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.
Title: Can Jet Fuel Really Melt Steel Beams? The 9/11 Truth Debate Rages On
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.
Subtle and Deceptive Tactics to Discredit Truth in Media and Research
"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.”
Frankly, I'd rather be nuked than have someone use a Weaponized Term around me.
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?
