Video of hot steel bending

SamBST

New Member
This has appeared on YouTube:
As expected, many have already pointed the invalidity of such a simple experiment, but this comes handy for any debunking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mark Barrington

Active Member
Well, it could have been a more controlled experiment, and I don't think his narration would have stood up to the politeness policy on Metabunk, but it clearly demonstrates that hot steel isn't as rigid as room temperature steel. Pretty simple, I know, but that point seems to escape a lot of people when they talk about this. Reading the comments, it seems that the demonstration didn't change anyone's minds, as expected.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's fascinating reading the comments about the video. It's a litany of misunderstandings that show how the truther beliefs are really based on a series of misconceptions that seem almost like trolling, but apparently are not.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2204686781/permalink/10153126899941782/
Now some of the criticism has a little merit, even if it all misses the point entirely (the point being that you don't have to melt steel for it to lose all structural strength). But look at #6. "The Towers did not bend and fall over as was demonstrated in his video with the steel rod." A point that's so wrong, it's actually difficult for people to understand what he means.

He means that the towers themselves would bend and fall, if the steel was weakened as much as shown in the video.

Basically he can't make the connection between failure of multiple elements leading to progressive collapse.
 

Balance

Senior Member.
I would also challenge the "fuel cannot burn at 1800 degrees" argument though I suspect it's already covered elsewhere on this site?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_flame_temperature

Bolds are my additions for clarity.

And yes, I can see why this guy isn't freely going into detail(s). Even the generous exhibition of only using his pinky should have given any free thinker a clue not to make this post without further thought...
6) The Towers did not bend and fall over as was demonstrated in his video with the steel rod.
 

Chew

Senior Member.
To be fair, that commenter was probably thinking that as long as the towers appeared to be standing upright there couldn't possibly be any torque that exceeded that of a pinky finger being applied.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Last edited:

BombDr

Senior Member.
If your head is in the space to believe multi-layered conspiracies, facts become irrelevant if you are holding on to a claim like 'jet fuel can't melt steel' like a security blanket.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The response to this video from AE911 is rather telling in it's level of inaccuracies:
http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=6b5f0f3976&e=[UNIQID]

Ass seen by the demonstration above (which Richard Gauge watched) that's just flat wrong. An open air fire of jet fuel raised the temperature of a steel girder to 2000°F in under four minutes.
 

SamBST

New Member
Sometimes, I think some people in the truth movement have never seen a fire or had a barbecue (the one with charcoals). My grill is already showing signs of buckling and sagging.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
The video attempts to debunk the old truther meme "jet fuel can't melt steel, therefore conspiracy".

There is an assumption about which specific argument this meme implies namely: That, in order to make a steel structure fail from heat, the steel has to melt. The demonstration successfully debunks that argument.
Now it is questionable that many Truthers actually do imply this argument. I think in the early days, years and years ago, some or many did - citing, I think, one of the earliest newspaper attempts to explain the collapse with "jet fuel fires melted the steel".

However, nowadays, many Truthers - including the "official" AE911Truth response [1], imply a different argument when bringing up the mem, namely: That molten steel was actually observed - an anomaly that, so the Truther lore goes, is in need of an explanation. The video does not debunk this argument.

We know of course the problems with this argument. Two main ones:
  1. The "evidence" for "molten steel" is scetchy at best, and uncorroborated. In short: How do you know that some alleged "molten steel" was steel, and are you even sure it was molten?
  2. Even if we assumed that molten steel occurred where and when Truthers claim it did (minutes before the collaps, days and more after the collapses...), this is not evidence of any method of "Controlled Demolition": Explosives do not leave molten steel as residue, and even if thermite charges had been employed to melt through steel members, none of this would be visible as flows of molten steel after the debris and dust has settled. In short: There is no actual coherent, falsifiable theory that explains both the collapses and all the alleged sightings of molten steel as the result of some defined method of CD.

[1] "The following statement was released by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth on December 18, 2015.": http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=6b5f0f3976&e=[UNIQID]
 

SamBST

New Member
So they are saying all metal has the same melting point? No wonder many don't take them seriously then.
Not only that, that every molten metal that glows orange or red is, and must be only, iron. There's no other metal that exhibits similar properties when heated or melted. Also, every jumping spark is a clear, and unequivocal, sign of thermite (thermate?).
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
Not only that, that every molten metal that glows orange or red is, and must be only, iron. There's no other metal that exhibits similar properties when heated or melted.
Just to illustrate this point.
GOLD

Copper

Aluminum

Titanium

SILVER

Platinum

Antimony

TIN
 

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
Huh. It's like no matter what the material, things heated to the same temperature look similar. I wonder if there's some sort of correlation between the temperature of a nonreflective body and the wavelengths of radiation it gives off?
 

