Why all the worldwide turmoil? (9/11 thread)

[hot enough]

The following is on Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, one of the first scientists who was on the WTC site. He was shocked at how quickly the steel was being removed from WTC. That indeed was a shock to many fire and crimes scene investigators - why such a hurry to remove the evidence from a crime scene. 

This scientist found many examples of molten steel. Even one example is one too many because there was no legitimate or legal reason that it could be there. Jet fuel/office furnishings cannot melt steel [or molybdenum 4,700F, or vaporize lead 3,180F, or vaporize steel 4,800+F]

========================

September 19-October 2001: Structural Engineer Finds Evidence of Extreme Temperatures at WTC

  

Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl examines steel from the World Trade Center. [Source: University of California, Berkeley]

An engineer investigating the remains of the World Trade Center sees melted girders and other evidence that the towers experienced extreme temperatures on 9/11. Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. [CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 12/7/2001; CBS NEWS, 3/11/2002] 

He arrives in New York on September 19 to conduct a two-week scientific reconnaissance of the collapsed towers, hoping to gain an understanding of how they had come down. His project is one of eight financed by the National Science Foundation to study the WTC disaster. [NEW YORK TIMES, 10/2/2001; BERKELEYAN, 10/3/2001; US CONGRESS. HOUSE. COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, 3/6/2002] 

He examines numerous pieces of steel taken from Ground Zero. [CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 12/7/2001] Astaneh-Asl will describe the WTC as “the best-designed building I have ever seen.” [SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 10/22/2001] Yet he notices unusual warping and other damage in its remaining steel: 

 At a recycling center in New Jersey, he sees 10-ton steel beams from the towers that look “like giant sticks of twisted licorice.” [CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 12/7/2001] He shows the San Francisco Chronicle a “banana-shaped, rust-colored piece of steel” that has “twisted like toffee during the terrorist attack.” [SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 10/22/2001] 

 He later recalls, “I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center.” [PBS, 5/10/2007] 

  Astaneh-Asl says that steel flanges have been reduced “from an inch thick to paper thin.” [BERKELEYAN, 10/3/2001] 

 He finds a foot-long twisted shard of steel that is “like a piece of bread, but it was high-strength steel.” He comments, “I haven’t seen anything like this [before].” [BERKELEY DAILY PLANET, 10/20/2001] 

 He finds “severely scorched [steel] members from 40 or so floors below the points of impact [by the planes].” He believes this is the result of the planes having destroyed the elevator walls, thereby allowing burning jet fuel to pour down into the building, igniting fires hundreds of feet below the impact floors. [CBS NEWS, 3/12/2002] 

 

 Astaneh-Asl sees a charred I-beam from WTC Building 7, which collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11. “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.” [NEW YORK TIMES, 10/2/2001] 

Other individuals will report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center in the weeks and months after 9/11 (see September 12, 2001-February 2002), and data collected by NASA reveals dozens of “hot spots” (some over 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit) at Ground Zero (see September 16-23, 2001). But Thomas Eagar—an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—later comments that the “temperature of the fire at the WTC [on 9/11] was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.” [EAGAR AND MUSSO, 12/2001] Yet Astaneh-Asl will later put forward the “tentative” conclusion, “The collapse of the [Twin Towers] was most likely due to the intense fire initiated by the jet fuel of the planes and continued due to burning of the building contents.” [ASTANEH-ASL, 11/30/2003 ] Astaneh-Asl is a member of the team assembled by the American Society of Civil Engineers to investigate the World Trade Center site after 9/11 (see September 12, 2001), though he will resign from this because he disagrees with its decision to keep findings secret until the initial inquiry has been completed. [NEW YORK TIMES, 10/2/2001; ASSOCIATED PRESS, 9/6/2002]

Entity Tags: World Trade Center, Thomas Eagar, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

Edited April 2, 2017 by hot enough

[Altai]

18 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

And that is a significant issue that you should actually look at fixing.

Occam's razor is valuable. It can help sort out the B.S. that we are presented with on a regular basis. Your unwillingness to actually engage in the type of rational, skeptic thinking is a problem.

 

 

Yet you posted a video of someone trying to jam foot into a woman's mouth as somehow proof people were offered cake.
 

 

You're right. They weren't celebrating the 9/11 attack. They were actually under the mind control ray of our alien overlords. All hail our masters from Planet Zorblax.

 

Okay. This is enough. I tried my best to communicate fairly but you are just trying to create conspiracy theories which fits with your "Muslims are evils" perspective. Welcome to the Ignered's Club. You will stay there for ever with your other conspiracy theorist friends. Have nice time. Bye.

