Featured Angry Blacksmith Shows How Jet Fuel Can Indeed Weaken Steel Beams

Good one, Rev. Thanks for posting that.

 

Love it! Also like his last three words.

 

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".

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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 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?