Oystein

Senior Member
So they are saying all metal has the same melting point? No wonder many don't take them seriously then.
Any metal in a steel frame building has to be steel, no?

When we point out that the implied claim "this glowing material is steel" is unsupported by evidence as there are other possibilities and the truthers have not ruled out other metals (or non-metals), they will usually try to reverse the burden of proof on you and demand that you make a counter claim and prove it. We don't really have to know and prove what that stuff is, unless the other side advances at least a plausible claim that, and how, it might be related to the collapse.

Their best effort is to deny that the glowing flow from the South Tower corner could be aluminium, arguing, with experiment to show, that Al emits relatively little light and would appear more silbery than glowing orange or yellow in bright daylight. Problem with this rebuttal is that it holds strictly only for pure Al. Could well be quite different for alloys as well as a flow that carries with it impurities such as dust, dirt, ashes, or perhaps even has burning embers floating on it. A burning building does not compare 1:1 to a foundry.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Was there actually "molten" metal in the rubble for days? When I picture "molten" I think of a volcanic flow. Was there actually hot, liquid, molten metal there? I'd google this but I have a feeling the first 10 pages would be truther stuff.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Was there actually "molten" metal in the rubble for days? When I picture "molten" I think of a volcanic flow. Was there actually hot, liquid, molten metal there? I'd google this but I have a feeling the first 10 pages would be truther stuff.
There is this short clip that appears a lot in truther videos:
where a fire fighter describes molten steel running down the channel rails, like in a foundry, like lava.

According to a comment, this is taken from the 2003 documentary "Collateral Damages" by Étienne Sauret, and the fire fighter is said to be FDNY Captain Phil Ruvolo.

If you need context: The entire film is available on YT, starting with part 1 of 5 here: I haven't watched it yet, I just googled.

Edited to add: The "molten steel running down the channel rails" comes ar 3:45 in Part 2. No discernable context here; probably speaking about an experience during the first few hours.

ETA2: BTW, and OT: At 7:09 in Part 2, another FDNY man relates how they came up to Vesey St from below the rubble where they'd been searching for survivors and that they "saw 7 fully engulfed in flames, and we just ran to the corner, stopped a minute to catch our breath, and 7 fell down". Keep listenting after this, some more comments on WTC7 follow - none involving explosions.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Shifting the argument to "jet fuel can't melt steel, so it could not have caused the collapse" to "jet fuel can't melt steel and make rivers of molten steel, hence nanothermite" is a bit of a con, as they shorthand it as "jet fuel can't melt steel", and claim they mean the latter, but most people think they mean the former (which is what they originally mean).

Of course no pools of solidified steel were ever found, which means the latter argument is baseless too. Not that it ever made sense anyway.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
what's the point of this video ?
I think you can answer your own question (I am being generous here, actually; you are a truther, therefore the base assumption usually ought to be that you can't answer questions about 9/11 correctly...).
So why don't you give it a try and spell out explicitly what "point of this video" truly is? It can help anyone who discusses it (many actually comment as if they didn't get the point)

It is medieval knowledge
Since it is medieval knowledge, doesn't that make the truther argument "jet fuel can't melt steel, therefore conspiracy" all the more moronic? Truthers could potentially have known since the 1300s or earlier that their argument is moronic.

and it certainly is irrelevant for wtc 7.
Does the video claim that its point is relevant to WTC7 - specifically or incidentally?
Why do you think it "certainly is irrelevant for wtc 7"? (It would be good if you had stated by now explicitly what the "point of this video" truly is. Hint: It does not apply exclusively to what jet fuel can and can't do).
 
The Jet fuel can't melt steel is an expression that pop-ups sometimes, because it's recycled propaganda. It certainly does not apply to all of the truthers. I cannot imagine that there are people who think steel is not affected by heat and have never heard of a blacksmith. As kids with school we went to the Hoogovens, now Tata steel and saw how steel is produced. This means I have still no real idea what the purpose of the video is, but assume the guy is sick of some of those recycled quotes and just creates a video, that's all and he indeed shows that steel is affected by heat, which is old knowledge and very very basic knowledge.

He probably has a lot of people around him that don't understand that, but I have never met one in my life. I brought up wtc7 because the steel was not believed to be weakened by fire. We know that "fireproofed steel is a very fire-resisting material"
 

Oystein

Senior Member
The Jet fuel can't melt steel is an expression that pop-ups sometimes, because it's recycled propaganda. It certainly does not apply to all of the truthers. I cannot imagine that there are people who think steel is not affected by heat and have never heard of a blacksmith. As kids with school we went to the Hoogovens, now Tata steel and saw how steel is produced. This means I have still no real idea what the purpose of the video is, but assume the guy is sick of some of those recycled quotes and just creates a video, that's all and he indeed shows that steel is affected by heat, which is old knowledge and very very basic knowledge.
I agree with all of this, including the "does not apply to all of the truthers" bit, except that I can "imagine that there are people who think steel is not affected by heat". Truthers believe the darndest things (or else they wouldn't be truthers)!

