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

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by bill smith

Well that's a start. I'll put that in the file and add it to the believabilty index a little later. Points out of ten.

Try to come up with something that's a litle bit realistic guys. It's not enough any more to simply apply the long used debunker rule of 'If it's not entirely impossible, then that's what happened'.

Things have changed and people are looking more critically at things. There was a time not too long ago when they would believe pretty well anything as you know. That's just about over thank God, and good riddance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Indeed

[Furcifer]

Bill do they have you on something new? You seem unusually trollish today. I think hanging out here has changed you for the better. I'm positive you don't even believe the CT anymore. You're not offering anything to the discussion these days. Just these half hearted attempts at humour. Can you expand a little on your crumble theory? What about this light proofing? How's that work?

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem

Bill do they have you on something new? You seem unusually trollish today. I think hanging out here has changed you for the better. I'm positive you don't even believe the CT anymore. You're not offering anything to the discussion these days. Just these half hearted attempts at humour. Can you expand a little on your crumble theory? What about this light proofing? How's that work?

If I ever get a couple hours of spare time, I want to go over all of Bill's posts and try to piece together his complete, unified theory about 9/11. Should be hilarious, especially when I try to find a spot for his belief that the towers were brought down using superheated steam.

[bill smith]

This was an interesting lecture. He says that almost all the concrete was pulverised which we all know anyway. But he also says that there were many particles as small as a hundred microns that could only have come from the compter chips. A hundred microns ? That's prettty small and the computers were maybe three feet above the floors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNbwL...layer_embedded

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by bill smith

This was an interesting lecture. He says that almost all the concrete was pulverised which we all know anyway. But he also says that there were many particles as small as a hundred microns that could only have come from the compter chips. A hundred microns ? That's prettty small and the computers were maybe three feet above the floors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNbwL...layer_embedded

[sylvan8798]

Originally Posted by bill smith

This was an interesting lecture. He says that almost all the concrete was pulverised which we all know anyway. But he also says that there were many particles as small as a hundred microns that could only have come from the compter chips. A hundred microns ? That's prettty small and the computers were maybe three feet above the floors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNbwL...layer_embedded

What? Did they hover there and then float out the windows during the collapse?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by bill smith

This was an interesting lecture. He says that almost all the concrete was pulverised which we all know anyway.

Gregory Urich, who represents Scholar For 9/11 Truth and Justice, says this is not true.

4. Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust

This claim is not correct and in no way favors controlled demolition over gravitational collapse. Engineers at Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (STJ911), including Greg Jenkins, Tony Szamboti and Gregory Urich, have demonstrated that the upper bound for concrete pulverized to dust was 15%. We have also calculated that the amount of dust attributable to easily crushed materials like gypsum and SFRM (thermal insulation) was equivalent to 5 lbs per square foot over an area of 200 acres. We have also calculated that no extra energy source would be needed to create this amount of dust. The pressures approached 100,000 psi late in the collapse. How could these
pressures not result in humans and other materials being crushed to dust?


Tony Szamboti posts here as "Tony Szamboti" (after spending several months hiding his true identity behind the screen name "realcddeal") maybe you can message him and have him explain to you why you are wrong about the level of pulverization.

[vinniem]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Gregory Urich, who represents Scholar For 9/11 Truth and Justice, says this is not true.

4. Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust

This claim is not correct and in no way favors controlled demolition over gravitational collapse. Engineers at Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (STJ911), including Greg Jenkins, Tony Szamboti and Gregory Urich, have demonstrated that the upper bound for concrete pulverized to dust was 15%. We have also calculated that the amount of dust attributable to easily crushed materials like gypsum and SFRM (thermal insulation) was equivalent to 5 lbs per square foot over an area of 200 acres. We have also calculated that no extra energy source would be needed to create this amount of dust. The pressures approached 100,000 psi late in the collapse. How could these
pressures not result in humans and other materials being crushed to dust?


Tony Szamboti posts here as "Tony Szamboti" (after spending several months hiding his true identity behind the screen name "realcddeal") maybe you can message him and have him explain to you why you are wrong about the level of pulverization.

Wow, the hypocrisy on display here is incredible.....unless your parents named you "Sword of Truth".

Tony Szamboti is now posting under his real name, have you ever posted under your real name here?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by vinniem

Wow, the hypocrisy on display here is incredible.

You're absolutely correct.

The self-righteous hypocrisy displayed by Tony Szamboti is deeply offensive.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

By the way Tom, you are anonymous. Sorry to say that providing your first name only does not qualify as giving your real name. Why don't you provide us with your full name Tom?

But this is beside the point. Do you agree or disagree with Tony "realcddeal" Szambotis calculations which show that Dick Gage is lying about the level of pulverization in the Twin Tower collapses?

[vinniem]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

You're absolutely correct.

The self-righteous hypocrisy displayed by Tony Szamboti is deeply offensive.



But this is beside the point. Do you agree or disagree with Tony "realcddeal" Szambotis calculations which show that Dick Gage is lying about the level of pulverization in the Twin Tower collapses?

Why did you claim Tony was hiding behind the name realcddeal? Are you hiding behind the name Sword Of Truth?

You and your debunking friends often like to claim that "truthers get everything wrong". As Tony is a truther, his calculations must be wrong, no?

[carlitos]

So no comment on the pulverization then. Got it. Carry on with your silly rant. As a seeker of "Truth" you should always strive to end every sentence in your posts with a question mark. 3 out of 4 with the last one.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by vinniem

You and your debunking friends often like to claim that "truthers get everything wrong". As Tony is a truther, his calculations must be wrong, no?

Wrong again.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by Edx

Originally Posted by Edx

Originally Posted by vinniem

Will you be contacting Odigo to support your theory that the jews did 911?

Uuuhh... wut?

Since when did I say or imply that?

hello ???

vinniem, im still waiting for you to explain your bizarre comment.

hello!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by vinniem

Why did you claim Tony was hiding behind the name realcddeal? Are you hiding behind the name Sword Of Truth?

You and your debunking friends often like to claim that "truthers get everything wrong". As Tony is a truther, his calculations must be wrong, no?

Do you agree or disagree with Tony "realcddeal" Szambotis calculations which show that Dick Gage is lying about the level of pulverization in the Twin Tower collapses?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Edx

hello!

Salutations!

[vinniem]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Do you agree or disagree with Tony "realcddeal" Szambotis calculations which show that Dick Gage is lying about the level of pulverization in the Twin Tower collapses?

I will answer your question when you answer mine.


Are you hiding behind the name Sword of Truth? If you are not, why do you suggest that Tony is hiding?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I asked first.

[vinniem]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

I asked first.

No you didn't. In my first post on the subject, I asked if you had ever posted here under your real name.

I must dash but hopefully, when I return, you will have answered. I won't be responding until you do.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I brought up Tonys calculations in this thread almost a little over an hour before you mentioned his hypocrisy.

Try again, Vinnie.

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by vinniem

I will answer your question when you answer mine.

Are you hiding behind the name Sword of Truth? If you are not, why do you suggest that Tony is hiding?

vinniem ... that's your real one word name, no?. Sounds Sephardic, from Lapland. Like Cher.

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch

vinniem ... that's your real one word name, no?. Sounds Sephardic, from Lapland. Like Cher.

I think it sounds more Julius Caesar..
'Veni, vidi, Vinniem.

[Gaspode]

Keep on topic please.

Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:Gaspode

[A W Smith]

What was the subject again?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by A W Smith

What was the subject again?

WTC Engineering and collapse dynamics.

Hence I asked Bill what he thinks of Tony Szambotis (who spent several months hiding behind the screen name "realcddeal") calculations which show that Dick Gage is lying about the amount of pulverization in the Twin Tower collapses.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by vinniem

I will answer your question when you answer mine.


Are you hiding behind the name Sword of Truth? If you are not, why do you suggest that Tony is hiding?

Tony knows my real name, you can ask him. So what is wrong with his calculations concerning the "pulverization".

FYI Richard Gage knows my real name too.(if that helps you)

[R.Mackey]

So now that we've been well and truly derailed by Truther idiocy, you might have forgotten why this thread was originally here. It was penned as a way for Truthers to twist the words of a legitimate researcher into the appearance of supporting their theor -- wait, they don't have any theories. Rather, into supporting doubt about what happened on September 11th.

Over the years I've challenged several Truthers to write to Dr. Astaneh, to get it straight rather than simply echo each other's drivel. Only one that I know of took me up on that -- poster Sizzler whom we haven't seen in some time -- and he was good enough to drop it after he got the real answer. Among others, deep, formerly known as deep44, refused to contact him, offering this wholly pathetic excuse:

Originally Posted by deep

Regarding your suggestion that I "contact them" - there's no reason to. If they suffered any negative backlash as a result of what they said, of course they're going to come up with some kind of excuse. I'm sure if we contact Michael Richards and ask him about his "N-word" rant while doing stand-up, he'll tell us we're misinterpreting what he said.

In the present era, the completely anonymous "vinniem" claims to have written the good professor, but I don't believe him.

If you had written him, you would have received something like this. Note to Moderators: The following was an e-mail response (two, actually) with the express intent of having it shown to the Truthers.

Originally Posted by Dr. Astaneh-Asl

All those who use my quote in this context of conspiracy theories are absolutely wrong and are doing a dis-service to the truth, the victims and their families and the humanity. No one should use that specific quote "molten metal" out of context, to indicate that I have seen molten metal and then use my good name and reputation as a researcher to conclude that there was a conspiracy.

All I tell to those who use my name is: "please stop using a phrase "molten steel" from eight years of my work and statements to further your absolutely misguided and baseless conspiracy theories and find another subject for your discussion. You are hurting the victims' families immensely and if you have any humanity you would stop doing so and will not use my name nor the out of context words from my work " .

But will they listen?

Originally Posted by Dr. Astaneh-Asl

Please also feel free to bring to their attention that they find results of our findings by simply searching Google for "Astaneh WTC". There is a Design Magazine article that is freely accessible on the internet and provides good coverage of my work. It is at:
http://www.designnews.com/article/64...ing_Do_It_.php.

Again, please plead with these conspiracy theorists to stop using my name in any context what so ever regarding conspiracy theories. It causes quite a lot of pain for me to have my work abused in this way

Thank you.

There you have it.

However, given my long experience with Truthers, I wholly expect the Truthers among you to continue running their mouths, shifting next to either arguing with the above on semantic grounds or finding some other excuse, wholly fabricated and fantastic of course, to ignore the intent of his message. To the Truthers: I dare you to impress me as human beings. Act maturely, if you can. The rest is up to you.

That definitely ends it among those of us who can reason, and should end it for all time.

[Macgyver1968]

..and Mackey sticks the landing.

[LashL]

Originally Posted by Macgyver1968

..and Mackey sticks the landing.

Indeed, and in keeping with the theme, the results are in:

9.5|9.5|9.5|9.5|9.5|9.5|9.5|9.5|9.5|9.5|9.5|9.5|

And the Russian judge, in a completely unprecedented move... abstains.

Done.

[Sam.I.Am]

Thirteen judges? How... odd.

[triforcharity]

Yes, 13 is an odd number indeed.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Yes, 13 is an odd number indeed.

I think it's rather prime. That's just my opinion, though.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

My, we are so clever and dry tonight.

[TruthersLie]

No... that score is DEEPER than primes. It really is.

I think it is the masons.... but maybe it is the NWO, or HAARP controlling the judges

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

So now that we've been well and truly derailed by Truther idiocy, you might have forgotten why this thread was originally here. It was penned as a way for Truthers to twist the words of a legitimate researcher into the appearance of supporting their theor -- wait, they don't have any theories. Rather, into supporting doubt about what happened on September 11th.

Over the years I've challenged several Truthers to write to Dr. Astaneh, to get it straight rather than simply echo each other's drivel. Only one that I know of took me up on that -- poster Sizzler whom we haven't seen in some time -- and he was good enough to drop it after he got the real answer. Among others, deep, formerly known as deep44, refused to contact him, offering this wholly pathetic excuse:



In the present era, the completely anonymous "vinniem" claims to have written the good professor, but I don't believe him.

If you had written him, you would have received something like this. Note to Moderators: The following was an e-mail response (two, actually) with the express intent of having it shown to the Truthers.





There you have it.

However, given my long experience with Truthers, I wholly expect the Truthers among you to continue running their mouths, shifting next to either arguing with the above on semantic grounds or finding some other excuse, wholly fabricated and fantastic of course, to ignore the intent of his message. To the Truthers: I dare you to impress me as human beings. Act maturely, if you can. The rest is up to you.

That definitely ends it among those of us who can reason, and should end it for all time.

This feels like another straw man. I doubt that many Truthers care one way or the other whether Dr. A-Asl is a Truther or not. Personally i am nly interested in what he said and whether he was being honest or dropping the hints that lead .

So if this is considered a victory of some kind it has been laborious and Pyrrhic.

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by bill smith

This feels like another straw man. I doubt that many Truthers care one way or the other whether Dr. A-Asl is a Truther or not. Personally i am nly interested in what he said and whether he was being honest or dropping the hints that lead .

So if this is considered a victory of some kind it has been laborious and Pyrrhic.

Yep, this message needs to be decrypted. It's probably some complex anagram. Take every 9th and 11th letter and uncode it. I bet it will lead to a database in DC with the real NIST report.

I so love an adventure.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Lol, Bill just admitted he got his ass kicked.

[R.Mackey]

Case in point.

That's one Truther who absolutely, positively cannot be reasoned with. Any others?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Case in point.

That's one Truther who absolutely, positively cannot be reasoned with. Any others?

I bet he could be waterboarded though.

[ElMondoHummus]

All right. This was stupid a long time ago, and has gotten even more idiotic than before. Are you truthers seriously trying to pass off the idea that Astaneh-Asl identified molten steel but refuses to acknowledge what it supposedly indicates? Are you honestly trying to make real the fiction that Astaneh-Asl refuses to acknowledge what the consequences of his observations are?? Seriously???

