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

[JSanderO]

Actually it was the building falling on their heads they were worried about.

Can't sell a belief if you said that, huh?

Have you ever heard the expression "jump the shark"? You pole vaulted over the whole bay.

No...

 

[JSanderO]

post deleted double post

 

[Justin39640]

No...

Actually, yes. Do you understand what the (any) fire department's job is? Primarily, it's to save lives. Saving property is far down the list. Depending on the severity of the fire (and 7WTC was VERY severe) fire fighters wont risk their lives on trying to save an empty structure.

You really need to try to grasp this fact.

 

[jaydeehess]

"''What the hell would burn so fiercely for seven hours that the Fire Department would be afraid to fight it?'' said one member of the investigating team.

Armchair quaterbacking is always the best isn't it?

Let's see....
- empty building
- loss of the bulk of water supply in the area of lower Manhattan
- building bulging and leaning and in danger of at least partial collapse
- Attempted rescue operation ongoing in the rubble of WTC 1 & 2
- loss of a substantial number of the available firefighters when they died in the collapses of WTC 1 & 2

However this brightbulb sees no reasons why the NYFD would not risk more FF lives to take the reduced manpower they have off of attempting rescue in the rubble and send them into an empty structure.

 

[DGM]

Armchair quaterbacking is always the best isn't it?

Let's see....
- empty building
- loss of the bulk of water supply in the area of lower Manhattan
- building bulging and leaning and in danger of at least partial collapse
- Attempted rescue operation ongoing in the rubble of WTC 1 & 2
- loss of a substantial number of the available firefighters when they died in the collapses of WTC 1 & 2

However this brightbulb sees no reasons why the NYFD would not risk more FF lives to take the reduced manpower they have off of attempting rescue in the rubble and send them into an empty structure.

I noticed he didn't actually state what team that was.

 

[beachnut]

Plagarized... Source?, hearsay, off-topic, BS - cut and paste attack

"''What the hell would burn so fiercely for seven hours that the Fire Department would be afraid to fight it?'' said one member of the investigating team.

According to the Port Authority floor plans, 275-gallon diesel tanks sat on the fifth, seventh and eighth floors and were fed through pipes from the larger tanks near ground level. The team member said that while the diesel fuel remains the most likely candidate for feeding the fires, it was still unknown whether there could have been other sources of fuel in the building, kept there by tenants like the Secret Service that have disclosed little of what their spaces contained.

The huge steel transfer trusses ran mostly through the fifth, sixth and seventh floors where the fires burned. The purpose of the trusses, which included zigzagging and horizontal members and were concentrated around the building's core, was to allow 7 World Trade to be built over two Consolidated Edison substations that already existed on that spot when the building went up in the late 1980's. Together the stations held 10 transformers, each about 35 feet high and 40 feet wide.

Using the trusses to avoid having vertical structural columns pierce the transformers, the building was constructed around them like a hen sitting on a giant egg.

''We had to do design tricks to accommodate the existing Con Ed facility,'' said Mr. Cantor, the structural engineer. ''This building had an awful lot of transfers.''

Transfer trusses are a well-tested technique and are used in countless high-rise buildings, as well as in bridges around the world. Engineers say that transfer trusses, for most buildings, present no extraordinary hazard. But if there is an explosion, earthquake or long-burning fire, they can present a problem.

In Oklahoma City, during the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building, a large transfer girder on the building's third floor gave way, helping to precipitate a progressive collapse that later analysis showed was responsible for most of the 168 deaths. After this attack, federal guidelines for buildings that would hold government agencies were changed, recommending that buildings be designed so that single-point failures did not cause a catastrophic collapse.

Videos of the 5:28 p.m. collapse of 7 World Trade lend vivid support to the truss-failure theory. Roughly 30 seconds before the building goes down, a rooftop mechanical room starts to disappear, falling into the building's core. Then a second larger rooftop room sinks. The building then quickly collapses.

Both rooms were above sections of the building held up by the trusses. Other video evidence shows fire concentrated in the floors containing the trusses and the fuel tanks.

