Hilarious Blacksmith Uses Science To Shut Down Insane ‘Fire Can’t Melt Steel’ 9/11 Truthers

the federalist.com ^ | Dec. 17, 2015 | The Federalist Staff

[PROCON]

Give this man a medal. In just two minutes, blacksmith Trenton Tye of Purgatory Ironworks uses science to hilarious effect to mock 9/11 truthers who insist the 2001 terrorist attacks were a conspiracy. And why are these nutters convinced the whole thing was an inside job? Because fire can’t melt steel (Seriously, read through that entire 9/11 conspiracy theory thread. It is amazing.)

Tye, a professional metalworker based in Georgia, has had enough. He filmed the following video to prove to science-hating 9/11 conspiracy mongers once and for all that structural steel will absolutely lose its structural integrity if it gets too hot:

[PA Engineer]

Yep. I used it for many years in engineering studies. It is very common in construction and electrical work. There is never a 100% burn and residue does come out of the molds. That is just cast into place. There is no arguing rationally with these people.

[lacrew]

I read a fairly good book on the tower collapse - I wish I could remember the name...but it was ‘just the facts’ and described what had happened, what limitations the building had that hurt, what aspects of the building were good, etc. Lots of stuff about locations of stairwells and stuff like that. But no politics, no finger pointing - just the facts.

It also touched on the fireproofing. One of the towers was built with less fireproofing than the other - and this turned out to be the first one to fall. If you recall, the second one hit fell first - and it could have been because of insufficient fireproofing. Anyway, in the years prior to the attack, the Port Authority had been improving the fireproofing any time a tenant ended their lease. They would gut the empty floor and add fireproofing but they were not finished with this process.

So one tower had good fireproofing, by modern standards, and one had substandard fireproofing.

Now another aspect of this, which might be what the professor was referring to, is that the fireproofing fell off. It isn’t meant to withstand being hit by a collision with an airplane. So the impact of the airliner almost certainly knocked off a lot of the fireproofing in the vicinity of the impact, which is right where the fire would be burning - a worst case scenario coming true.

[PROCON]

LOL.

[driftless2]

Hey, that all makes sense to me. I don’t see why all of that couldn’t have happened. But I disagree about Elvis Presley discovering the Roswell crash...I think it was Perry Como.

[tophat9000]

Its does not even need to get as near as hot as in the video

The steel is there to support a given weight or load.....as the steel get hotter it looses strength...it get weaker as it gets hotter.. it simply need to get hot enough to no longer have the strength to support the load on it.. does not even need to get even near melting.

Ice on a pond..you can walk on it but as it warms you can not longer walk on it .long before it melts

[tophat9000]

Simple question:

Last tower hit was first one to collapse..given same heat and fire from jet fuel....why?....if you think the steel needed to "melt" for a collapse then should it not happen in first hit tower first?

Answer... Last tower was hit lower...that equals ....more weight/load above fire... steel needed less to.just be weaken by heat to the point it no longer can support the load on it.... .I.E.the fire did not need to get as hot in the second tower before collapse...because it just about weakening...not melting,....the steel ..to the point it can no longer support the weight/load put on it

[TXnMA]

My FRiend, you are absolutely right in taking offense at my smart-@$$3d #60, to you! I woke up from my siesta thinking, "You cranky old fart, you should have taken your nap instead of spouting off at ctdonath2 like that!!"

