Video of hot steel bending

Discussion in '9/11' started by SamBST, Dec 18, 2015.

  1. SamBST

    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: Dec 18, 2015
  2. Mark Barrington

    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Mick West

    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  4. Balance

    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...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Chew

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Nov 17, 2017
  7. SamBST

    SamBST New Member

    That beam isn't straight...
     
  8. BombDr

    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    A few seconds later:
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Mick West

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. SamBST

    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Oystein

    Oystein Active 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]
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Heather S.

    Heather S. Member

    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. SamBST

    SamBST New 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. Also, every jumping spark is a clear, and unequivocal, sign of thermite (thermate?).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    Just to illustrate this point.
    GOLD
    [​IMG]

    Copper
    [​IMG]
    Aluminum
    [​IMG]
    Titanium
    [​IMG]

    SILVER
    [​IMG]

    Platinum
    [​IMG]
    Antimony
    [​IMG]

    TIN
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  16. Spectrar Ghost

    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?
     
  17. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    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.
     
  18. JRBids

    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.
     
  19. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    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: Dec 21, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Mick West

    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. SamBST

    SamBST New Member

    Yes, it is called "Black Body radiation": http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod6.html
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  22. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Sarcasm is unfortunately a poor form of communication when debunking,
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  24. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  25. SamBST

    SamBST New Member

    That should have done it! :)
     
  26. Svartbjørn

    Svartbjørn Senior Member

    Sok Spec.. I get your snarky humor, Im a smart ass at heart myself (much to Mick's chagrin sometimes)
     
  27. drommelsboef

    drommelsboef Member

    what's the point of this video ? It is medieval knowledge and it certainly is irrelevant for wtc 7.
     
  28. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    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)

    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.

    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).
     
  29. drommelsboef

    drommelsboef 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.

    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"
     
  30. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    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)!

    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.

    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"
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  31. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    I had a personal experience with a co-worker who used the "jet fuel doesn't melt steel" phrase.
     
  32. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    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.
     
  33. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    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.
     
  34. Computer Bastard

    Computer Bastard New 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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  35. Svartbjørn

    Svartbjørn Senior Member

    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.
     
  36. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    That assertion is interesting and also this one:
    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".
    ???
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  37. Hierophant

    Hierophant Member

    Here's another video which shows a steel rail being bent after heating it on a regular bonfire:
    http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=44ac797cbbb6
    It's a nice video because it's totally independent of 911, so there will hopefully be less moaning about how he could have cheated and how he used a foundry.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2015
    • Informative Informative x 1
  38. drommelsboef

    drommelsboef 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. 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...
     
  39. Svartbjørn

    Svartbjørn Senior Member

    What does this mean exactly? That HE doesnt believe they didnt fall with gravity, or that you dont believe that they fell with gravity?

    I havent heard this term before.. what's a doubting truther (just so that I know you and I are on the same page).
     
  40. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    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.