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

[Tezro]

Also, can you all tell me why you disagree with Astaneh on the important point that the steel needed further forensic study and should not have been shipped away and recycled? Especially considering they passed legislation regarding it.

Leaving aside the misrepresentation of Astanah-Asl's position for a moment...For the truly curious, who find merit in the contention that the steel "needed further forensic study and should not have been shipped away and recycled", at the NIST "WTC Disaster Study" website is a gallery containing thousands of photos of collected WTC steel: I'm new here and can't post the link, but it's not hard to find.

 

[Miragememories]

"Care to acknowledge;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7772928&postcount=87"

"Sure. The data is innaccurate. There is really no way to measure the temperature of underground fires, with equipment mounted on a helicopter."

SH&E at Ground Zero
..."On Sept. 12, 2001, a small group of SH&E professionals from Bechtel Group Inc., led by Stewart Burkhammer, a professional member of ASSE’s National Capital Chapter, arrived in New York City to assist the city and state of New York in the emergency recovery effort after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. The sights and experiences of the days and weeks that followed are described here in order to provide fellow SH&E professionals a brief account of the extraordinary challenges encountered at Ground Zero...

The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes. Steel toes would often heat up and become intolerable. This heat was also a concern for the search-and-rescue dogs used at the site. Many were not outfitted with protective booties (Photo 13). More than one suffered serious injuries and at least three died while working at Ground Zero. The underground fire burned for exactly 100 days and was finally declared “extinguished” on Dec. 19, 2001..."

"...First of all, molten metal could indeed have formed in the rubble piles post collapse. KBR SH&E recorded underground temperature ranges "to more than 2,800F" (Professional Safety, May 2002, "SH&E at Ground Zero). So that's no surprise..."

Apparently, there are many professionals who totally disagree with you triforcharity.

And if there temperature readings were wrong and actually only surface measurements, it would be expected that any readings from the actual heat sources below the surface, must have been even hotter!

MM

 

[DGM]

And if there temperature readings were wrong and actually only surface measurements, it would be expected that any readings from the actual heat sources below the surface, must have been even hotter!

MM

His point is, its impossible to determine by how much, a point you need to support your "theory".

 

[Seymour Butz]

Please provide a link to your source that claims that Dr. AA says that he believes that the erosion happened before collapse.

It's odd that he would even consider that the charring occurred before collapse, cuz it had a SFRM covering it before collapse.

Logic would dictate that if it's charred - meaning that he sees blackened steel? - that it would have happened AFTER it fell and lost its SFRM.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

the finals are that sisson can get "little metel" to dissolve even at 1100C in 24 hrs. ive emailed him and he will NOT state how little that little is. he uses powders instead of office/debris material at that bypassing how the office/debris fire actually created the eutectic in the fist place. are you ok with the "final" sisson is giving you? sounds like im the one being skeptic here!!

15.9mm of steel gone in 8 days and prof astaneh relates it being done by the fire before the collapse.

one inch of steel gone in 8-18 days and he relates it to the fires pre collapse.

sometimes with science you gotta move back and analyze the evidence before you can move forward again.

You should try that sometime. First get an education.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

SH&E at Ground Zero
..."On Sept. 12, 2001, a small group of SH&E professionals from Bechtel Group Inc., led by Stewart Burkhammer, a professional member of ASSE’s National Capital Chapter, arrived in New York City to assist the city and state of New York in the emergency recovery effort after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. The sights and experiences of the days and weeks that followed are described here in order to provide fellow SH&E professionals a brief account of the extraordinary challenges encountered at Ground Zero...

The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes. Steel toes would often heat up and become intolerable. This heat was also a concern for the search-and-rescue dogs used at the site. Many were not outfitted with protective booties (Photo 13). More than one suffered serious injuries and at least three died while working at Ground Zero. The underground fire burned for exactly 100 days and was finally declared “extinguished” on Dec. 19, 2001..."



Apparently, there are many professionals who totally disagree with you triforcharity.

And if there temperature readings were wrong and actually only surface measurements, it would be expected that any readings from the actual heat sources below the surface, must have been even hotter!

MM

Dis we just have a thread where it was a given that there was molten steel and you still couldn't credibly link it a CD and instead invented a sealed yet unsealed space that was fed by a fire retardant that kept steel molten was 90 days?? Why are still flogging this dead horse. Why cannot you ever simply admit you are wrong?

 

[beachnut]

SH&E at Ground Zero
..."On Sept. 12, 2001, a small group of SH&E professionals from Bechtel Group Inc., led by Stewart Burkhammer, a professional member of ASSE’s National Capital Chapter, arrived in New York City to assist the city and state of New York in the emergency recovery effort after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. The sights and experiences of the days and weeks that followed are described here in order to provide fellow SH&E professionals a brief account of the extraordinary challenges encountered at Ground Zero...

The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes. Steel toes would often heat up and become intolerable. This heat was also a concern for the search-and-rescue dogs used at the site. Many were not outfitted with protective booties (Photo 13). More than one suffered serious injuries and at least three died while working at Ground Zero. The underground fire burned for exactly 100 days and was finally declared “extinguished” on Dec. 19, 2001..."



Apparently, there are many professionals who totally disagree with you triforcharity.

And if there temperature readings were wrong and actually only surface measurements, it would be expected that any readings from the actual heat sources below the surface, must have been even hotter!

MM

u b using the hearsay quote-mine method of attack. Typical of failed movements.

Show the report, the first hand report of helicopter sensor of 2,800 F. Show me!

You and 911 truth are the experts at taking HEARSAY, unsubstantiated junk and making no points or conclusions. You make up fantasy due to ignorance. You have excelled at making no progress.