[OftenWrong]

4 hours ago, Altai said:

Are you kidding ? You are one of them, who believe in the govt stories. Its a kind of religion.  

I guess what you know is always right...

[hot enough]

19 minutes ago, Omni said:

I'm going to let you go first and explain how much explosive you think you'd need to implant in the towers to bring them down and just how (whoever) got it installed. Maybe you could tell us the "whoever" thing while you're at it.

Nope, that isn't at all important to the issue at hand. That is for prosecutors and the court system.

You stated, "What you actually see is not molten steel, but rather slag. Quite a difference".

We are discussing molten/vaporized steel and the other molten metals that could not have been at WTC given the US official story about alleged hijackers with jet fuel/office furnishings - max 1,800F, in optimum burn conditions, which did not exist at WTC.

A supporter of the US official theory states " However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range."  [1,382 to 1,472F] 

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

[segnosaur]

5 minutes ago, Altai said:

Okay. This is enough. I tried my best to communicate fairly

Actually no you haven't. You made one claim after another, each of which was totally debunked. And rather than actually try to engage in any sort of rational dialog, you say basically that you don't believe in rational thinking then threaten to put me on ignore.

I provided a reference from a respected site, which of course you seem to have completely ignored.

...but you are just trying to create conspiracy theories

Just the opposite... I'm actually debunking conspiracy theory nonsense.

which fits with your "Muslims are evils" perspective.

Except of course I never said that.

I'm an atheist. I think all religions are failures. There are some decent Muslims (I've worked with some). There are some who are evil (bin Laden).

Ignoring a problem (that some Muslims celrated the terrorist attacks) doesn't make the issue go away. Instead of spending your time with your head in the sand trying every excuse to pretend it didn't happen, perhaps you should spend some time trying to figure out why they might have celebrated. (Rather than saying "it didn't happen" you could point to failed American policies in the middle east as a trigger.)

Oh by the way, here's another quote from the Snopes article... It comes from an Italian journalist:

...Trying to find our bearings, my husband and I went into an American-style cafe in the Hamra district, near Rue Verdun,...The cafe’s sophisticated clientele was celebrating, laughing, cheering and making jokes, as waiters served hamburgers and Diet Pepsi. Nobody looked shocked, or moved. They were excited, very excited....An hour later, at a little market near the U.S. Embassy, on the outskirts of Beirut, a thrilled shop assistant showed us, using his hands, how the plane had crashed into the twin towers. He, too, was laughing. Once back at the house where we were staying, we started scanning the international channels. Soon came reports of Palestinians celebrating. The BBC reporter in Jerusalem said it was only a tiny minority. Astonished, we asked some moderate Arabs if that was the case. “Nonsense,” said one, speaking for many.

So there you have it, a journalist directly asked a Muslim about the reason for the celebrations. He said it was the terrorist attacks.

But hey, I'm sure you'll complain about it being "fake news", not because there's any evidence it was fake but because it contradicts your rather questionable world view.

Welcome to the Ignered's Club. You will stay there for ever with your other conspiracy theorist friends.

I really don't think you understand what a "conspiracy theorist" is. A conspiracy theorist is someone who takes the word of incompetent people and non-experts, ignoring evidence gathered by qualified individuals because they fit some bizarre world narrative. The main conspiricy theorist here is the poster 'hot enough'.

 

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I guess what you know is always right...

We only have to note that this is a 16 year old girl debating like the rational, normal, thinking adult she is and then compare hers to yours, OftenWrong. 

And still you have no sense of shame. 

[OftenWrong]

Just now, hot enough said:

We only have to note that this is a 16 year old girl debating like the rational, normal, thinking adult she is and then compare hers to yours, OftenWrong. 

And still you have no sense of shame. 

Feeling shame is for weak leftists. We on the right are Strong.

[segnosaur]

24 minutes ago, hot enough said:

The following is on Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, one of the first scientists who was on the WTC site.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever paid attetnion to what Astaneh-Asl has thought of the whole attack? As far as I know, he has never claimed that the collapse was due to anything OTHER than structural damage from the collision and continued fires.

Your very own reference contains the following quote: Yet Astaneh-Asl will later put forward the “tentative” conclusion, “The collapse of the [Twin Towers] was most likely due to the intense fire initiated by the jet fuel of the planes and continued due to burning of the building contents.”

