Structural Engineer Sees Evidence of Extreme Temperatures in WTC Steel...

[wildbilln864]

Here's a snip/
"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."

"He said the towers were exceptionally well designed and built, describing the WTC as "the best-designed building I have ever seen." <2> Yet the structural steel had suffered unusual warping and other major damage:

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

Now tell me how the hell that happens! :popcorn:
Read more about it at 911blogger. link :hi:

edited to add:
"He came across "severely scorched members from 40 or so floors below the points of impact ." <9> "

[William Seger]

1. Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to the quote mines we go

Perhaps you should read the articles those quotes were mined from, wildbill. Astaneh-Asl doesn't seem to agree with one of the main assertions of "truther science" -- that the fires didn't get hot enough to weaken steel.

[wildbilln864]

2. Well why not support your assertions...

The point was the fires didn't get hot enough to evaporate or melt steel. Nice try! :rofl:

[William Seger]

3. They don't? I guess Astaneh-Asl forgot to mention that

You really should read the articles.

[wildbilln864]

4. No they didn't!

Guess all you wish.
I realize this may be confusing to you but steel melts at about 2750 degrees F. link

[William Seger]

5. Steel becomes molten at around that temperature

... where does Astaneh-Asl say anything about molten steel? Or, to cut to the chase: How hot did the steel get that Astaneh-Asl was talking about, and why do you think that fires don't get that hot if Astaneh-Asl thinks fires brought down the buildings? Are you impeaching your own expert witness?

But before you answer that, I'd like to make sure I understand you on this point: On the basis of what Astaneh-Asl says, do you now agree with that part of the "official story" that says high temperatures brought down the buildings? You're just looking for an explanation for those high temperatures, right?

[wildbilln864]

8. Yes. Vaporized steel.

Do you have any hypothetical explanation for the vaporized steel? Thank you.

[Bolo Boffin]

11. A heat source hot enough to do this, and yet cool enough to not

burn away the eutectic compound present on that steel.

This excludes thermite/thermate, as it burns too hot. However, long exposure to the fires under the Pile would have done the trick.

[wildbilln864]

14. Well I'm still waiting for Seger to answer my question but meanwhile...

how long under the pile do you suppose that took, bolo?
Why would the temps in the pile exceed 2700 plus degrees? The pics are from pieces which Aren't under the pile by the way.
picture

[Bolo Boffin]

17. That's not a picture of vaporized steel.

I assume you mean the piece of steel on the left in the foreground.

That's a piece of steel with a lot of stress-induced deformation (it's been pulled apart), and then it rusted.

[wildbilln864]

22. well thanks for your opinion...

but that's all it is. And I think it's wrong. Obviously it's not a picture of vaporized steel but it appears to have had part of it melted away.

" Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.
Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports, “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.”
Ron Burger, a public health advisor who arrives at Ground Zero on September 12, says that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminds him of a volcano.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=ken_holden

[William Seger]

19. Please answer mine first

On the basis of what Astaneh-Asl says, do you now agree with that part of the "official story" that says high temperatures brought down the buildings?

[wildbilln864]

21. I don't know what brought them down....

but there was molten and apparently even vaporized steel.

[William Seger]

25. The man the article cites thinks fire caused the damage he saw

Why would you think differently? Why are there apparently no fire experts who think differently? What do you know that they don't know?

[wildbilln864]

26. he said steel was vaporized...

didn't he? :popcorn:

[William Seger]

27. He said fire caused the damage

didn't he? Again, what do you know that he doesn't know?

[wildbilln864]

28. you haven't answered my question...

and your attempt to change the subject is so obvious. Why I know has nothing to do with it.
Did he say the steel was vaporized or are you going to continue to ignore that fact? :popcorn:

[William Seger]

32. I'm not changing the subject

I'm pointing out that someone who doesn't seem to know what the fuck he's talking about is disputing the same man that he's citing as an expert witness, in an apparent attempt to create a "mystery" out of his own ignorance. It's a simple question: What do you know that Astaneh-Asl doesn't? You're saying the fire couldn't have gotten hot enough to cause the damage that Astaneh-Asl says he saw, right? Are you suggesting that he's too ignorant or too stupid to realize that?

