Ask all firefighting and fire related questions here

[TruthersLie]

"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."

Citation please. Not some bs quotation. I'd like to read it in full.

 

[bill smith]

Terrific.

You google the phrase:

"scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been “fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm"

... and you get 4250 hits.

Now, besides the typical fact that it's a word-for-word cut & paste, something is unique about this story. A slight error in the fact that the reference number 11 was left out of brackets.

Every single one of the 10 versions of this story that I found had the same mutation.

Chasing back to the earliest version of the story (9/14/09), we arrive here:

Prison Planet.

Story by David Ray Griffin.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven.html

On Griffin's own website, the first notice is Sept 1, 2009, and all references to "The mysterious collapse of WTC7" lead you to the opportunity to buy his new book, fully titled:

“The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False”.

Fraud.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/former-nist-employee-blows-whistle.html GW Blog

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Citation please. Not some bs quotation. I'd like to read it in full.

For the record, Astaneh-Asl did indeed say this during an interview he was in on regarding a California bridge collapse due to a tanker truck fire. What conspiracy peddlers fail to note is that he was almost certainly referring to the eutectic corrosion since he was among the first to note it and using "melt" in a very loose, colloquial sense. Either that, or he had noted some girders he saw that were affected in the rubble pile but not noteworthy for the collapses since they were not from the collapse initiation zones. Either way, Astaneh-Asl is on record as saying that the conspiracy fantasists are drawing the wrong conclusions from his work. He went so far as to say it was being "abused". That right there should tell you what you need to know about the credibility he ascribes to how the truthers quote mine him.

 

[Senenmut]

Senenmut,

More JAQing off in public?

Don't you guys ever look for answers on your own?

I'm going to change the order of your questions a bit.



What does it matter what I think? Let's ask Astaneh-Asl himself:

Personal communication, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl to Ron Wieck:

Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:02 PM
To: Ronald Wieck
Subject: Re: 'Hardfire' Appearance



And:

Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 1:22 PM
To: Ronald Wieck
Subject: Re: 'Hardfire' Appearance




Now please answer this question:

Is THIS sufficient proof for you that A-A does NOT believe in "molten metal" at the WTC ground site?

Will you now stop using his name in this context? Will you now correct other truthers who do?



You want me to find a list of everything that he's said for you? I'm quite sure that there are a LOT of things that he's never denied in public that he nevertheless does not believe.

But let's go thru the phases. Iron melts at around 2800°F. It boils (aka "vaporizes") at 5182°F.

If we can show that A-A does not claim to have seen melted steel, then we can safely conclude that he never claimed to have seen vaporized steel. Right?

Can you now put 2 & 2 together? Does he believe that he saw "vaporized steel" or "vaporized metal".

Of course, if he never saw molten steel, then it's not fair to call it "vaporized". You'd have to call it "sublimated steel".

Are you astute enough to pick up on sarcasm?

___



"Vaporize" is a term used by hyperventilating reporters looking for a sound bite. And by teenagers raised on sci-fi movies.

Many things will boil at fire temperatures (1100°C - 1300°C). Steel ain't one of them.

The couple of individual pieces that showed "unusual thinning" - which is the 90% source of the "vaporized" quote - did not vaporize. Even tho the reporter who filed the story used that word.

Neither did the IRON or STEEL melt. Even tho a careless reading of the WPI report will lead you to believe that.

It corroded. Typical, high temp corrosion.

And then the corrosion products MAY have melted at a temp below 1000°C. But iron & steel melt up around 1500°C.



Tell ya what. Why don't you do some of your own research. It'll be good for you.


Tom

is there a conspiracy here when Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl states that he saw "melting of girders in World Trade Center?"

and i really dont care if he does or does not believe in conspiracies. what he saw is what he saw. he saw melting of girders and melted fireproofing. whats the big deal?

 

[TruthersLie]

is there a conspiracy here when Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl states that he saw "melting of girders in World Trade Center?"

and i really dont care if he does or does not believe in conspiracies. what he saw is what he saw. he saw melting of girders and melted fireproofing. whats the big deal?

GREAT.

Then please provide the EXACT citation where this "quote" came from.

I want to read it in its entirety.

ETA: Then you can provide DIRECT QUOTES from him right? Direct quotes with "" around the direct quote. Because a reporter who has no technical experience will "paraphrase" technical matters and often get it wrong. So please. Pretty please show me a direct quote. Maybe from one of his published papers to support these claims. You know... the claims he says are FALSE.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

GREAT.

Then please provide the EXACT citation where this "quote" came from.

I want to read it in its entirety.