I think what's going on here is a case of quote-mining... Astaneh-Asl makes several statements. 9/11 conspiracy believers quote-mine his statement to find things that they can take out of context, and BOOM: evidence for their views, even if its not something that the original person believed in the first place.

[hot enough]

6 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

I really don't think you understand what a "conspiracy theorist" is. A conspiracy theorist is someone who takes the word of incompetent people and non-experts, ignoring evidence gathered by qualified individuals because they fit some bizarre world narrative. The main conspiricy theorist here is the poster 'hot enough'.

Do you consider Professor Leroy Hulsey a conspiracy theorist, segnosaur? How about the Aerospace engineer, Tony Szamboti, or the NASA scientist, Dwain Deets, or Dan Barnum, FAIA [Fellow, American Institute of Architects], or Neils Harrit, a 50 year professor of chemistry in Denmark, or ... ? 

Can circa 3,000 professional architects and engineers, all fully functioning members of their profession all be conspiracy theorists? Aren't you a conspiracy theorist? You believe in a conspiracy theory. 

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, hot enough said:

That's what Altai pointed out, the American religion, false from the start to today.

What she said applied completely to you, which is the reason I said "so true".

[hot enough]

6 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

Just out of curiosity, have you ever paid attetnion to what Astaneh-Asl has thought of the whole attack? As far as I know, he has never claimed that the collapse was due to anything OTHER than structural damage from the collision and continued fires.

Your very own reference contains the following quote: Yet Astaneh-Asl will later put forward the “tentative” conclusion, “The collapse of the [Twin Towers] was most likely due to the intense fire initiated by the jet fuel of the planes and continued due to burning of the building contents.”

I think what's going on here is a case of quote-mining... Astaneh-Asl makes several statements. 9/11 conspiracy believers quote-mine his statement to find things that they can take out of context, and BOOM: evidence for their views, even if its not something that the original person believed in the first place.

I know of all these things. If you have ever heard him speak, he has a very distinct foreign accent. He is not dumb. His story was modified when? almost into 2004, when the US official conspiracy theory finally got its act together and got everyone in line.

The good professor described molten steel. What sense of twisted logic thinks that that is taking things out of context. He never withdrew that fact. Because he can't. Many others have described it.

FEMA has pictures of molten/vaporized steel, which for some strange reason you deny.

RJLee Group described molten iron [2,800F], vaporized lead [3,180F], molten molybdenum [4700F],

[hot enough]

25 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

What she said applied completely to you, which is the reason I said "so true".

Would you mind very much contributing something in the way of science? 

[segnosaur]

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Do you consider Professor Leroy Hulsey a conspiracy theorist, segnosaur?

From what I understand, Hulsey may be qualified. But, he has not yet claimed "controlled demolition". He was hired to do a study. As far as I know the study is still ongoing. So, its a bit too early to say he supports your idea of controlled demolition.

How about the Aerospace engineer, Tony Szamboti, or the NASA scientist, Dwain Deets

Last time I checked, the WTC were built right here on earth. Szamboti  may be the greatest rocket surgeon ever to grace the planet, but that doesn't mean that they are necessarily qualified to comment on WTC engineering. Not sure about Deets' qualifications (I see him described as a "engineering executive", but I have no idea if he's done any structural engineering.

or Dan Barnum, FAIA [Fellow, American Institute of Architects]

I have no idea what his qualifications are. Haven't really seen much in the way of peer-reviewed publications  he's done. (And it should be noted that being an architect may make someone a better judge of what happened than, say, a fry cook, but the skills are not as valuable as those of a structural engineer.

or Neils Harrit, a 50 year professor of chemistry in Denmark, or ... ?

Ummm... chemistry is not a branch of civil engineering. He may be the greatest chemist ever, able to turn gold into lead, but that doesn't mean he's necessarily qualified to discuss elements of structural engineering.

Can circa 3,000 professional architects and engineers, all fully functioning members of their profession all be conspiracy theorists?

Not sure where you're getting that number from. (Maybe you're quoting the membership list of AE911 truth.) . But before you go touting it as some sort of evidence, I suspect many of those members 1) Are not actually structural engineers (for example may be electrical engineers), 2) may not be as fully functioning as you suggest (many may be grad students and the like), or 3) haven't really studied the evidence. Now, is it possible that no qualified engineer discounts demolition? No. But what I can say is that the VAST MAJORITY do.

Its rather like the way Creationists point to a list of "scientists" who disbelieve evolution, ignoring the fact that many of their scients do not work in the biological fields.

Aren't you a conspiracy theorist? You believe in a conspiracy theory.

