911
See other 911 Articles
Title: Can Jet Fuel Really Melt Steel Beams? The 9/11 Truth Debate Rages On
Source:
The Anti-Media
URL Source: http://theantimedia.org/can-jet-fue ... the-911-truth-debate-rages-on/
Published: Dec 23, 2015
Author: Derrick Broze
Post Date: 2015-12-25 07:36:21 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 4291
Comments: 33
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. “The only reason that melting steel is discussed at all is because government officials, engineers, first responders, and others observed large amounts of molten metal (requiring temperatures of more than 2,800°F) in the debris of all three buildings.” 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.” Researchers within the 9/11 Truth community have long talked of the presence of thermite and possibly nano-thermite, an even stronger incendiary device, at the Ground Zero wreckage. 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.” Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have also recently released a publication titled, “Beyond Misinformation: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7.” 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. This article (Can Jet Fuel Really Melt Steel Beams? The 9/11 Truth Debate Rages On) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Derrick Broze and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
It doesn't rage on at all. No doubt, the usual Truthery websites love to promote the idea that Truthing is on the cutting edge and breaking through but that is just self-delusion for rank-and-file Truthers and self-serving for the Truthing industry (speakers, books, conspiracy websites). The Truthers are kooks and everyone avoids them. They try to pester people with their ever more elaborate and conspiratorial nonsense to no effect. But they seem to feel that they are making converts to their Truther cult and maybe that is enough to keep them going. As a movement, Truthers are about like Moonies and are following the same social trajectory.
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
“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.”
In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much "The limits of debate are established in this country before the debate even begins. Everybody else is marginalized, made to seem like Communists or some other disloyal person. Kook, there’s a word! Now it’s conspiracy. They’ve made that something that can’t even be entertained for a minute – that powerful people might get together and have a plan? Doesn’t happen! You’re a kook, you’re a conspiracy buff!" – George Carlin In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much “Conspiracy Theory”: Foundations of a Weaponized Term "Conspiracy theory” is a term that at once strikes fear and anxiety in the hearts of most every public figure, particularly journalists and academics. Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly effective in defining certain events off limits to inquiry or debate. Especially in the United States raising legitimate questions about dubious official narratives destined to inform public opinion (and thereby public policy) is a major thought crime that must be cauterized from the public psyche at all costs. Conspiracy theory’s acutely negative connotations may be traced to liberal historian Richard Hofstadter’s well-known fusillades against the “New Right.” Yet it was the Central Intelligence Agency that likely played the greatest role in effectively “weaponizing” the term. In the groundswell of public skepticism toward the Warren Commission’s findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the CIA sent a detailed directive to all of its bureaus. Titled “Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report,” the dispatch played a definitive role in making the “conspiracy theory” term a weapon to be wielded against almost any individual or group calling the government’s increasingly clandestine programs and activities into question. This important memorandum and its broad implications for American politics and public discourse are detailed in a forthcoming book by Florida State University political scientist Lance de-Haven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America. Dr. de-Haven-Smith devised the state crimes against democracy concept to interpret and explain potential government complicity in events such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the major political assassinations of the 1960s, and 9/11. “CIA Document 1035-960” was released in response to a 1976 FOIA request by the New York Times. The directive is especially significant because it outlines the CIA’s concern regarding “the whole reputation of the American government” vis-à-vis the Warren Commission Report. The agency was especially interested in maintaining its own image and role as it “contributed information to the [Warren] investigation.” The memorandum lays out a detailed series of actions and techniques for “countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries.” For example, approaching “friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)” to remind them of the Warren Commission’s integrity and soundness should be prioritized. “[T]he charges of the critics are without serious foundation,” the document reads, and “further speculative discussion only plays in to the hands of the [Communist] opposition.” The agency also directed its members “[t]o employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.” In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Weaponized Terms, the worst kind of WMD. Frankly, I'd rather be nuked than have someone use a Weaponized Term around me.
That blacksmith rattled the Truthers' cage with his video. So now they feel it is necessary to roll out all their stale old Truthery and spew it everywhere again. Like they needed any excuse to do that. We've seen this pattern before. You see it with Birther types too.
Official Government Fairy Tale cultists like you are fond of bandying about the "conspiracy theorist" pejorative label when anyone questions your deeply held dogma. Whys is it that you simpletons never post any evidence of your own, instead relying on whatever crap the government and MSM dishes out? In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Good gief man, All of the people I've talked to think this guy is a complete buffoon. By the way, where were the blacksmith forges being operated in the World Trade Center towers? In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Do any of those "people" live outside of your head?
Typical reply from a brainwashed simpleton. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much You can't identify even one? Bwahahaha!
I think Deckard is "all of the people" he's talked to. Well, it's about time from Ethel Mertz to break in, maternal instincts fully engaged, to scold us for being mean boys.
The blacksmiths were in the basement of the World Trade Center pouring commemorative cast iron molds of the towers for the tourists. That's where the "molten iron" came from.
Due to obsessed half-wits.
this is self evident . All the fuel fire needed to do was weaken the structure.....not turn it into molten metal . Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Yea team! Sombody finaly made a conclusive inference.