He probably has a lot of people around him that don't understand that, but I have never met one in my life.
And yet the "recycled propaganda" meme pops up with astounding frequuency!
I have, by the way, met only one truther in person in my life.

I brought up wtc7 because the steel was not believed to be weakened by fire. We know that "fireproofed steel is a very fire-resisting material"
Fair point.
It was affected by fire though. In the other thread about ARUP's expert opinions on behalf of Aegis, we have a Dr. Bailey opining that some of the WTC7 steel was not sufficiently fireproofed - the cavities between the floor beams and the (trapetoid-shaped) floor decking was not filled with SFRM, allowing the top flange and the shear studs of the beams to heat up critically.

"Fireproofed steel is a very fire-resisting material" is a tautology and about as sensical as saying "steel can swim on water, provided its on a large enough raft" or "a blind person with a trained dog has excellent vision". Or my favorite: "A fried tofu-spelt dumpling makes an excellent meal if you substitute it with a grilled rumpsteak immediately before serving"
 

econ41

Senior Member
I have, by the way, met only one truther in person in my life.
Me too. The one truther I met - early 2007 - was actually a broad spectrum Conspiracy Theorist. From memory contrail spraying for NWO mind control was his hot issue. WTC collapse was a minor sideline for him. He was son-in-law to one of the Councillors on the City Council where I had been City Engineer. He asked me for my opinion on the CD of the WTC Towers. I decided I needed to give a professional quality opinion and that led to my involvement in forum activities - and defined my main interest focus - explaining the engineering.
 

econ41

Senior Member
"Fireproofed steel is a very fire-resisting material" is a tautology and about as sensical...."
Humour aside it is an astonishingly naive comment for a professor of engineering to make UNLESS he has swallowed the AE911 manta hook/line/sinker - which would itself be astonishing - OR he is playing to the crowd(s) for some purpose not yet revealed.
 
FWIW, I used to work in the MSU Civil Engineering Dept. and had an office near Dr. Venkatesh Kodur's laboratory where he was actively testing fireproofing materials for beams like the ones that deformed during the Twin Towers attack. Indeed, Dr. Kodur worked on the BPAT Team on the after action report and analysis of the catastrophe. I assure every truther I meet that jet fuel does indeed melt beams of this sort in the way described by the official failure analysis. I've seen it with my own eyes, performed under valid scientific and engineering test conditions.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
FWIW, I used to work in the MSU Civil Engineering Dept. and had an office near Dr. Venkatesh Kodur's laboratory where he was actively testing fireproofing materials for beams like the ones that deformed during the Twin Towers attack. Indeed, Dr. Kodur worked on the BPAT Team on the after action report and analysis of the catastrophe. I assure every truther I meet that jet fuel does indeed melt beams of this sort in the way described by the official failure analysis. I've seen it with my own eyes, performed under valid scientific and engineering test conditions.

You wouldnt happen to have footage of any of that testing by chance would you CB? I know its a long shot, but Id love to see it in action if it was recorded.
 

econ41

Senior Member
I assure every truther I meet that jet fuel does indeed melt beams of this sort...
That assertion is interesting and also this one:
in the way described by the official failure analysis.
I'm not aware that the official reports ever confirmed melting of steel beams. And the phenomenon known to engineering is that steel loses strength at elevated temperatures - which is all that is needed to explain the WTC Twin towers collapses - without any need for "melting".
I've seen it with my own eyes, performed under valid scientific and engineering test conditions.
???
 
Perhaps not relevant for this thread but Gage created another box video in which he compared a fall of an upper section through the building and compared it with a fall in vacuum and suggest no difference. He seems after all those years not aware that they did not fall with g. He is spreading disinformation although I don't believe he does that intentionally. If you have an untalented friend or family member who wants to do a singing audition at a tv show I would stop him/her and say you make a fool of yourself. The same should be done when he creates a video. I (as a doubting truther) also uploaded wrong youtube videos in the past but removed them immediately. Educate and correct yourself...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Perhaps not relevant for this thread but Gage created another box video in which he compared a fall of an upper section through the building and compared it with a fall in vacuum and suggest no difference.

It's relevant in that it's supposed to be a parody of the blacksmith video that started this thread.


