IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl , astaneh , steel , steel wastage , wastage , wpi , wtc 1 , WTC 2 , wtc 7

Reply
Old 27th February 2008, 09:18 AM   #281
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,282
Good, Lord, this thread needs to be closed.

Astaneh-Asl's comments reflect the engineering consensus: Impacts plus fires led to the collapses. He's had ample time to voice opinions over the state of the steel not reflecting this paradigm, but instead, he's chosen to concentrate his efforts on other issues (namely, the issue of construction codes). His observations regarding the steel components are consistent with exposure to the heat and chemical reactions in the debris pile and whatever was done to the steel during the debris recovery/recycling. The only way to think his observations mean anything different are to blatantly ignore the fact that he was observing post-recovered steel, and to presume that anything he's observed was due to pre-collapse events. That's a two-step method of selective memory and is not conducive to understanding the truth. As R.Mackey pointed out, there's not only no way for Dr. Astaneh-Asl to know if what he's seeing took place prior to collapse or not, there happens to be a mountain of a reason to accept that what he observed stemmed from exposure to the post collapse environment. And that mountain of a reason is his postion in the recovery chain: He was viewing post-collapse, post-recovery-process steel. If you ignore that, you are ignoring the reality of what the steel went through before Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw it.

There is nothing left here to discuss. There certainly is nothing about Astaneh-Asl's work that needs to be debunked. The doctor's observations support the narrative of impacts plus fires equals collapse. The only thing left to debunk are conspiracy fantasists misinterpretations of his statements, and that's been done over and over already.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2008, 10:07 AM   #282
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by SDC View Post
Is your position, then, that:

1/ His observations disprove the "official theory," or at least weaken it;

2/ His observations are open to serious question;

or 3/ Something else?

I'd suggest that you have to take a position or there is nothing to discuss. Obviously you have a point to make.
I'll go with a combo of 1 and 2.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2008, 10:16 AM   #283
SDC
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,244
Red I., just so I understand: you would argue that his observations weaken or debunk the "official theory;" and that they are also open to serious question.

That's somewhat self-contradictory, but hey, whatever.
SDC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2008, 10:20 AM   #284
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by SDC View Post
Red I., just so I understand: you would argue that his observations weaken or debunk the "official theory;" and that they are also open to serious question.

That's somewhat self-contradictory, but hey, whatever.
Where would the troof movement be without cognitive dissonance?
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2008, 10:34 AM   #285
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Ignorance and arrogance.

RedIbis, who is not an engineer, thinks he is better able to analyze the engineer's analysis then the engineer. Oh, and did I mention, Red provides no data, no analysis of his own as he presents his conclusion.

Ignorance and arrogance.
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2008, 11:48 AM   #286
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by SDC View Post
Red I., just so I understand: you would argue that his observations weaken or debunk the "official theory;" and that they are also open to serious question.

That's somewhat self-contradictory, but hey, whatever.
How is that contradictory? The observations weaken fire in a diffused environment as the cause due to fire and raise serious questions. What's the problem?
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2008, 12:15 PM   #287
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
How is that contradictory? The observations weaken fire in a diffused environment as the cause due to fire and raise serious questions. What's the problem?
its contradictory because you have to accept the validity of his conclusions to say it weakens the official story, but when you accept the validity of something you usually dont question its validity also
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2008, 02:08 PM   #288
Pookster
Graduate Poster
 
Pookster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,786
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense since I'm asking that we focus on his observations of "melting" and "vaporized" steel.
Makes excellent sense if you understand what he's talking about.

Again, too funny.
Pookster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2008, 02:10 PM   #289
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
How is that contradictory? The observations weaken fire in a diffused environment as the cause due to fire and raise serious questions. What's the problem?
Red

I think you misunderstood what the options meant.
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2008, 02:21 PM   #290
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by funk de fino View Post
Red

I think you misunderstood what the options meant.
Well, don't hesitate to enlighten me. I'll go over this one last time:

"1/ His observations disprove the "official theory," or at least weaken it;"

I'm going with weakens, despite whatever conclusions he might draw about anything else. We're talking about his observations, quotes.

"2/ His observations are open to serious question;"
Absolutely, as would be anyone else's.

"or 3/ Something else? "
Sure, it's not a false dichotomy.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2008, 02:30 PM   #291
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
The way I read it, if you go with 2 at all then you cannot weaken the "official theory"

Could be wrong but I guess we need the qustioner to clarify what he meant?

Poor thread BTW Red, debunk a debunker?
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2008, 02:37 PM   #292
SDC
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,244
Red I., I think you did misunderstand me/ interpret my comments in a way I didn't intend.