The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF.

You post hearsay, post the report! Not hearsay, try reality based evidence. You could have caught your error, but you have no idea what sensors can do.

Dr A says no inside job. Get on topic, stop posting hearsay to support your non-conclusion, no point post. What is your point? Are you trying to use hearsay for a purpose?

Tri is right, you are wrong, and you are using hearsay in your failed attack. Next time look up the data, look up the science, to see you are wrong.

 

[000063]

it burned first (lost 15.9mm of steel) then buckled. how could it be anymore clear than that?

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.

Okay, now you're actively asserting facts not in evidence, and inserting facts into a witnesses testimony. The doc makes no mention in that article of how much steel was lost, much less 15.9mm specifically.

Ironic that you accuse us of being blind.

sometimes with science you gotta move back and analyze the evidence before you can move forward again.

That's all well and good, provided you can still see the body of evidence with the naked eye and not a metaphorical telescope.

 

[Miragememories]

His point is, its impossible to determine by how much, a point you need to support your "theory".

I think if he ever had a point, he doesn't require your nonsensical response to explain it.

Muddy the waters much?

MM

 

[Senenmut]

Okay, now you're actively asserting facts not in evidence, and inserting facts into a witnesses testimony. The doc makes no mention in that article of how much steel was lost, much less 15.9mm specifically.

Ironic that you accuse us of being blind.

That's all well and good, provided you can still see the body of evidence with the naked eye and not a metaphorical telescope.

what do you think this fire wise professor (jonathon barnett) was saying about this statement:

"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures", Dr. Barnett said.

notice he says "steel members." that is plural. more than one.

 

[Senenmut]

Awesome, a tiny little bit of plastic, some diesel fuel, etc. At least he made an attempt.

However, one thing I did miss. When does he do a microscopic analysis of the steel? Perhaps there was some intergranular melting on a small scale, but wouldn't have been seen with the naked eye.

And this guy claims to be a scientist? He's a moron, as usual.

i agree. he should have.

 

[The Platypus]

I think if he ever had a point, he doesn't require your nonsensical response to explain it.

Muddy the waters much?

MM

Oh the irony.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

what do you think this fire wise professor (jonathon barnett) was saying about this statement:

"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures", Dr. Barnett said.

notice he says "steel members." that is plural. more than one.

What the hell are you talking about? Nothing you've said here relates at all to the post you quoted. What do you think you're responding to?

 

[tsig]

What the hell are you talking about? Nothing you've said here relates at all to the post you quoted. What do you think you're responding to?

The voices in his head?

 

[Senenmut]

What the hell are you talking about? Nothing you've said here relates at all to the post you quoted. What do you think you're responding to?

your fellow debunkers know what im talking about. that is what the steel looked like to these guys. astaneh has never come forward and state that he didnt say vaporized. the "evaporated" was a direct quote from a fire wise professor. so when he mentioned "evaporated", how much steel loss was there?

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/n...ge-collapse-7-world-trade.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

 

[excaza]

the "evaporated" was a direct quote from a fire wise professor. so when he mentioned "evaporated", how much steel loss was there?

Is your response to:

The doc makes no mention in that article of how much steel was lost, much less 15.9mm specifically.

 

[Edx]

your fellow debunkers know what im talking about. that is what the steel looked like to these guys. astaneh has never come forward and state that he didnt say vaporized. the "evaporated" was a direct quote from a fire wise professor. so when he mentioned "evaporated", how much steel loss was there?

You keep saying "fire wise professor", yet you dont think he is smart enough to know that the WTC was a demolition. All you have is out of context quotes. I remember reading Astaneh being upset that truthers have taking his words out of context. You latch onto one word and yet still claim that people who dont believe the WTC was a demolition are either in on it or stupid or ignorant. His very existence proves many of your claims wrong, like truthers claiming no one got to look at any of the steel, that it was all destroyed before any investigation could be done. Yet he was one of the many that inspected the steel and saved various pieces that looked like they needed further study and/or would help in the investigation. So he must be in on your conspiracy, and yet according to you he admitted the whole thing anyway. Good job as always truther.

 

[Senenmut]

You keep saying "fire wise professor", yet you dont think he is smart enough to know that the WTC was a demolition. All you have is out of context quotes. I remember reading Astaneh being upset that truthers have taking his words out of context. You latch onto one word and yet still claim that people who dont believe the WTC was a demolition are either in on it or stupid or ignorant. His very existence proves many of your claims wrong, like truthers claiming no one got to look at any of the steel, that it was all destroyed before any investigation could be done. Yet he was one of the many that inspected the steel and saved various pieces that looked like they needed further study and/or would help in the investigation. So he must be in on your conspiracy, and yet according to you he admitted the whole thing anyway. Good job as always truther.

he did not see molten girders. he saw previously molten girders. there is a difference. he did not see molten steel dripping. he saw evidence of melting of girders NOT dripping molten steel. get it got it good.

 

[Edx]

he did not see molten girders. he saw previously molten girders. there is a difference. he did not see molten steel dripping. he saw evidence of melting of girders NOT dripping molten steel. get it got it good.

So despite the fact that such descriptions of melting/molten steel are easily found in plenty of other fires... and the fact that none of the guys you quote actually believe there is something nafarious involved with it and at least one of them has said the quote you guys keep using is out of context and doesnt reflect what he was saying or believes which makes him a liar or a hopeless incompetent, you are still going to believe it means there was this magical nano thermite anyway. Amazing.

 

[Senenmut]

Is your response to:

five eigths of an inch had vaporized. it cant get any more clear than that. email the good professor and ask. ive asked him a question before and he answered.