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
Forty-seven support columns at 5' in length, 4' in width @ 5" thick, all concentrated within an area approximately 100' x 100', would take a shitload of thermite to do the job. That's where the molten steel came from.
Thermite? It was actually teams of suicide welders with oxyacetylene torches.
The "molten steel" was mostly aluminum and assorted office debris. Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
And you might have been given the opportunity to prove your "theory" had there been a legit investigation. Unfortunatly, Rudy G. and the PTB tampered with the crime scene and destroyed the evidence. There's just one little problem: they couldn't do anything to hide the residual unignited thermite found in the dust of the building that was discovered.
There was a lot of evidence of this and it has been prevented; it's not a theory. Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
Let's see it. Or did that get buried in a landfill, too?
Steel weakens - repeat weakens - under fire conditions. That is why they are fire insulated. When I pointed out that fire insulation was part of the building code for steel beamed buildings a Truther posted back to me that the fireproofing regulation for steel beams was part of the conspiracy.
It was aluminum.
You're part of the conspiracy. Obviously, just another Mossad agent. Hey, I'm really getting the catch of this Truthing stuff down pat.
Iron melts around 1500o C but so do many of the silicate minerals in concrete, and a mixture of silicate minerals would melt at a temperature lower than steel. The fine particle size of the concrete dust would facilitate melting. So why wasn't there a huge puddle of molten concrete at Ground Zero? There were 52 FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, totaling more than 400 agents on the scene for weeks . Were all those agents in on the plot too? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Yeah Bush is so stupid and evil intended that he supposedly started a war because of WMD in Iraq . Then when the evidence was not found ,he did not plant any WMD in Iraq to cover his narrative. So he didn't think of doing something simple like planting WMD but he was able to hash out a plot that would've required thousands of co-conspirators to bring down the WTC . Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
obviously a lot of simple souls in the US who believe this rubbish
I'm taking a neutral position. They wouldn't have to be in on it. Anyone with common sense should know that.
He wouldn't have to plant anything. He had plenty of cheerleaders with blinders and ear plugs on. I suspect you were one.
Excellent post, as always. You're one of the 2 or 3 here that bothers to think. Most of the replies are mind boggling. These people haven't changed since high school. Realizing that most Americans don't care about the truth makes one think about leaving. Disgusting people. Look how many care what is in the 28 censored pages. This is how a country dies. When you get tired of these children join us for serious debate here: https://www.reddit.com/r/911truth If these juveniles dare post there they will be taken to the woodshed. There are some very smart people posting, unlike the embarrassing drivel on this thread.
Title: Can Jet Fuel Really Melt Steel Beams? The 9/11 Truth Debate Rages On
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
#3. To: TooConservative (#1)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#4. To: TooConservative (#1)
The Truthers are kooks
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#5. To: TooConservative (#1)
conspiratorial nonsense
Subtle and Deceptive Tactics to Discredit Truth in Media and Research
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#6. To: Deckard (#5)
Foundations of a Weaponized Term
#7. To: paraclete (#2)
why is this important?
#8. To: TooConservative (#6)
(Edited)
Frankly, I'd rather be nuked than have someone use a Weaponized Term around me.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#9. To: TooConservative (#7)
That blacksmith rattled the Truthers' cage with his video.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#10. To: Deckard (#9)
All of the people I've talked to think this guy is a complete buffoon.
#11. To: Roscoe (#10)
Do any of those "people" live outside of your head?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#12. To: Deckard (#11)
#13. To: Roscoe, Deckard (#10)
Do any of those "people" live outside of your head?
#14. To: Deckard (#9)
"By the way, where were the blacksmith forges being operated in the World Trade Center towers?"
#15. To: Deckard (#0)
The 9/11 Truth Debate Rages On
#16. To: paraclete (#2)
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
#17. To: tomder55 (#16)
this is self evident . All the fuel fire needed to do was weaken the structure.....not turn it into molten metal .
#18. To: tomder55 (#16)
this is self evident
#19. To: misterwhite (#14)
#20. To: Logsplitter (#19)
#21. To: Logsplitter (#19)
That's where the molten steel came from
#22. To: no gnu taxes (#21)
#23. To: Logsplitter (#22)
And you might have been given the opportunity to prove your "theory"
#24. To: no gnu taxes (#23)
#25. To: TooConservative, Deckard (#1)
#26. To: Logsplitter, misterwhite (#19)
That's where the molten steel came from.
#27. To: Pericles (#25)
Steel weakens - repeat weakens - under fire conditions.
#28. To: Logsplitter (#22)
#29. To: paraclete (#18)
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
#30. To: tomder55 (#29)
#31. To: tomder55 (#28)
There were 52 FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, totaling more than 400 agents on the scene for weeks . Were all those agents in on the plot too?
#32. To: tomder55 (#29)
Yeah Bush is so stupid and evil intended that he supposedly started a war because of WMD in Iraq . Then when the evidence was not found ,he did not plant any WMD in Iraq to cover his narrative.
#33. To: Deckard (#0)
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]