#1 meant his observations weakened /debunked the "official theory." I'd expect you'd agree with that, at least to some degree.

#2 was meant to be an alternative, and as I see now, it was ill phrased. It was not meant to overlap with #1. This is because, as far as I understand, his observations in fact strongly support the "official theory" when properly interpreted. So I was asking if you thought his presentation of the elements supporting the "official theory" was wrong.

And #3 was just a grab bag of anything else you want to mention, like Flying Monkeys or whatever.

So #1 and #2 were, in my mind, mutually exclusive.

Personally, I hate questionnaires because I have a bad habit of over-interpreting the questions ("but what did they really mean??"). Perhaps you have the same habit.
SDC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2008, 02:49 PM   #293
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by SDC View Post
Red I., I think you did misunderstand me/ interpret my comments in a way I didn't intend.

#1 meant his observations weakened /debunked the "official theory." I'd expect you'd agree with that, at least to some degree.

#2 was meant to be an alternative, and as I see now, it was ill phrased. It was not meant to overlap with #1. This is because, as far as I understand, his observations in fact strongly support the "official theory" when properly interpreted. So I was asking if you thought his presentation of the elements supporting the "official theory" was wrong.

And #3 was just a grab bag of anything else you want to mention, like Flying Monkeys or whatever.

So #1 and #2 were, in my mind, mutually exclusive.

Personally, I hate questionnaires because I have a bad habit of over-interpreting the questions ("but what did they really mean??"). Perhaps you have the same habit.
As for your last point, I think this is the price of doing business on an internet forum. It's difficult to detect important inflections and other signifiers that would make the debate more clear.

I think I get where you're coming from. Your point (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that if the Dr. accepts the official story, why would I point to his observations, which would seem to undermine my position?

Because his unadulterated observations are distinct from any general opinions he might form years after the fact.

The bottom line is that his observations have to be addressed. If for no other reason than the phenomena are corroborated by other accounts.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2008, 03:28 PM   #294
1337m4n
Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
 
1337m4n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,510
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Because his unadulterated observations are distinct from any general opinions he might form years after the fact.

The bottom line is that his observations have to be addressed. If for no other reason than the phenomena are corroborated by other accounts.
They've been addressed, dozens of times in this thread.

The Man himself has been sent emails and links to this thread. He presumably still stands by the "official story"; still thinks you are nuts.

Why would he not change his mind. Unless he believes you are cherrypicking his quotes and taking them to mean something he did not mean. Oh wait, you are.
1337m4n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2008, 03:34 PM   #295
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by 1337m4n View Post
They've been addressed, dozens of times in this thread.

Ha! I wasn't talking about an internet forum. It would be helpful if an independent body of researchers could be financed and have access to evidence, not just access to links.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2008, 04:31 PM   #296
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
They can be, and they are. WPI, for instance, is continuing its investigation of the sulfidized steel. Purdue is still investigating from first principles under an NSF grant.

Like I mentioned last night on "Hardfire," the Truth Movement keeps calling for an "independent investigation," but somehow fails to recognize that the efforts of people like Mr. Scheuerman and the various university projects are exactly that. If you want to get involved, join a research group and get to work, or form your own. It takes some doing, but many are doing it.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2008, 06:20 PM   #297
cisco
Muse
 
cisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 709
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
last night on "Hardfire,"
I missed it - is it available online?
__________________
"Another super dumb post! How can you be so consistently wrong with the real dumb posts? BUSTED, your posts are all totally wrong. The dumbest collection of stupid posts ever, by you. How are you so good at getting every single fact wrong." - beachnut

"If you torture data sufficiently, it will confess to almost anything." - Fred Menger
cisco is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2008, 08:39 PM   #298
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 36,472
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Incorrect. Yes it is reported. Granted, reporting that steel melted or vaporized does not mean that's what happened, but it was reported, specifically by Astaneh-Asl.

Actually, 911blogger put quotation marks around certain sentences to give the impression that they were direct quotes of what Mr. Astaneh-Asl said, but if you check the original article, that is not the case at all.

Specifically, 911blogger gives the erroneous impression that it is quoting Mr. Astaneh-Asl when it writes [eta: my bolding]:

Originally Posted by some random twoofer at 911blogger
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."

In the original article, however, the "quoted" words attributed to Mr. Astaneh-Asl above were actually the words of the reporter, and were not a quote from Mr. Astaneh-Asl at all.