Dr. John D. Osteraas, director of civil engineering practice, Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, in Menlo Park, Calif., reviewed videos of the collapse, discussed it with other engineers and came to a similar conclusion; the fuel, the trusses and the fire brought 7 World Trade down. ''The pieces have come together,'' he said. ''Without the fuel, I think the building would have done fine.''"

What does your plagiarized OKC crap have to do with WTC 7. OKC building met all standards for where it was built. Why plagiarize and post hearsay. Not only plagiarized, no source, it is hearsay. You need the original source, and you need to give credit. The entire post is plagiarized, no source, etc.

OKC floors fell because the girder support was blown away, it was not a fire, it was 4,000 pound fertilizer bomb. Totally different initiation of collapse. Plus your plagiarized source is not the source.


Do you know the topic? Dr A saw metal that was subjected to 1000C temperatures and was corroded by fire. There is nothing to debunk, it makes your post look silly, besides being plagiarized hearsay.
WTC 7 was totaled by fire. Dr A agrees, and he is not a 911 truth supporter. The thread was finished at the OP.

 

[JSanderO]

The FDNY was involved in making the determination if a building is safe to enter..but also if it is in danger of collapse and causing damage to persons and property around the suspect structure. To make a determination they would have to enter the building or survey it somehow.

It makes sense that the if there were fires, and no sprinklers... and they assessment team so warped steel they might consider this the threshold to create an evacuation zone around the building... and then pull all personnel outside the zone.

 

[JSanderO]

It's not plagiarized... it's a quote... and you can react to it.

 

[DGM]

To make a determination they would have to enter the building or survey it somehow.

.

And they did. Yet another thing you missed when you 'skimmed".


No, I don't feel like hand feeding this to you.

 

[beachnut]

It's not plagiarized... it's a quote... and you can react to it.

You cut and paste, gave no source. You plagiarized it, and it is hearsay. And off topic. BS, etc.

Source. Do you have the source? Why do you use hearsay to make an off topic post? Do you know the topic?

 

[JSanderO]

You cut and paste, gave no source. You plagiarized it, and it is hearsay. And off topic. BS, etc.

Source. Do you have the source? Why do you use hearsay to make an off topic post? Do you know the topic?

I googled... put quotes... it's not my language and I am not publishing a paper.. Your comment is pure stupidity.

If you want to react/comment go ahead... What would have the source do for you? It's from the www...

Google is your friend.

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/02/...-fall-of-3rd-tower.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Archi***

 

[Sunstealer]

It's not plagiarized... it's a quote... and you can react to it.

It's customary and polite to provide a source for quotes. That way the reader can look at the referred material. We get lots of truthers who quote mine and misrepresent others. In fact this thread is the perfect example of such practice. Dr Astaneh has repeatedly stated that the truthers are misrepresenting him.

 

[JSanderO]

more plagiarism to not comment on"

"Con Ed and Insurers Sue Port Authority Over 7 World Trade
By JAMES GLANZ
Published: September 11, 2002

Consolidated Edison and five of its insurers have filed a $314.5 million lawsuit against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, asserting that huge diesel tanks in 7 World Trade Center, an office building that collapsed late in the day last Sept. 11, were improperly designed and maintained. The suit charges that fires fed by the fuel in those tanks played a major role in the collapse.

A major Con Edison electrical substation that sat beneath 7 World Trade Center -- a 47-story high-rise just north of the twin towers -- was destroyed when the building collapsed.

''The insurers are trying to recover what they paid to us and we're trying to recover some of our uninsured losses,'' said Chris Olert, a Con Edison spokesman. ''There was negligent design, inspection, maintenance and operation of the diesel fuel tanks there. The diesel tanks caused the building to collapse.''

The tanks contained more than 40,000 gallons of fuel to provide backup power for the city's emergency command center, a Secret Service office and other tenants. A 6,000-gallon tank for the command center, which was on the 23rd floor, was mounted 15 feet off the ground near an elevator bank. It was cited as unsafe by Fire Department officials in 1998 and 1999, but the Port Authority has asserted that the tank and the structure met the city's fire code and posed no special danger."