[wildbilln864]

34. Yes it is a simple question....

Did he say the steel had been vaporized? :eyes: You're the one doesn't know what the fuck you are talking about. :rofl:

[William Seger]

36. Well, the point is, wildbill...

... if you think Astaneh-Asl is ignorant and/or stupid, then maybe he was wrong when he used the word "vaporized," huh? On the other hand, if you think Astaneh-Asl knows what he's talking about, then why does he think the damage he saw (as opposed to the damage that you imagine) was caused by fire? So, first, which is it? Is Astaneh-Asl ignorant/stupid, or is he not?

[wildbilln864]

40. Never said any of those things about him.

the damage he saw and his opinion of the cause isn't the subject. He didn't say what he thought vaporized it that I recall. It is vaporized steel in the WTC and what caused the vaporization!

ETA:the second sentence.

[William Seger]

44. WTF? "The damage he saw" IS the subject!

Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke up everyones ass to even pretend to be discussing the blog your OP linked to! And if you read the articles that those quotes were mined from, yes, he does say what he thought "vaporized" the steel: the fires.

Furthermore, this was his response to one of the posters on the JREF board who wrote to him, asking him to clarify what he meant by the quotes that 911blogger mined:

Dear Mr. _______:
Thank you for your interest in our research. We publish our findings in public domain and considering a great deal of e-mail I get on our research, in order to provide you with more information, I need to know a bit more about you including your affiliation and possibly a phone contact number. This is due to the fact that 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. Those 19 murderers and their organizers and supporters , who attacked us and killed so many of our loved ones, were the perpetrators of this crime. In my opinion , and in the opinion of any 9/11 victims' family members that I have talked to, the conspiracy theorists are committing a second act of injustice , perhaps unknowingly, by blaming it on some conspiracy. Not knowing you and your motives in seeking the information in your e-mail, I prefer not to get involved with aiding such conspiracy theorists and hope that they will stop such acts. However, to show my courtesy, I am responding to your e-mail and hope that you are not one of the conspiracy theorist or a believer in what they promote.Hope to hear from you on who you are and what do you think of these conspiracy theories.
Thank you.
A. Astaneh

[wildbilln864]

55. you're using some poster on jref board!?

I can claim I got an email from anybody.
:rofl: thank you!

[William Seger]

45. And this is "interesting"....

I just went back to check the article that had the word "vaporized" in it, and I realized that 911blogger pulled an intellectually dishonest fast one. It puts a couple of sentences in quotes, as if Astaneh-Asl had said it, but in fact it's not a direct quote -- it's a quote from the article, but it's the reporter that's talking, not Astaneh-Asl:

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.''

Engineers believe they have a general understanding of why the World Trade Center towers fell. Fires stoked by the jetliners' fuel weakened the structural columns. When one floor collapsed, its weight collapsed the floor beneath it, starting a catastrophic series of failures.

(I added a couple more paragraphs in case you still think Astaneh-Asl was baffled by the damage he saw.)

So, sorry, wildbill, but you will need to withdraw your claim that Astaneh-Asl even said the steel was "vaporized," since that could be just the reporter's interpretation of what Astaneh-Asl was trying to tell him. Perhaps that's one of the things that Astaneh-Asl was talking about when he said that conspiracy theorists were taking his research out of context, eh?

Better luck next time: :hi:

[greyl]

48. Thread killer! nt

[Bolo Boffin]

57. Silly greyl!

The Nile is a long and well-traveled river around here.

[SidDithers]

50. Nice work...

and it's not the first time that bill has been caught using manufactured "quotes".

Sid

[wildbilln864]

54. So do you have any shred of evidence the reporter misquoted him?

No? Nice try though. :rofl:
What do you think he means here:
"Steel flanges had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin, Astaneh said." How'd that happen?
Oh yes, you think it was kerosene.
:eyes:

[SidDithers]

58. See your post #34...

You repeatedly claim that Astaneh said the steel had been vaporized. Are you still sticking with that?

Laugh all you want, funny boy, but we all know who the real joke is.

Sid

Edit: The one who said "vaporized" was Kenneth Chang. Here's the original article
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E6DC123DF931A35753C1A9679C8B63

You really should be more careful with your sources, bill.