In the original, it looks like this. Pay attention to the placement of the quotation marks:

Originally Posted by the original article
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.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

That is very dishonest behaviour by 911blogger. Sadly, such behaviour is not at all surprising among members of the inaptly self-titled truth™ movement.



Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
You're not having a good night.

"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] [eta: RedIbis' bolding]

Again, you are citing as a quote something that was not, in fact, a quote by Mr. Astaneh-Asl at all. You should have checked the sources cited in the article you posted in your opening post before repeating a dishonestly attributed quote. I guess you weren't having a good night.


Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense since I'm asking that we focus on his observations of "melting" and "vaporized" steel.

Again, see above.

Last edited by LashL; 27th February 2008 at 08:54 PM.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2008, 09:26 PM   #299
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
Actually, 911blogger put quotation marks around certain sentences to give the impression that they were direct quotes of what Mr. Astaneh-Asl said, but if you check the original article, that is not the case at all.

Specifically, 911blogger gives the erroneous impression that it is quoting Mr. Astaneh-Asl when it writes [eta: my bolding]:




In the original article, however, the "quoted" words attributed to Mr. Astaneh-Asl above were actually the words of the reporter, and were not a quote from Mr. Astaneh-Asl at all.

In the original, it looks like this. Pay attention to the placement of the quotation marks:




That is very dishonest behaviour by 911blogger. Sadly, such behaviour is not at all surprising among members of the inaptly self-titled truth™ movement.






Again, you are citing as a quote something that was not, in fact, a quote by Mr. Astaneh-Asl at all. You should have checked the sources cited in the article you posted in your opening post before repeating a dishonestly attributed quote. I guess you weren't having a good night.





Again, see above.

You're correct. 9/11blogger should not have presented that as Astaneh-Asl's quote. Mea culpa. I'd still be interested to know why the reporter described his comments as such.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2008, 09:39 PM   #300
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 24,328
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
You're correct. 9/11blogger should not have presented that as Astaneh-Asl's quote. Mea culpa. I'd still be interested to know why the reporter described his comments as such.
So why not ask the reporter then report back?
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2008, 09:43 PM   #301
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 36,472
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
You're correct. 9/11blogger should not have presented that as Astaneh-Asl's quote.

Nor should you have done so.

Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Mea culpa.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
I'd still be interested to know why the reporter described his comments as such.

The story that 911blogger linked to (and that you didn't bother to check before repeating the twoofer version of it as gospel here) is more than six years old. However, the reporter's name is right there in the byline, and it is not terribly difficult to locate contact information for the NY Times.

In fact, I checked and the reporter is still writing for the NY Times. Here's a novel idea: why don't you call or write to the man and ask him?

Last edited by LashL; 27th February 2008 at 09:45 PM.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2008, 11:13 PM   #302
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Is this another James Glanz misquoting spectacular? If it is, he did the same "vaporizing" thing when he quoted Dr. Barnett, if I recall correctly.

Talk about a non-issue, guys.

Last edited by R.Mackey; 27th February 2008 at 11:15 PM. Reason: Hey, if he misquotes people, I can misspell his name... grumble...
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2008, 01:29 AM   #303
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
Aaaaand that should just about do it for this thread.

Try not to get knocked over by rapidly fleeing CTers!
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2008, 02:16 AM   #304
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Ha! I wasn't talking about an internet forum. It would be helpful if an independent body of researchers could be financed and have access to evidence, not just access to links.
I have read parts of the NIST reptrt about steel samples where they did give their sample to independant bodies to test the steel. The findings mostly agreeed with NIST AFAIK.

Did you miss this when you read it?
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2008, 06:13 AM   #305
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
Nor should you have done so.




Fair enough.




The story that 911blogger linked to (and that you didn't bother to check before repeating the twoofer version of it as gospel here) is more than six years old. However, the reporter's name is right there in the byline, and it is not terribly difficult to locate contact information for the NY Times.

In fact, I checked and the reporter is still writing for the NY Times. Here's a novel idea: why don't you call or write to the man and ask him?

Let's not forget he definitely said this:

"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2008, 06:30 AM   #306
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Let's not forget he definitely said this:

"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."
Let's not forget he definitely said this:

"When the plane hit,the walls around the elevator shaft were gone, just thrown away."

What is the similarity between these two statements Red?
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.

