that he can't verify that that they were "vaporized". We also see that back on page 26 you cropped Chang's response from:

Assuming I was accurate, parts of the I-beam were indeed gone. I can't verify that that they were indeed "vaporized."
Click to expand...


down to:

"parts of the I-beam were indeed gone"
Click to expand...


Possibly a little disingenuous on your part, no?


You conclude:

Senenmut said:
he said he was describing something that he and astaneh both saw. did he get that input from astaneh? i dont know because the professor will not say either way. so spin it as you see fit. of coarse he cant verify if it was vaporized or not. that is just what it looked like.
Click to expand...


You're using frog DNA to fill in the missing gaps in your Truth Dinosaur gene sequence. ;)
 
Vaporized turns out to be corrosion in fires 1000 C and lower temperatures after study of the steel. Couple this with no thermite product found at the WTC, we have people making up quotes using hearsay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom