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.1) Jet Fuel was not a factor in the global collapse of World Trade Center 7.
2) Only 1/2" steel rod was used in this experiment. WTC Steel was as thick as 4 inches.
3) Trenton did not use structural Steel used in skyscrapers in his experiment.
4) Trenton used a furnace/forge for his steel rod but furnace conditions were not present in the Towers.
5) Trenton heated the steel rod to 1800 degrees. Thats 300 degrees hotter than Jet Fuel can burn.
6) The Towers did not bend and fall over as was demonstrated in his video with the steel rod.
7) Molten steel seen dripping from the corner of the South Tower just minutes before its collapse. Jet Fuel cannot do this.
Bolds are my additions for clarity.
6) The Towers did not bend and fall over as was demonstrated in his video with the steel rod.
I would also challenge the "fuel cannot burn at 1800 degrees" argument though I suspect it's already covered elsewhere on this site?
A few seconds later:That beam isn't straight...
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.
Putting aside the molten metal, Tye’s demonstration is wholly irrelevant for the simple reason that the fires in the World Trade Center could not have heated the structure anywhere near as high as the 1,800°F to which Tye heated his piece of steel using a furnace.
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. 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.
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.
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?).So they are saying all metal has the same melting point? No wonder many don't take them seriously then.
Just to illustrate this point.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.
Any metal in a steel frame building has to be steel, no?So they are saying all metal has the same melting point? No wonder many don't take them seriously then.
There is this short clip that appears a lot in truther videos: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.
Yes, it is called "Black Body radiation": http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod6.htmlHuh. 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?
Yes, it is called "Black Body radiation": http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod6.html
Sarcasm is unfortunately a poor form of communication when debunking,
That should have done it!And on the Internet in general. However, it's also a tough habit to break. As always, I lament that I didn't add emoji to that post for greater clarity.
And on the Internet in general. However, it's also a tough habit to break. As always, I lament that I didn't add emoji to that post for greater clarity.
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...).what's the point of this video ?
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.It is medieval knowledge
Does the video claim that its point is relevant to WTC7 - specifically or incidentally?and it certainly is irrelevant for wtc 7.
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)!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.
And yet the "recycled propaganda" meme pops up with astounding frequuency!He probably has a lot of people around him that don't understand that, but I have never met one in my life.
Fair point.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"
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.I have, by the way, met only one truther in person in my life.
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."Fireproofed steel is a very fire-resisting material" is a tautology and about as sensical...."
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.
That assertion is interesting and also this one:I assure every truther I meet that jet fuel does indeed melt beams of this sort...
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".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.
He seems after all those years not aware that they did not fall with g.
I (as a doubting truther)
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.