Last edited by funk de fino; 28th February 2008 at 06:30 AM.
funk de fino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2008, 06:41 AM   #307
Mobyseven
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,671
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Let's not forget he definitely said this:

"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."
So what? I see melting of chocolate if I hold it in my hand for long enough. That's not the same as seeing molten chocolate.
Mobyseven is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2008, 07:37 AM   #308
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
ummmmmmm....chocolate.....
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2008, 07:40 AM   #309
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Let's not forget he definitely said this:

"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."
While we're at it, let's not forget that he said this:

Quote:
I have seen the statements made by the WTC researchers have been taken totally out of context by conspiracy theorists and used as evidence on the Internet that there was a conspiracy of some sort in the collapse of WTC towers. Our research and that of others have shown no evidence of any conspiracy. I find it very unfair and unjustified and to blame the collapse of these towers on conspiracy , which distract the attention from the lessons that we can learn from this tragedy to make our structures more resilient to prevent such a loss of life in the future.
And this.

Quote:
Unfortunately and tragically, when [this design] was subjected to this terrorist attack, there's no way this building could stand it.
And this.

Quote:
...using the codes and traditional systems, the building most likely would have survived — it most likely would not have collapsed.
And this.

Quote:
I certainly don't buy into any of the conspiracy stuff. Those are lightweight buildings. There was no need for explosives to bring them down.
Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2008, 10:14 AM   #310
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Let's not forget he definitely said this:

"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."
he also said some vaporized, but you dont seem to take that as literally, why?


this reminds me of the fundies, the bible must be taken literally, except when they dont want to, lol
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2008, 10:15 AM   #311
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Except that he didn't say that some was vaporized. That was the reporter talking.

Last edited by boloboffin; 28th February 2008 at 10:16 AM.
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2008, 10:40 AM   #312
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,282
Why in God's name is this subject still being beaten to death?

What matters is when he viewed the beams. Now merely what he saw. As Mackey pointed out, he did not get his eyes on them until after they had been recovered and removed from their place on the debris pile. They had been exposed not only to the heat and any reactions existant in the piles, but had also been subject to the processes taken during the recovery efforts. And that's the point where Astaneh-Asl saw them: After the members had been recovered and moved from the debris pile.

The steel was exposed to the debris pile and recovery efforts for far longer (order of days to weeks) than it had been exposed to whatever conditions existed from the time of the impacts to the end of the collapse (under an hour and a half for WTC 1, around 50-some minutes for WTC 2). Why is it not obvious that whatever condition the steel was in was mostly due to the debris pile exposure and recovery efforts than it was due to the pre-collapse conditions?

There is no "there" there. Any statement by Astaneh-Asl must be evaluated in the context in which he viewed the steel. And he viewed them post recovery. How can that not be taken into account?
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2008, 12:09 PM   #313
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Let's not forget he definitely said this:

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

He can grasp at straws and back-pedal at the same time.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2008, 09:10 PM   #314
cisco
Muse
 
cisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 709
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Let's not forget he definitely said this:

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


You did not just say this after it has been explained to you no less than 11 times (yes, I went back and looked.)

I am very dissapointed, Red. This is a very dishonest post. I thought you were making progress.
__________________
"Another super dumb post! How can you be so consistently wrong with the real dumb posts? BUSTED, your posts are all totally wrong. The dumbest collection of stupid posts ever, by you. How are you so good at getting every single fact wrong." - beachnut

"If you torture data sufficiently, it will confess to almost anything." - Fred Menger
cisco is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2010, 08:17 PM   #315
vinniem
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 308
Thumbs down

Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
Here is part of an e-mail HA wrote to me back in Sept 2007:

When scientists and engineers outside civil engineering, such as yourself , learn about what I have called "moral corruption" in our profession, they cannot believe it! It is worst than what it looks like. For example, I have
attached a page from the ASCE/FEMA report which lists the names of
people who were on the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team
(BPAT) that produced the FEMA 403 Report. ASCE was paid about $1.0 million
of taxpayer's money to investigate the performance of these buildings and
their collapse. The list of participants in the investigation includes
two names: Jon Magnusson and Saw -Teen See. You may not know these
individuals, but here is who they are:

1. Jon Magnusson: He is listed in ASCE/FEMA report as Partner in
Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc. He is actually one of the main
owners and managers of the firm. Skilling, Barkshire Ward Magnusson,
which was called Skilling Helle Christiansen Robertson, was the
structural engineering firm (located in Seattle and still there) that
did the structural engineering and design of the WTC towers. Leslie E,
Robertson, one of the younger partners at the time moved to New York
after WTC design and opened up his own structural engineering firm which
still is there called Leslie E. Robertson and Associates. Leslie E.
Robertson was the structural engineer of the record for the structural
design of the WTC towers and all structural drawings have his stamp and
signature on them. Having Jon Magnusson from Skilling on the team that
is investigating the structure designed by his firm and has collapsed
killing thousands of people is beyond belief and I am sure in violations
of some laws. You cannot be on the team paid by taxpayers to investigate
why the buildings that you had designed (or your firm had designed)
collapsed. Your own building!