Unfortunately it just comes across as rather bizarre, especially if you've not seen the blacksmith video. He's trying to discredit the blacksmith, but makes his own point in exactly the same style, which suggests to the casual viewer that he think his own "the official story implies it's just air" explanation is just as silly as "jet fuel does not melt steel". It's all rather strange.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Trailblazer Reutlingen Fake UFO Video 2013 UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 3
V GIMBAL Video: Simulating the ATFLIR Tracking and Gimbal Rotation UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 20
Rocky Gettysburg 'ghosts’ run across road [Windscreen smudge] General Discussion 4
D Falmouth "Shadow Creature" Video [Black Cat?] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 10
G Belarus demonstration video Current Events 2
M Fast moving object "intersecting clouds" in Hungarian YouTuber's video [Insect] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
U Looking for debunkings of the “Plandemic” video Coronavirus COVID-19 17
Jesse3959 Being seen from space - methods to demonstrate that sats are real and provide live video? Flat Earth 6
R Claim: Apollo 15-17 Live TV Feed - Antenna signal would be interrupted from all the violent shaking when Astronauts touch the buggy General Discussion 26
J Identifying the Mountains in JTolan's "Rocky Mountains" IR Video Flat Earth 31
Mick West Explained: RARE Video Footage of "Alien Space Craft" WATCHING ISS Astronaut! UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
Wizard Mexican UFO Video? [Oil Rigs] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
Mick West Original Flir1, Gimbal, and Go Fast UFO "Raw" Video Files UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 33
Mick West Simulating the Nimitz UFO video as a blurry plane UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 51
jarlrmai UFO video in Arizona from Reddit Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 22
Trailblazer Explained: video of concentric circular "chemtrails" (E-3 Sentry AWACS plane, Feb 1 2019) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Mick West Old USAF "UFO" Video Mentioned By Chris Mellon Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 15
mudr0 Need Debunking: Video claiming zigzaggin objects and movement prove EVA filmed in pool General Discussion 33
Ravi Utah Drone video of UFO [Probably an insect] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 126
Mick West Blowing out Candles with a Single Punch General Discussion 47
Mick West Some New-ish WTC7 Photos (and video?) Corner Damage 9/11 6
B Bob Lazar 1989 Video Analysis Method UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
MisterB Debunked: Isle of Man from Blackpool at water level proves flat earth [refraction] Flat Earth 19
Mick West NYT: GIMBAL Video of U.S. Navy Jet Encounter with Unknown Object UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 452
deirdre Debunked: Lights chasing each other carving holes in clouds (fake video, fallstreak holes) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 17
StarGazer SpaceX Falcon 9 Captures Video of its own Contrail from Space UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 17
T FE balloon video curvature analysis using Blender Flat Earth 4
Mick West Explained: Viral Video of 787 Leaving Thick Contrails with Forced Perspective Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
Astro Debunked: Astronaut's Arm Fades During ISS Video Proving "Green Screening" Science and Pseudoscience 1
Trailblazer Jet Airways intercept video "UFO" (airliner, flight LH998 or LH66?) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
penk CNN Greenscreened a guy on a ship? [No] General Discussion 12
Mick West Explained: Chilean Navy "UFO" video - Aerodynamic Contrails, Flight IB6830 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 186
Mick West Debunked: Video of "Islamics Marching Through Berlin" [Biker Gangs] General Discussion 4
Mick West Close Up Videos of Contrails Forming And Evolving Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 19
M Bornong "Something Strange" - Hurriyah car bombing video seems staged General Discussion 50
Mick West P900 Plane and Contrails Photos and Video Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 17
mik Lots of wingtip vortices in a FiAF exercise demo video Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 0
Mick West Video of New Orleans Superdome Illustrating Curvature and Refraction Flat Earth 5
Clouds Givemethewillies Automated Video Tracking of Planes Tools for Investigating and Debunking 42
C Strange Flickering in Contrail Video Posted in Earlier Thread [Focussing artifacts] Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Leifer Polite video interviewing/debunking Practical Debunking 8
F Explained: Video of plane leaving "6 chemtrails, then 2" [Mixed Exhaust and Aerodynamic Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Trailspotter Formation and Evolution of a Contrail Grid - Satellite Time-Lapse Video Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 22
Gary Cook 911 video with edited out planes. 9/11 6
passionfly1 Lets finally debunk Nico and Marco Kaschuba (video hoaxers) People Debunked 0
Trailblazer Explained: "Beam" in Video of Explosion In Iraq. [Rolling Shutter Artifact] General Discussion 11
robotriot Lightning Artefacts on Video Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 17
Leifer Carly Fiorina's clamed "heart beating" abortion video General Discussion 7
Leifer United Airlines, 1966 route map - video Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 3
TEEJ Spherian7 video - Silver Spring, Maryland, US, 25th May 2014 - Contrails - Different Colours Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top