[wildbilln864]

62. You're the funny boy....

Sid! Mr. Chang is reporting what the good doctor has told him. Didn't you realize that? :rofl:
You guys are really desperate huh?

[SidDithers]

64. 911 blogger is quoting Chang and implying it's Astaneh...

here's the text from your link:

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>

And here's the text from the New York Times

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.

Now, my opinion is that 911blogger is being intellectually dishonest, and you're just sloppy for repeating garbage (again). But perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe you're both just sloppy.

Sid

[wildbilln864]

65. Perhaps it's your sloppy comprehension...

I cannot say but The reporter says what the Dr. told him and that was that steel was vaporized.
That part just doesn't seem to sink in huh? :shrug:

"Now, my opinion is that 911blogger is being intellectually dishonest, and you're just sloppy for repeating garbage (again)."
Your opinion is based on bias, IMHO.
But hey we all have opinions and we all have assholes. And sometimes they both stink.

[SidDithers]

66. No, bill, my opinion is based on your posting history...

You really think that Astaneh's actual spoken words were:

"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."

After all, it's pretty clear 911blogger is claiming this is a quote. To me, that sounds like a writer describing what he saw after the fact, when he's writing his article.

Regardless, both you and 911blogger have presented the words as a quote, when it's clearly not.

Face it, bill. You got it wrong again.

Sid

[William Seger]

60. No, wildbill, it doesn't work that way

It's bad enough that you jump to conclusions based on what you think he meant (and your own limited knowledge of the subject), but now you want to base your hasty conclusion on what you (or the reporter) think he said.

And this is really a similar thing: "Steel flanges had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin, Astaneh said." (Not to mention that your already rejected explanations for that down-thread.)

The real shame is that you have come so close to understanding why the buildings collapsed -- i.e. no explosives or thermate involved -- and yet insist on refusing to understand it.

Sorry, wildbill, but you can't use enough ROFLs to save your flaky argument. Better luck next time.

[wildbilln864]

63. There's no flaky argument to defend....

except yours. The reporter reports what the Dr. said he saw. Vaporized steel. Denial is your only option. Many eye witnesses reported molten steel. Your bullshit about maybe he mis-represented what the doctor said is the flaky part. You have no evidence of it. :popcorn:

[wildbilln864]

35. funny how you avoid answering and ...

attack me instead. No surprise there though since that's your only option. Now admit he said the steel was vaporized, please. :popcorn:

[William Seger]

37. I may answer your question...

... after you answer mine.

[wildbilln864]

39. yours is irrelevent...

and I have asked you more than one question with no answers. So let's just see if any others have any ideas as to what vaporized the steel as we seem to be getting no where. :shrug:

[William Seger]

42. But, farther down in this thread, we've already established ...

... that you don't know that steel can melt at much lower than 2700ºF (which appears to be because you don't want to know it). So, my question is very relevant: Why should I accept your bafflement over what Astaneh-Asl called "vaporized" steel as significant of anything, if you can't tell me what you know that Astaneh-Asl doesn't?

[wildbilln864]

51. What ever you want to believe...

about what I know or don't know in order to avoid the vaporized steel issue is beside the point. This thread is about the gentlemans statements which are reported in the links about vaporized steel. It doesn't matter that the melting point can be reduced. It was vaporized according to Dr. Astaneh. He also states, "Steel flanges had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin."

[piobair]

6. I thought one of the basic tenents of the ct world

was that there was no evidence of high enough temps to damage the steel. You guys want to have both ways. I think you would get a lot further if you would just settle on a theory and try to defend it.

[eomer]

10. No, think about it.

The argument is not that there was no evidence of temps high enough to damage the steel. Rather the argument is that there is no explanation (in the OCT) for temps high enough to damage the steel. Clearly anyone who believes that thermite/thermate brought down the towers also believes that steel melted.

BTW, I'm not personally convinced of CD.