This is a problem with the english language.

The term 'conspiracy' refers to a group of people working together to engage in some crime. Obviously, 9/11 involved a conspiracy... Bin laden conspired with volunteers to hijack planes. But the term 'conspiracy theory' has come to mean something different... a fantasy myth involving some large group of largely hidden figures controlling everything.

So no, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. For that I'd have to ignore evidence.

[hot enough]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

You've already made up your mind that it's because I'm dishonest.   

That is not true. From my readings of your posts I consider you to be highly honest. I suggested you were being totally upfront, totally honest about how 911 has a cloak over it. Discussions don't happen because people are afraid to discuss it. 

[hot enough]

2 hours ago, capricorn said:

Brilliant people could go off their rocker in their later years following a stellar career. This top flight forensic engineer of yours is no exception.

You have formed this opinion using your usual scientific approach, have you?

[segnosaur]

17 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Just out of curiosity, have you ever paid attetnion to what Astaneh-Asl has thought of the whole attack? As far as I know, he has never claimed that the collapse was due to anything OTHER than structural damage from the collision and continued fires.

I know of all these things. If you have ever heard him speak, he has a very distinct foreign accent. He is not dumb. His story was modified when? almost into 2004, when the US official conspiracy theory finally got its act together and got everyone in line.

If you think he supports your idea of controlled demolition, then fine... show me where he does. Your reference shows he thought it was fire and structural damage from the impacts.

The good professor described molten steel. What sense of twisted logic thinks that that is taking things out of context.

Never claimed he was taking things out of context. I said that YOU were taking things out of context.

FEMA has pictures of molten/vaporized steel, which for some strange reason you deny.

The pictures did not technically show "molten" steel. The FEMA document had pictures of steel that had undergone extreme heat that affected the outer layers. Yes, it used the term 'molten', but that does not mean that there was steal in a liquid state (as many conspiracy believers claim, and as many would actually envision), AND the FEMA document points to the fact that those exact reactions would happen at temperatures consistent with the WTC fires (no thermite needed).

[OftenWrong]

Just now, hot enough said:

Would you mind very much contributing something in the way of science? 

Sure, soon as you do likewise.

[capricorn]

10 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You have formed this opinion using your usual scientific approach, have you?

Quote

Why Are Genius and Madness Connected?

Many of history's most celebrated creative geniuses were mentally ill, from renowned artists Vincent van Gogh and Frida Kahlo to literary giants Virginia Woolf and Edgar Allan Poe. Today, the fabled connection between genius and madness is no longer merely anecdotal. Mounting research shows these two extremes of the human mind really are linked — and scientists are beginning to understand why.

http://www.livescience.com/20713-genius-madness-connected.html

[hot enough]

16 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

From what I understand, Hulsey may be qualified. But, he has not yet claimed "controlled demolition". He was hired to do a study. As far as I know the study is still ongoing. So, its a bit too early to say he supports your idea of controlled demolition.

 

No, he hasn't stated controlled demolition. That wasn't what the study was about. What he did say was,

1.  Exchange between lawyer and Prof Hulsey

 

Daniel Sheehan [lawyer]: "On a scale of 1 to a 100, ... how probable do you think it is, or how possible do you think it is that this building [WTC7] could have collapsed simply because of the fires?"

 

Professor Hulsey: "Zero."

 

Go to, 13:09 of the following.

 

Dr. Leroy Hulsey Testifies before Panel of Attorneys

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf1ewgbq4fY

===============

2. Professor Hulsey also said and I paraphrase,  

We can't find any justification that it could have come down by fire. 

So that contradicts the findings of the NIST report ...

... we found, which is quite interesting, no big surprise, the building is not coming straight down, it's actually leaning to the west as it's coming down, so remember the building is not symmetrical, nor is it built to have summetrical behavior it's actually built stiffer on one side than it is on the other. 

So it's gonna have to be forced to come straight down, even a symmetrical structure, for god's sake, isn't built perfectly so nothing is ever gonna come straight down, unless you force it to do that. 

Truth Is Where Our Healing Lies | Part 4: Dr. Leroy Hulsey on the WTC 7 Modeling Study

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IegkDCBJxjY&list=PLUshF3H0xxH0-LxNZYGPIJqIp8-roEJY4&index=4

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

This is a problem with the english language.

The term 'conspiracy' refers to a group of people working together to engage in some crime. Obviously, 9/11 involved a conspiracy... Bin laden conspired with volunteers to hijack planes. But the term 'conspiracy theory' has come to mean something different... a fantasy myth involving some large group of largely hidden figures controlling everything.