2. Saw-Teen See: She is listed in ASCE/FEMA report as
the Managing Partner, Leslie E. Robertson and Associates, LLP. Of
course Leslie E. Robertson was the structural engineer of the record for
design of towers. In addition, Saw-Teen See is not only the manager of
Leslie E. Robertson and Associates , but she is the wife of Leslie E.
Robertson! So, the wife of the structural engineer who designed the WTC
towers, who is also the head of the firm Leslie E. Robertson was sitting
on the team to investigate the design and performance of the WTC towers
and why they failed!

No wonder when you read the ASCE/FEMA -403 report, there is only praise
( unbeleivable right?) for the structural design of the WTC Towers.

The "moral corruption" is here, where , not only ASCE, but, all other
members of the ASCE/FEMA BPAT allowed these two individuals to become the member of the team and did not demand their expulsion or did not
resign. I was invited to be amember of this ASCE/FEMA team and I had
accepted. When the first kick-off meeting was held which for many
including myself being in New York was via conference call, I realized
what is going on and resigned from the ASCE/FEMA team right after the
first meeting.

There was an article in Chronicle of Higher Education last September
(2006) that talked a little bit about these issues while discussing my
efforts to find the "Truth" about these towers. The URL is:
http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i03/03a02901.htm
an earlier article by the Chronicle of Higher Education on my WTC work
appeared in 2001:
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v48/i15/15a02701.htm

As for the NIST report, the situation is not better. When NIST got the
funding to do the multi-million dollar (I think it was more than $12M)
WTC studies, they divided the money and instead of doing it,
which they really did not have much expertise in structural engineering,
they contracted it out. The first contract for structural modeling and
analysis was given to none other than Leslie E. Robertson firm!

No wonder again that the NIST report does not say anything (almost)
remotely negative about the structural design.
So, here we are with this corrupt profession of mine (civil and
structural engineering) in charge of public safety.


My apologies for resurrecting a 2 year old thread but I was searching the forum for Astanah-Asl and this thread came up.

The post I have quoted appeared on page 4 and nobody had responded to it. I couldn't believe what I was reading.
vinniem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2010, 08:27 PM   #316
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by vinniem View Post
My apologies for resurrecting a 2 year old thread but I was searching the forum for Astanah-Asl and this thread came up.

The post I have quoted appeared on page 4 and nobody had responded to it. I couldn't believe what I was reading.
Are you an engineer or just a follower of delusions from 911 truth?

Don't you truth followers do your own work?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2010, 08:27 PM   #317
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,691
Originally Posted by vinniem View Post
My apologies for resurrecting a 2 year old thread but I was searching the forum for Astanah-Asl and this thread came up.

The post I have quoted appeared on page 4 and nobody had responded to it. I couldn't believe what I was reading.
If it is true, it does sound a bit like nepotism, but doesn't really help make a case for an inside job or bombs/thermite/whatever blowing up the towers.

If anything, it suggests that the WTC was in fact weaker than everyone says and therefore even more likely to collapse from impact damage and fires.

I don't see why this would be exciting for Truthers.
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2010, 08:47 PM   #318
vinniem
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 308
Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
If it is true, it does sound a bit like nepotism, but doesn't really help make a case for an inside job or bombs/thermite/whatever blowing up the towers.

If anything, it suggests that the WTC was in fact weaker than everyone says and therefore even more likely to collapse from impact damage and fires.

I don't see why this would be exciting for Truthers.
I agree with you, it does not improve the case for controlled demolition but it does IMO render the NIST report useless. People who designed the buildings should not be involved in the report on why they failed.

Did anyone get a definitive answer on Astaneh-Asl's opinion of the cause of collapse?
vinniem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2010, 08:59 PM   #319
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
How can you fail in two threads at once when you're not anywhere at all

Originally Posted by vinniem View Post
I agree with you, it does not improve the case for controlled demolition but it does IMO render the NIST report useless. People who designed the buildings should not be involved in the report on why they failed.

Did anyone get a definitive answer on Astaneh-Asl's opinion of the cause of collapse?

Unless you can point out exactly how consulting the engineer who designed the buildings renders a report by NIST useless. This is nothing more than an example of Poisoning the well logical fallacy.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2010, 09:27 PM   #320
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Who would know more about the building, than the people who ******* designed it!?!?!?

WHAT WHAT WHAT?!?!?!?!
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.