[piobair]

12. I think you will find

that a large segment of the ct crowd will argue that there was no evidence that the steel reached a temp greater than 250c. Another faction will argue that high temps in the pile had to have been caused by some exotic means such as thermite. They refuse to recognize the fact that a simple room and contents fire will reach temps in excess of 1500f. Couple this with the impact of the planes dislodging the fire proofing and causing structural damage, it is entirely reasonable to expect collapse. The pile temps are expected since much of the heat was retained. It doesn't take an item burning at 2000 degrees to produce 2000 degree temps.

[William Seger]

13. If that's the case, then the argument is settled

> "Rather the argument is that there is no explanation (in the OCT) for temps high enough to damage the steel."

Yes, there is an explanation: fire. I haven't yet heard of a single fire expert who doesn't accept that explanation.

[wildbilln864]

16. Nope...

office fires and kerosene do not evaporate steel! :eyes:

[piobair]

18. no steel was evaporated!

What a load.

[wildbilln864]

20. Well Dr. Astaneh-Asl says different....

And I have to take his word over yours. :shrug:
"Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."
linky

[wildbilln864]

24. this may help you...

[William Seger]

29. this may help you...

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

"This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a 'blacksmith’s weld' in a hand forge."

So, do you doubt that the temperature "approached ~1,000ºC," or do you think these metallurgists or wrong? Or are they part of the cover up?

What do you know that they don't know, willbill?

[wildbilln864]

30. I know that 1000 degrees C....

is 1832 degrees F. I know that steel melts at 2700 degrees F.! And I must assume that a much higher temperature was required to vaporize the steel. Didn't you know that? :popcorn:

[AZCat]

31. It depends.

Eutectic compounds frequently have lower melting points than their constituents. jberryhill has posted about the Fe-Al mixture before, for example.

[wildbilln864]

33. jberryhill!?

That's your authority? :rofl:
That's a good one AZ.

[AZCat]

38. You haven't read any of his posts...

where he displayed the Fe-Al phase diagram?

[wildbilln864]

41. It does not....

explain vaporized steel being present at the WTC. :banghead: You do realize that?

[AZCat]

43. What part of "eutectic" do you not understand?

If you are over your head, it's much better to admit it than to look like a moron.

[wildbilln864]

52. "it's much better to admit it than to look like a moron."

:rofl:

[AZCat]

61. I see you have made your choice. n/t

[jberryhill]

46. Ummm, Bill

My doctoral dissertation involved the behavior of molten metal solutions.

Please feel free to look it up here:
http://delcat.udel.edu/F?func=find-b-0

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992SPIE.1582...71C

Your background in material science is, what?

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jberryhill]

56. It's not so bad....

Once I got over killing my twin brother and assuming his identity, it was okay.

The real bitch about having post-graduate professional degrees is that you become utterly dependent on supporting the overlords, because all of your expertise is worthless otherwise and you can never make a living without upholding every piece of dogma that comes down the pike from HQ.

[wildbilln864]

15. indeed...

steel was melted and eve evaporated! How?

[wildbilln864]

23. you thought like nelly....

she thought catshit was jelly.

[MarkyX]

7. So...

Where's the part where he agrees the buildings were bought down by controlled demolition?

[Laurier]

9. And your point is, willbill864?

What exactly is the point that you are trying to make? It is not clear from your posts.

[greyl]

49. Have you considered the possibility that "Shoestring"

spreads disinformation to knock well-meaning people off of the trail to authentic truth?

You should.

[wildbilln864]

53. I've considered that with everyone....

including you. :hi:

[greyl]

59. That statement isn't believable. nt

[Fainter]

67. What The Engineer, Sent By ASCE, Saw At Ground Zero...

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

[idovoodoo]

68. Horse

shit

[nebula]

70. That's exactly what the official story is.

[idovoodoo]

71. No, it is what the controlled-demolition nutjobs throw around.

:eyes:

[wildbilln864]

72. that's your opinion. nt

:eyes:

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OKthatsIT]

73. OH??? THEY HAVE THE STEEL, DO THEY?

Been holding out on the American People, ey? Keeping the evidence to themselves, huh?

Doing their own 'steel studies', huh? Doing their own chemical swabbing, washing, burning and bending, huh?

And when their finished with it they'll hand it over to some other specialists? To support their findings...to prove what? That the American People can stay asleep?

They're in for a very rude awakening.