ETA: Then you can provide DIRECT QUOTES from him right? Direct quotes with "" around the direct quote. Because a reporter who has no technical experience will "paraphrase" technical matters and often get it wrong. So please. Pretty please show me a direct quote. Maybe from one of his published papers to support these claims. You know... the claims he says are FALSE.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.... before we get hung up on this, yes, Astaneh-Asl did indeed say this:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

SPENCER MICHELS: He says his trained eye can figure out some details, like temperatures during the fire, on the spot.

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

But like I noted above, he himself insists that the truthers are taking his observations in the utterly wrong direction. Again, I need to point out to anyone and everyone reading this that the molten areas he saw were established by the Worchester Polytechnic group to be eutectic corrosion, not straight out heat melting.

Or, if he's referring to the twisted columns and trusses, he did mean melting as in the heat getting the steel soft enough to twist and bend under the conditions that existed in the rubble piles. Those elements were seen and noted. But, obviously they don't refer to actual melting to liquid, because he wouldn't have seen those twisted girders to begin with had they completely, totally melted. He would've seen hardened pools. The bottom line is that Astaneh-Asl's quotes are being misused when they're utilized to forward truther fantasies. Again, he himself is on record as saying this.

 

[bill smith]

For the record, Astaneh-Asl did indeed say this during an interview he was in on regarding a California bridge collapse due to a tanker truck fire. What conspiracy peddlers fail to note is that he was almost certainly referring to the eutectic corrosion since he was among the first to note it and using "melt" in a very loose, colloquial sense. Either that, or he had noted some girders he saw that were affected in the rubble pile but not noteworthy for the collapses since they were not from the collapse initiation zones. Either way, Astaneh-Asl is on record as saying that the conspiracy fantasists are drawing the wrong conclusions from his work. He went so far as to say it was being "abused". That right there should tell you what you need to know about the credibility he ascribes to how the truthers quote mine him.

I think he described it something like this.

''ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.''

 

[Senenmut]

tfk stated-
"Neither did the IRON or STEEL melt. Even tho a careless reading of the WPI report will lead you to believe that.
It corroded. Typical, high temp corrosion."

firefighters:

how typical is this? have any of you guys ever seen steel that resembles swiss cheese before. remember this is an office material fire. and now they want you to believe NO molten metal was there. so if no molten metal was there, how do we reach the 1100C temp that sisson wants for his hypothesis? beats tha hell out of me?

 

[TruthersLie]

elmondo.

Unlike truthers I will say I was wrong. Thank you for providing the exact quote. I was wrong, he apparently did say that.

I appreciate the citation...

ETA: Now that I've read it... HOLY QUOTE MINING BATMAN!!!!

From a report 6 years AFTER 9/11 which has NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. A single phrase in a story about a bridge collapse... 6 years afterwards...

The funny part is that they IGNORE the very next part about how steel loses its strength at 1000C and will collapse. (like it did in wtc) I love datamining truthers.

 

[bill smith]

elmondo.

Unlike truthers I will say I was wrong. Thank you for providing the exact quote. I was wrong, he apparently did say that.

I appreciate the citation...

ETA: Now that I've read it... HOLY QUOTE MINING BATMAN!!!!

From a report 6 years AFTER 9/11. A single phrase... 6 years afterwards...

np

 

[bill smith]

Whoa, whoa, whoa.... before we get hung up on this, yes, Astaneh-Asl did indeed say this:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html



But like I noted above, he himself insists that the truthers are taking his observations in the utterly wrong direction. Again, I need to point out to anyone and everyone reading this that the molten areas he saw were established by the Worchester Polytechnic group to be eutectic corrosion, not straight out heat melting.

Or, if he's referring to the twisted columns and trusses, he did mean melting as in the heat getting the steel soft enough to twist and bend under the conditions that existed in the rubble piles. Those elements were seen and noted. But, obviously they don't refer to actual melting to liquid, because he wouldn't have seen those twisted girders to begin with had they completely, totally melted. He would've seen hardened pools. The bottom line is that Astaneh-Asl's quotes are being misused when they're utilized to forward truther fantasies. Again, he himself is on record as saying this.

So when the good Dr, Professor and Ph.d. said that he had observed ' the melting of girders ' what he really meant was that he saw them essentially being corroded ? Does that really look like melting though ? Especially to a heavily qualified scientist ?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Thanks, triforcharity: I may not know much about fires, but I do have some familiarity with Manhattan, having worked there shortly after the WTC was built. I wonder if some of the posters who claim it would have been easy to put out the WTC7 fires understand the lay of the land in September, 2001. Even on the best of days that part of the island is crowded and chaotic, with an insane amount of traffic on streets laid out in the 18th century. bill smith's suggestions seem to imply that he thinks WTC7 stood all by itself on a nice flat piece of easily accessible land (ok, it is on the flatter part of the island) instead of in a series of what are essentially concrete canyons filled with debris. 100 yards straight doesn't sound like much; add in the extra time and length to get a hose around all the obstacles is something else. Yes, a fireboat was used in San Francisco in 1989. However, the Marina is not lower Manhattan: it's more open, and the buildings are mostly wood-frame construction, less than 4 stories. Firefighting in the two cases is bound to be different.