So no, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. For that I'd have to ignore evidence.

The only problem with language is yours. You don't understand English.

You described 'conspiracy' accurately and then you described the US government conspiracy theory - "Obviously, 9/11 involved a conspiracy... Bin laden conspired with volunteers to hijack planes." And so on. You believe in this theory, which makes you a conspiracy theorist, one who believes in the US government conspiracy theory. A theory that has never been proven. 

[OftenWrong]

9 minutes ago, capricorn said:

http://www.livescience.com/20713-genius-madness-connected.html

Another aspect is money. You get some group offering hard cash if you write a paper supporting their view, and next thing there will be a lineup of low paid cab-drivers with PhD's at your door. Happens all the time.

[capricorn]

13 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Another aspect is money. You get some group offering hard cash if you write a paper supporting their view, and next thing there will be a lineup of low paid cab-drivers with PhD's at your door. Happens all the time.

Off topic, politicians have been known to do that. Next, the authors get to receive government grants for "research".

[segnosaur]

25 minutes ago, hot enough said:

No, he hasn't stated controlled demolition. That wasn't what the study was about. What he did say was,

1.  Exchange between lawyer and Prof Hulsey

 

Daniel Sheehan [lawyer]: "On a scale of 1 to a 100, ... how probable do you think it is, or how possible do you think it is that this building [WTC7] could have collapsed simply because of the fires?"

 

Professor Hulsey: "Zero."

So in other words, he's being paid to do a study where he has already made his final conclusion.

And you don't think there's anything wrong wit hthat

Quote

The only problem with language is yours. You don't understand English.

You described 'conspiracy' accurately and then you described the US government conspiracy theory - "Obviously, 9/11 involved a conspiracy... Bin laden conspired with volunteers to hijack planes." And so on. You believe in this theory, which makes you a conspiracy theorist, one who believes in the US government conspiracy theory. A theory that has never been proven.

 

 

 

Definitions:

Conspiracy: an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy)

- Example... Bin Laden conspiring with people to attack the WTC, I'd be willing to discount that theory if real evidence were supplied. But all we've got are quote mines, lists of unqualified people making pronouncements that they don't have expertise in

Conspiracy theory:  proposed plot by powerful people or organizations working together in secret to accomplish some (usually sinister) goal that is notoriously resistant to falsification (In other words, evidence is ignored). http://www.skeptic.com/downloads/conspiracy-theories-who-why-and-how.pdf

- Example: The WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition by some shadowy organization controlled by aliens from the planet Gorblax. Regardless of the evidence provided (that the WTC 1/2/7 didn't fall at free fall speeds, amongst other things), the believer in the conspiracy theory moves on to the next piece of evidence, until it too is debunked, and on and on.

Here's an exercise... if you think that 9/11 wasn't caused by terrorist attacks controlled by bin Laden and Al Qaueda, and that controlled demolition was used describe what happened on that day. And give a complete description... who was involved, what were they doing. It has to explain: How the buildings were wired to explode in secret, how the hijackings occurred, why bin Laden claimed responsibility, etc. I've made that challenge before but you've ignored it. I suspect you will again. Why? Because you can't.

Edited April 3, 2017 by segnosaur

[hot enough]

41 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

Never claimed he was taking things out of context. I said that YOU were taking things out of context.

He described molten steel. Here is one such description. 

 Astaneh-Asl sees a charred I-beam from WTC Building 7, which collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11. “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.” "[NEW YORK TIMES, 10/2/2001] 

"searing temperatures" are needed to vaporize steel, in the absence of another reasonable explanation. 

[segnosaur]

Just now, hot enough said:

He described molten steel. Here is one such description. 

 Astaneh-Asl sees a charred I-beam from WTC Building 7, which collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11. “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.” "[NEW YORK TIMES, 10/2/2001] 

"searing temperatures" are needed to vaporize steel, in the absence of another reasonable explanation. 

I'll put this in bold letters so perhaps you might actually pay attention...

If you think Astaneh-Asl disagrees with collapse due to structural damange and fire. SHOW YOUR FRIGGIN' EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can I make that any clearer to you?

 

[hot enough]

6 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

So in other words, he's being paid to do a study where he has already made his final conclusion.

And you don't think there's anything wrong wit hthat

You would have to be up to date on things and it is obvious you are not. During a study, many conclusions can be drawn. The study is done. They are checking other things. This is no different than what NIST did or what any other scientist does.