How about: You conspiracy advocates refuse to understand the entire story? Why won't you consider that? Because that is the scenario that has the most support and logical consistency behind it. You all are refusing to acknowledge that there's information you're not including in your fantasy peddlling.

Go back to Red's OP here:

Originally Posted by RedIbis

...or could someone point me to one of Gravy's links, where this has been debunked?
"Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, who specializes in studying structural damage done by earthquakes and terrorist bombings. He flew to New York on September 19, 2001 to conduct a two-week reconnaissance of the collapsed towers, hoping to gain an understanding of how they'd come down. He was able to examine numerous pieces of steel taken from Ground Zero. [1]"

Lace up your debunking boots, here's his findings:

http://911blogger.com/node/14062

Let's quote from the 911blogger article:

Quote:

A structural engineer who was a member of the team assembled by the American Society of Civil Engineers to investigate the World Trade Center site after 9/11 has described numerous phenomena indicating extremely high temperatures suffered by the WTC structural steel. This appears to be further evidence that high-temperature explosives, such as thermate, were used to bring down the towers.

"High temperature explosives (), such as thermate, were used to bring down the towers"...

Yes. This is exactly the thesis you all are trying to defend. You're trying to say that Astaneh-Asl made observations and then is refusing to acknowledge where they supposedly lead. That article is making that exact connection. Keep reading:

Quote:

• Astaneh-Asl said that steel flanges "had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin." [3]
• At a recycling center in New Jersey, he saw 10-ton steel beams from the towers that "looked like giant sticks of twisted licorice." [4] He showed the San Francisco Chronicle a "banana-shaped, rust-colored piece of steel" that had somehow "twisted like toffee during the terrorist attack." [5]
• He noted the way steel from the WTC had bent at several connection points that had joined the floors to the vertical columns. He described the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, "If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted--it's kind of like that." He added, "That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot--perhaps around 2,000 degrees." [6]
• In an interview in 2007, Astaneh-Asl recalled, "I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center." [7]
• He found a foot-long twisted shard of steel that was "like a piece of bread, but it was high-strength steel." He commented, "I haven't seen anything like this [before]." [8]
• He came across "severely scorched [steel] members from 40 or so floors below the points of impact [by the planes]." [9]
• The fireproofing that had been used to protect the WTC steel also showed evidence of extreme conditions. In some places it had "melted into a glassy residue." [10]
• Astaneh-Asl saw a charred I-beam from WTC Building 7--a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11, even though no plane hit it. "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." [11]

In all those observations, we're supposed to take it as gospel that the notion that steel melted is proven. After all, Astaneh-Asl said it himself, even saying in 2007 that he "saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center". This from a man who personally inspected 40,000 tons of the steel debris himself. You truthers got the proof down and all us "debunkers" dead to rights.

Or do you?

Quote:

• Astaneh-Asl said that steel flanges "had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin." [3]

• Astaneh-Asl saw a charred I-beam from WTC Building 7--a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11, even though no plane hit it. "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." [11]

Have we forgotten that this particular issue was studied by the Worchester team? Biederman, Sisson, Barnett, and others investigated this exact issue. Guess what? It turns out to be a sulfidation attack. Not thermate. Go read it:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...rman-0112.html
http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ine&aid=165759
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g5w603461r3078t3/

Why do we know it can't be thermate? Read:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=257

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

No. The WPI steel is evidence against molten steel. Temperatures of only 940oC would have destroyed the eutectic mixture, and this is way, way below the melting temperature of steel. This is evidence of an interesting chemical reaction, but not great heat or melted steel.

So we know two of his observations were referring directly to corrosion via sulfidation, and we know this because of the eutectic remainders. This is established. It is fact. The erosion that Astaneh-Asl noted was not actual high-temperature melting of steel, but liquidization. And no, liquidization does not mean molten steel:

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

The eutectic temperature of a mixture is the lowest melting point of any constituent chemical compound. The mixture is "eutectic" in the sense that once the lowest melting temperature is reached, the entire mixture may be treated as liquid. Think of water ice well mixed with frozen alcohol -- once you melt the alcohol, the entire thing is a slurry; you do not have to reach the melting temperature of ice.

Ryan goes on to explain why this distinction is important:

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

This finding is significant because it implies the original steel was never heated far beyond this temperature. If it had, the different compounds would be expected to separate or form other products. 1000^oC is far below the temperature one would expect from a "thermate cutting charge," or for that matter any form of deliberate demolition whatsoever!

Logic, when used to studying evidence, shows what the story is. And all evidence must be included, not just specifically selected quotes without context. In the case of the eroded items, you must include the findings of the Worchester team. Doing so is selectively subtracting evidence and thus being dishonest. So in the end, we know that two of the quotes from Astaneh-Asl do not support any molten steel or thermate fantasies.

(to be continued)