I'm waiting for the suggestion that FDNY should have used helicopters with buckets of water, like California does for forest fires in remote areas.

(What is it about WTC 7? Why doesn't anyone obsess about buildings 3-6, which were also destroyed? Or the Greek church?)

San Francisco also has dozens of 50K gallon underground cisterns scattered all over the place. You can spot them by the round ring of bricks in the middle of an intersection. I know the guy whose job it is to keep them filled. They were also used in 1989.

As an aside, maybe the problem with the steel "Melting" was because they used water from the Hudson...

 

[BigAl]

tfk stated-
"Neither did the IRON or STEEL melt. Even tho a careless reading of the WPI report will lead you to believe that.
It corroded. Typical, high temp corrosion."

firefighters:

how typical is this? have any of you guys ever seen steel that resembles swiss cheese before. remember this is an office material fire. and now they want you to believe NO molten metal was there. so if no molten metal was there, how do we reach the 1100C temp that sisson wants for his hypothesis? beats tha hell out of me?

I bet lots of facts and concepts "beat the hell out of you".

 

[ElMondoHummus]

elmondo.

Unlike truthers I will say I was wrong. Thank you for providing the exact quote. I was wrong, he apparently did say that.

I appreciate the citation...

ETA: Now that I've read it... HOLY QUOTE MINING BATMAN!!!!

From a report 6 years AFTER 9/11 which has NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. A single phrase in a story about a bridge collapse... 6 years afterwards...

The funny part is that they IGNORE the very next part about how steel loses its strength at 1000C and will collapse. (like it did in wtc) I love datamining truthers.

No problem. Yes, it is blowing Astaneh-Asl's quote out of proportion; truthers continually ignore the fact that Astaneh-Asl's observations on the WTC steel were followed up on and well documented. They'd rather point out that he said "melting" and subtract the context of what he must have been referring to when he said that. Once that context is added, it moves away from whatever the conspriacy peddlers are pitching at the moment. But of course, that's why they subtract that context. It's inconvenient for them.

 

[twinstead]

Context is for SUCKERS!!!!!1111!1!

 

[Senenmut]

Yes he has, and he has been EXTREMELY outspoken as to his opinions about how truthers have taken his statements out of context and that he completely rejects truther ideas.

link please. and it has to be him talking about the wtc 7 steel that he was talking about for the newspaper article. like someone asking him how it came about that the term "vaporized" came to be used and did you say this or did the newspaper reporter invent it.

because the temperature required for it to vaporize was never met in the original fires, nor in the fires in the piles. If it never gets that hot, it can't vaporize.

first impressions are important in regards to the statement of "vaporized" and that other guy from fema that stated the steel looked "evaporated".
but looks like we are getting close with these numbers:
"The temperatures required to melt iron (1,538 °C) and molybdenum (2,623 °C), and to vaporize lead (1,740 °C) and aluminosilicates (~2,760°C), are completely out of reach of the fires in the WTC buildings (maximum 1,100 °C).
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

rj lee report: if the firefighters want to read the rj lee report.
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130 ...ignature.Composition and Morphology.Final.pdf

All of the above listed items would melt and vaporize by the heat produced in the initial fires and in the fires in the piles. So it is not unexpected.

vaporized lead?

How is that FOIA request going? Remember to fill in all the blanks. It helps.

havent started it yet. alittle busy now.

 

[bill smith]

No problem. Yes, it is blowing Astaneh-Asl's quote out of proportion; truthers continually ignore the fact that Astaneh-Asl's observations on the WTC steel were followed up on and well documented. They'd rather point out that he said "melting" and subtract the context of what he must have been referring to when he said that. Once that context is added, it moves away from whatever the conspriacy peddlers are pitching at the moment. But of course, that's why they subtract that context. It's inconvenient for them.

I think Dr. Astaneh would like all this to just go away. He should just come here himself for an evening of questions and answers and be rid of the whole thing.

 

[carlitos]

Pointless truther is pointless. Go away.

 

[Senenmut]

I bet lots of facts and concepts "beat the hell out of you".

lol. show me some examples of that "typical" corrosion from office fires. besides the ones from wtc sites and wtc 7.

 

[BigAl]

lol. show me some examples of that "typical" corrosion from office fires. besides the ones from wtc sites and wtc 7.

Lets assume for the moment there are none to be found anywhere, ever.

So what?

How does that affect the fact that fire and lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse?

There is lots of ordinary chemical processes under conditions present in the WTC pile that can explain the corrosion.

There are no demolition or themite effects that can explain the corrosion.