Angry Blacksmith Shows How Jet Fuel Can Indeed Weaken Steel Beams

[Revmitchell]

For some unknown reason, the 9/11 conspiracy theorist phrase "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" has become one of the biggest memes on the internet in 2015. The assertion comes from the fact that because jet fuel burns at 1,500 degrees and steel melts at 2,750 degrees, the attacks on September 11, 2001 must have been a conspiracy.

Well, one blacksmith had enough of seeing the meme online, and decided to make a video showing that the temperature of jet fuel, which indeed cannot melt steel beams, can significantly weaken them to the point where the structure would become unstable and collapse.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christ...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Mild language warning

 

[Don]

Good one, Rev. Thanks for posting that.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Bravo. He addresses the same mindset that puts forth ignorance as fact when dealing with how firearms work.

 

[InTheLight]

Love it! Also like his last three words.

 

[poncho]

Filed under "misinformation".

The Core Meltdown Theory

The Fire-Melts-Steel Idea Was Promoted by Experts

Moments before its collapse, the South Tower showed no externally visible flames and emitted only a thin veil of black smoke.

The claim that the fires in the Twin Towers melted the structural steel and thereby caused the collapses was promoted by numerous "experts" cited in media reports, starting on the day of the attack. Skeptics of the official story attacked this claim on the basis that open fires could not possibly elevate steel to temperatures required to melt it, starting with J. McMichael's Muslims Suspend the Laws of Physics. Despite the fact that the fire-melts-steel idea was introduced by media-cited experts, two of the highest-profile attacks on the 9/11 Truth Movement falsely accused skeptics of using the idea as a straw-man argument. 911Research exposes these disingenuous attacks.

Continue . . . http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/meltdown.html

In other words it wasn't the "9/11 truth movement" that put the "fire melts steel" theory forward it was the "media cited experts".

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Either way (and the smith intentionally didn't address any conspiracy theories), melting the steel wasn't required. Burning jet fuel will cause structural steel to loose its integrity suffiecently to cause structural failure.

 

[poncho]

The article posted by the Rev says and I quote . . . "For some unknown reason, the 9/11 conspiracy theorist phrase "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" has become one of the biggest memes on the internet in 2015."

Which would lead the reader to believe the "smith" is addressing an "outrageous conspiracy theory".

Actually all the "smith" did was prove he could bend a skinny steel bar after he heated it to 1800 F.

An Abundance of Explanations Unfettered by History or Science

The CBS anchor told us what to see. "I mean when you look at it the building has collapsed, that tower just came down." [full size image]

When the South Tower and then the North Tower exploded into dust and shredded steel, the news anchors used the words "collapsed" and "fell down". Neither "exploded" nor "imploded" were part of the vocabulary. When the North Tower was converted to rubble in mid-air, 29 minutes after the South Tower, it was made to seem inevitable.

In the hours and days following the attack, explanations of the collapses flourished. These explanations invoked myths about the damage from impacts and fires, and entirely avoided issues like the rapid collapse speed, the huge energy imbalances, and the thorough pulverization of the buildings. The myths include the following:

• No one had anticipated the Towers being hit by jumbo jets.
  IN FACT: The 767-222s that impacted the Towers were similar in size to the 707-340s whose impact the Towers were designed to survive.
• The jets spilled 24,000 gallons of jet fuel into each Tower.
  IN FACT: The 767-222s had no more than 10,000 gallons of fuel when they hit the Towers, and the impact fireballs consumed much of that in seconds.
• Engineers failed to anticipate the fires following the impacts.
  IN FACT: It's the job of an engineer to consider all such possibilities. They would have considered fuel loads based on a 707-340's capacity of 23,900 gallons.
• Damage to insulation was fatal to the steel structure.
  IN FACT: Fires have never damaged a vertical column in a steel-framed high-rise, with or without insulation.
• We are fortunate the Towers stood as long as they did.
  IN FACT: Since the Towers withstood the crashes they should have stood indefinitely. The structural steel -- an excellent conductor of heat -- would have regained most of any strength lost once the jet fuel burned out in about five minutes.

These myths were as common in articles in scientific journals as in popular media. Dressed up with phrases like "progressive collapse" , "creep buckling" and "catastrophic failure", the fanciful explanations were elevated to theories with an air of legitimacy provided by endorsements by professors and science television programs such as NOVA.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/explaining.html

Judging from the reaction of the other posters here one might come to the conclusion that the "smith" solved the riddle of the century. He didn't.

 

[Revmitchell]

So anyway back to the op this is one more nutjob conspiracy put to rest.

 

[poncho]

No, it's just one more dead strawman. That's all.

 

[InTheLight]

The question is: Does burning jet fuel that heats steel to 1200 degrees cause that steel to weaken, thus making the WTC towers collapse?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

 

[Revmitchell]

Me thinks someone does not know what a strawman is.

 

[matt wade]

The question is: Does burning jet fuel that heats steel to 1200 degrees cause that steel to weaken, thus making the WTC towers collapse?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

Good luck with that. Be prepared for another information dump of irrelevant information.

 

[poncho]

Me thinks someone does not know what a strawman is.

Well, you don't have that excuse now that I defined it for you.

 

[annsni]

Moments before its collapse, the South Tower showed no externally visible flames and emitted only a thin veil of black smoke.

I don't know but there was definitely more than a thin veil of black smoke and you could absolutely see flame coming from the building.

 

[poncho]

Good luck with that. Be prepared for another information dump of irrelevant information.

No one is disputing that jet fuel can burn hot enough to weaken steel.

The real question is why would you try to limit the whole debate to one misleading "yes or no" question?

Let me ask you a question, did burning jet fuel weaken the steel in building 7 enough to cause it to fall into it's own footprint at free fall speed, yes or no?

For those who'd like to see that "information dump" Matt doesn't seem to want anyone to see . . . CLICK HERE. and HERE.

 

[InTheLight]

No one is disputing that jet fuel can burn hot enough to weaken steel.

The real question is why would you try to limit the whole debate to one misleading "yes or no" question?

Let me ask you a question, did burning jet fuel weaken the steel in building 7 enough to cause it to fall into it's own footprint at free fall speed, yes or no?

Yes.
See how easy that is to answer a question? You ought to try it sometime.

 

[Revmitchell]

"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

 

[JonShaff]

I don't know what this guy with a small piece of steel is proving or disproving? The towers were made with super thick and rigid steel beams.

That's like saying because I can karate chop a twig in half I can also chop a redwood in two.

 

[poncho]

Yes.
See how easy that is to answer a question? You ought to try it sometime.

You ought to try doing some simple research sometime. Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane. If no plane hit building 7 how did burning jet fuel weaken the steel enough to cause it to collapse at free fall speed into it's own footprint?

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't know what this guy with a small piece of steel is proving or disproving? The towers were made with super thick and rigid steel beams.

That's like saying because I can karate chop a twig in half I can also chop a redwood in two.

You need to keep from being distracted by the size of the steel and listen carefully to what he says. The size has no bearing on what he is proving.