On December 15, a blacksmith named Trenton Tye posted a two-minute video in which he attempted to prove steel could melt and bend — thus debunking the theory the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition. Tye’s video has been viewed nearly seven million times.
Following the video’s release — and subsequent virality — much of the corporate media (and other websites that generally dismiss the possibility of government conspiracies altogether), celebrated what they considered to be a well-deserved funeral for a disproved meme. Indeed, the Washington Post, the Daily Mirror, and the Huffington Post all covered the story favorably, with Huffington Post declaring, “Metal Worker Shuts Down 9/11 Truthers… With His Pinkie.”
From the looks of these articles, it seems 9/11 Truthers can finally shut up, grow up, and get real jobs, right?! But does Trenton Tye’s video really prove the official story of the 9/11 attacks?
Architects & Engineers (A&E) for 9/11 Truth founder, Richard Gage, of the American Institute of Architects, wrote:
“Tye’s attempt to disprove controlled demolition by heating a half-inch piece of steel to 1,800°F and bending it like a ‘noodle’ is way off. He seems to think the controlled demolition argument goes like this, ‘Fire can’t melt steel, so the buildings couldn’t have collapsed from fire.’ He couldn’t be more mistaken.
As Gage points out, the pools of molten metal could not have been caused by office fires or jet fuel that exploded in the initial crash. According to Gage and A&E for 9/11 Truth, “the only plausible explanation is thermite, an incendiary that can be used to cut through structural steel.”
As many have by now noticed, Tye’s demonstration also fails because he admits to heating the sample piece of steel to a temperature of 1,800°F, a temperature fires within the World Trade Center buildings could not have reached.
“Jet fuel fires reach temperatures of around 1,500°F only under optimal conditions. In open air conditions like the WTC buildings, they burn at around 600°F,” Gage writes. “Even according to the government agency that investigated the disaster, there is no evidence that any of the steel was heated to the point where it would lose its strength.”
Gage goes on to point out that several steel-frame high-rises have been completely engulfed in flames for periods much longer than the WTC towers — but not one caused the total, symmetrical collapse of the building.
On the 14th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the Boston Globe ran an op-ed as part of its continuing campaign against anyone who dares to question the official government version of events. Gage recently responded, stating, “As building professionals, we at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth try not to let personal feelings interfere with investigating the three worst structural failures in modern history. Nearly 2,400 architects and engineers, not including the 109 who signed our petition at the recent annual trade show ABX, have joined us because we stick to science.
“The physical evidence shows that scattered office fires could not have caused the 47-story WTC 7 to collapse symmetrically into its footprint. (Imagine Boston’s 52-story Prudential Tower completely collapsing in seven seconds from small fires — it’s hard to, isn’t it?) The evidence also shows that the twin towers were not leveled by the airplane impacts and ensuing fires.
The implications are indeed far-reaching, and that is why we urge people to study all the evidence before reaching a conclusion.”
What do you think? Does Trenton Tye’s video prove jet fuel can, indeed, melt steel beams? Or is this yet another attempt by the powers that be — and the unwitting and unquestioning public — to obfuscate evidence the American people were lied to on September 11, 2001? Leave your comments below.
For a deeper look at the 9/11 Truth movement in 2015 check out Declassify the Truth: A 9/11 Documentary.
why is this important? what has to be taken into account is that the steel was under stress and prolonged heat would cause it to deform, we cannot know the actual impact damage on the building so it isn't a matter of just heat but many factors, including the availability of other fuel, wind patterns, and the fact that what was actually happening was a fire storm
what has to be taken into account is that the steel was under stress and prolonged heat would cause it to deform, we cannot know the actual impact damage on the building so it isn't a matter of just heat but many factors, including the availability of other fuel, wind patterns, and the fact that what was actually happening was a fire storm
this is self evident . All the fuel fire needed to do was weaken the structure.....not turn it into molten metal .
It is about as self evident as basic human rights to some Tom, this is why I needed to explain it to the conspiriacy theorists who think that GWB ever had an original thought and let's face it attacking the most obvious buildings on the North Americiian continent in order to create a war would be very original if it were combined with the administration doing it themselves