 

[beachnut]

how does hearsay and nonsense relate to the OP?

I googled... put quotes... it's not my language and I am not publishing a paper.. Your comment is pure stupidity.

If you want to react/comment go ahead... What would have the source do for you? It's from the www...

Google is your friend.

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/02/nyregion/a-nation-challenged-ground-zero-burning-diesel-is-cited-in-fall-of-3rd-tower.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Archi***

You plagiarized your post, and finally sourced it to hearsay; an article by two writers, not the original sources. You failed to source your Key Areas to an original source. lol, it is funny, and Off Topic.

Off topic again...

more plagiarism to not comment on"

"Con Ed and Insurers Sue Port Authority Over 7 World Trade
By JAMES GLANZ
Published: September 11, 2002

Consolidated Edison and five of its insurers have filed a $314.5 million lawsuit against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, asserting that huge diesel tanks in 7 World Trade Center, an office building that collapsed late in the day last Sept. 11, were improperly designed and maintained. The suit charges that fires fed by the fuel in those tanks played a major role in the collapse.

A major Con Edison electrical substation that sat beneath 7 World Trade Center -- a 47-story high-rise just north of the twin towers -- was destroyed when the building collapsed.

''The insurers are trying to recover what they paid to us and we're trying to recover some of our uninsured losses,'' said Chris Olert, a Con Edison spokesman. ''There was negligent design, inspection, maintenance and operation of the diesel fuel tanks there. The diesel tanks caused the building to collapse.''

The tanks contained more than 40,000 gallons of fuel to provide backup power for the city's emergency command center, a Secret Service office and other tenants. A 6,000-gallon tank for the command center, which was on the 23rd floor, was mounted 15 feet off the ground near an elevator bank. It was cited as unsafe by Fire Department officials in 1998 and 1999, but the Port Authority has asserted that the tank and the structure met the city's fire code and posed no special danger."

What did the judge say to the 2002 suit? http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2002cv07188/39510/220
Oh...
What did real studies say? lol, this gets better, and better, and further off topic... (i see clues for why we joined Gage, and p4t... )

Was the design bad? Another BS article which is off topic; you have failed to get near the topic.

What was the result of the law suit? And please tie it to the OP, the thread topic. Can you do better than BS?

 

[jaydeehess]

The FDNY was involved in making the determination if a building is safe to enter..but also if it is in danger of collapse and causing damage to persons and property around the suspect structure. To make a determination they would have to enter the building or survey it somehow.

It makes sense that the if there were fires, and no sprinklers... and they assessment team so warped steel they might consider this the threshold to create an evacuation zone around the building... and then pull all personnel outside the zone.

which they did,,and you use the same term that Silverstein used for it.

no sprinklers, no water supply, hundreds fewer FDNY personel, dozens of FDNY vehicles destroyed

 

[pgimeno]

I googled... put quotes... it's not my language and I am not publishing a paper.. Your comment is pure stupidity.

No it isn't. Your act looked like a violation of the Membership Agreement's Rule 4:

4. You will not post "copyrighted" material in its entirety and do not post large amounts of material available from other sites.^E2​

(Membership agreement, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25744)

[...] the quoting of brief portions of articles, books, emails, or bulletin board messages, relevant to discussion, is permitted. All quoted material should be credited to the original author or publisher and a link provided (when available) to the original work. It is not possible to declare precisely how much material may be quoted, as it will vary from article to article. We suggest quoting no more than a paragraph. [...]​

(Explanatory note E2, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168641#post5669795)

 

[Senenmut]

The isolation of the chips by Millette was performed in exactly the same way as Harrit et al.

We know that separating red/gray chips via magnet will extract a number of different materials. Anything magnetic will be separated.

Harrit et al specifically document chips a-d in their paper. Millette has specifically used a criteria to further analyse chips that only correspond to data as specified in chips a-d.