Please accept my apologies; it was totally uncalled-for!

~~~~~~~~~~~

Considering the stoichiometric excess of fuel to air (reducing atmosphere) in those confined spaces, I seriously doubt that there was any excess oxygen available to burn away (rapidly oxidize, as with LOX or an oxy-acetylene torch) anything but a microscopically-shallow surface layer of the steel.

And, I have even stronger doubts that temperatures anywhere inside the WTC structures -- in any location -- reached the fusion temperature required to literally liquify (definition of "melt") any alloy of iron (steel).

OTOH, I have zero doubt that temperature/time conditions were met to seriously (thermally) soften and/or anneal (de-temper and weaken) even bulky steel structural members-- sufficiently to allow buckling of uprights and floor trusses. (See my anecdote about our garage door springs in #71.)

More importantly. I am certain (from photographic evidence in the debris) that catastrophic failures of the floor-truss attachments to both the outer columns and to the central core were the rule, rather than the exception. There are plentiful examples of where the bolts failed and/or ripped right through the softened steel of the support connectors.

img src="http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-22.jpg">

And, in many cases the bulk (body) of the steel members simply softened and tore like paper as the arithmetically-increasing weight of collapsed floors slammed down on them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

The first impression of many of us, when we saw those first encircling puffs of smoke and dust, was "Demolition charges!" For me that lasted for about a half dozen floors, and then, I realized I was seeing the "pancake piston effect", where the "piston" of falling floors compresses the air in each successive floorspace -- and it escapes the only way it can -- out the sides of the structure...

It's instructive to study the right side of that little animated GIF I posted to you. You can see the compressing upper-floor-collapse as it progresses from left to right. And, by watching the black (oxygen-deficient) smoke at right, you can see the beginning of the "pancake piston puff"...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, enough of that! Again, please accept my apologies for letting my grouchiness overwhelm common decency, FRiend!

[kinsman redeemer]

This was very funny and timely.
I sent it to my my wife. My whacky BIL visited us at Thanksgiving. He was ranting about this and the government ‘earthquake machine’.
No kidding.

[I Hired Craig Livingstone]

Kooks gonna kook.

[kinsman redeemer]

My BIL told us that he believes that George W. Bush had people spend MONTHS(!) preparing for the collapse by cutting the girders in advance of 9-11.

He also thinks aliens built the Egyptian pyramids. I didn’t ask him about the Mayans.

There’s also a gubermint weather machine, Apollo 11 never happened, and it’s “unchristian” (he was making quotation marks with his fingers) not to let muslim refugees into the country.

My sister-in-law really has her hands full.

But the guy is a great welder.

[clearcarbon]

"'Fire Can’t Melt Steel' 9/11 Truthers"

For a quick an easy demonstration of fire melting steel one only needs a piece of steel wool and a match. Of course the steel wool is likely to ignite and burn very hot.

[Oceander]

People don’t often realize this but wood timber construction can be safer in a fire than steel beam construction because wood chars on the outside, turning to carbon in the extreme, but that layer of char protects the interior and leaves appreciable amounts of a beam’s strength intact till well after a nominally comparable strength, or even much stronger, steel beam would soften and fail in the same fire.

You don’t have to heat up steel that much to seriously weaken it.

Please note: wood “timber” ... not white pine 2x4s that are only 1.5” x 3.5” in actual dimension like too many houses are built of today. Timber implies something more substantial than mere sticks of sometimes cheap wood ... so don’t imagine that I’m saying anything in praise of the latter. Thanks.

---

Good point! I recall in a class once seeing a picture of a building that had burned. There was a charred, but intact, glue-lam beam over which a melted steel I-beam had draped itself.

[MHGinTN]

So building seven was a controlled demolition, could you tell us how long it takes to place the explosives to bring that building down (it was 47 stories, FYI)?

[MHGinTN]

So why have the people leasing the building 7 to tenants said they ordered ‘the fire department’ to PULL IT?

[SZonian]

That’s what happens when shop classes in HS are eliminated...

Basic metallurgy...

[kinsman redeemer]

I loved shop!
I went in another direction but the skills I learned have served me well.

Re. The question (if there even IS one)... It is probably another case of Occam’s Razor.

[SES1066]

So why have the people leasing the building 7 to tenants said they ordered ‘the fire department’ to PULL IT?

???

Sorry I don't understand what you are asking. Can you provide a link to your point?

[Elsie]

It doesn't need to melt; just soften.

Was there thermite on EVERY floor?

if not; how did the pilots make sure they hit the RIGHT floor? A big X in the window?

[MHGinTN]

Larry Silverstein, the man who was leasing the complex out has been recorded on in TV interviews saying the decision was made to 'let the fire department pull it' (building seven).

I see all these so certain proclamations that all the damages to the complex were caused by the planes slamming through the towers and read all these certain assertions that only fires brought down the buildings, yet it is public record that building seven (47 stories) was 'pulled' and there is video of firemen hurrying away from the building cautioning the camera folks to get back because the building was about to be brought down. So I would like one of these certain experts in building demolitions to tell me how long it would take to place the proper charges in the proper locations through out #7 while it was on fire (presumably) in order to pull it under controlled demolition conditions. It is also known that the building was going to be brought down before it occurred because a BBC reporterette with the building still standing in the background said on air that it too HAD come down, before the pulling happened.

Those who are trying desperately to control the message on the tower complex keep running into the FACT that things contrary to the various stories being issued exist in the archives of citizens who have been keeping up with the evolving stories. Idiots like Rosie only add to the planned confusion. Steven Jones and his nano-thermite line accomplish the same purpose, but on a supposedly more educated level.

While watching the story unfold on 9/11/2001 I saw the upper thirty-five floors of the first tower to fall actually tip past 25 degrees from vertical, as a ridged body. Then the entire sections started downward and did not reach the ground as a rigid body but rather as dust raining down on the intersection over which it tipped. The Physics I learned in college told me that was not possible for a rigid body to defy the laws of angular momentum. But reading the various fabricated explanations for 911 is fascinating ... even as some -like Rosie's foolishness- are ridiculous.

[Elsie]

I saw the upper thirty-five floors of the first tower to fall actually tip past 25 degrees from vertical, as a ridged body.

My physics classes taught me that a rigid body will NOT tip over unless there is a sideways force acting upon it.

What were the upper level winds like that day?

What speed?

What direction?