Harrit et al separated all sorts of chips via magnet. They have alluded to this:

Page 28.

replicate the experiments.....no iron and silicon rich microspheres from millette means not the same material.

You continually concentrate upon Millette's analysis even though he has specifically isolated chips that conform to the data from chips a-d in Harrit et al, but you completely ignore Harrit et al's own data when they categorically state that some of the red/gray chips they claim are thermite do not match the data in their own chips a-d.

Why do you, MM and every other truther, including the authors of the paper, refuse to explain the inconsistencies regarding what is actually present in these samples?

There is no explanation from truthers or the authors to the questions posed in the very paper they champion!

The answer is simple: Material separated via a magnet will only separate magnetic materials. Harrit et al and other truthers fail to understand this. This method of separation is going to produce a myriad of samples which is self evident via the above statement.

Why did they fail to produce any sample in the paper that was not thermite? Why is there zero mention that their method of isolation produced a chip/sample that was not thermite?

remember this supposed paper that really never was written:

A Metallurgical Examination and Simulation of the Oxidation and Sulfidation of the World Trade Center Structural Steel (WPI Seminar, September, 2003. Presented by Erin Sullivan.)
Abstract
To simulate the extreme wastage experienced by WTC building 7 structural steel during the fires experienced on September 11, 2001, A36 steel was reacted with powder FeS/FeO/SiO2/C in an open air furnace environment at 900C and 1100C. Initial investigations of the WTC structural steel revealed an apparent liquid "slag" attack and penetration down grain boundaries by liquid iron oxides and sulfides. The current laboratory simulation results show grain boundary penetration by a liquid slag at higher temperatures regardless of powder reactants applied to the steel samples. Eutectic structures within the Fe-S-O and Fe-Si-O systems were observed along with elemental segregation within the near surface microstructure. In all cases, grain boundary penetration appears to be strongly influenced by the addition of alloying elements and contaminants.

 

[Senenmut]

could be either from what i showed above about the grain boundary penetration or just some sort of left over processing material. but i do remember seeing some copper in one of the wtc steels study and lead in NIST's study i believe.

 

[Sunstealer]

replicate the experiments.....no iron and silicon rich microspheres from millette means not the same material.


remember this supposed paper that really never was written:

A Metallurgical Examination and Simulation of the Oxidation and Sulfidation of the World Trade Center Structural Steel (WPI Seminar, September, 2003. Presented by Erin Sullivan.)
Abstract
To simulate the extreme wastage experienced by WTC building 7 structural steel during the fires experienced on September 11, 2001, A36 steel was reacted with powder FeS/FeO/SiO2/C in an open air furnace environment at 900C and 1100C. Initial investigations of the WTC structural steel revealed an apparent liquid "slag" attack and penetration down grain boundaries by liquid iron oxides and sulfides. The current laboratory simulation results show grain boundary penetration by a liquid slag at higher temperatures regardless of powder reactants applied to the steel samples. Eutectic structures within the Fe-S-O and Fe-Si-O systems were observed along with elemental segregation within the near surface microstructure. In all cases, grain boundary penetration appears to be strongly influenced by the addition of alloying elements and contaminants.

Source? Link?

What has this got to do with Millette's report? Why don't you concentrate on the data Millette produced as per the thread title? Your bold is not what you think it means.

 

[Senenmut]

Source? Link?

What has this got to do with Millette's report? Why don't you concentrate on the data Millette produced as per the thread title?

its from WPI's website yrs back. i dont even know if its there anymore. it was a response from when you stated from the thermitic paper:

"We have observed that some chips have additional elements
such as potassium, lead, barium and copper. Are these
significant, and why do such elements appear in some red
chips and not others? An example is shown in Fig. (31)
which shows significant Pb along with C, O, Fe, and Al and
displays multiple red and gray layers."


who knows, it could be just some leftover stuff when they made the material or it could help with the grain boundary penetration when this stuff was set off.