Blacksmith destroys one 9/11 conspiracy

[toast]

Why are you labeling me a CT?

At least I do.

I am talking about the video which shows that jet fuel can bend steel beams like a noodle when heated for an unstated amount

of time in a forge. Or am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing an important fact that can be seen in the vid I posted in post #36 : the steel beam used in the experiment

and heated up by kerosene fire collapsed after 3 minutes and 40 seconds.

Your post shows a very pretty picture of the WTC during construction. So the video + your photo proves what exactly? I´d

appreciate it if you could connect the dots for me. Thanks!

The image posted by davros of skaro shows the pure holding structures of the twin towers. Inner/outer walls and the floors of

the twin towers had no holding functions. Means, if sections of the steel skeleton get damaged (by heat) the remaining and

intact sections of the skeleton have to cover the full load of weight but this compensation has its limits so the building collapse.

[+OverSword]

re underlined - - - that should have been '''frickin noodle''''

that he bent with his '''pinky finger'''

this is my favourite 9/11 video.........ever........

that blacksmith sure has put everyone in their place on the matter of bendy steel and skyscrapers and jet fuel.......

.

Well at least on the malleability of steel that's been heated in a forge, but to say that this demonstration can accurately show what happens when steel is exposed to flaming jet fuel for an undetermined length of time is a fallacy.

[bee]

Well at least on the malleability of steel that's been heated in a forge, but to say that this demonstration can accurately show what happens when steel is exposed to flaming jet fuel for an undetermined length of time is a fallacy.

I agree - people already know that steel heated hot enough for long enough becomes malleable at some point - but the demo in itself proves nothing - because of all the variables involved in the real life situation on 9/11 -

.

[Czero 101]

Did you have to work to be such a rude person or is that just who you are? What a dick.

He came in here and started taking the thread off topic by arguing that the video doesn't clear up different theories and aspects oif the day that the video never made a claim to dispel.

Then he started questioning why were were going off topic, after he took the thread off topic.

Then to top it all off, he completely misconstrued the arguments being presented by those opposing his viewpoint in an effort to make that side look foolish.

That's a pretty stupid way to argue a point, and coupled with his demonstrated inability to understand an answer given him, my questioning of his stupidity was a valid question given his incredible statement "that now yalls argument is from jet fuel melted the steel to the plane rammed the building somehow mysteriously making jet fuel burn longer and hotter than it naturally does" which no one actually said or even claimed.

If you don't like it and think me a dick for confronting someone on their displayed stupidity with a direct question and a bit of sarcasm.... *shrug*... I don't really care.

Cz

[+OverSword]

I agree - people already know that steel heated hot enough for long enough becomes malleable at some point - but the demo in itself proves nothing - because of all the variables involved in the real life situation on 9/11 -

.

And I want to go on the record here before I'm attacked by one of the rude people, I'm not saying that burning jet fuel didn't contribute to the collapse, I'm just saying this video does not prove it. All this video does is demonstrate that steel heated to whatever temperature the black smith heated it to becomes soft and bends easily.

[flyingswan]

Yes..why?..Why did we have to wait 14 years for him to come along ----

Because no-one else with the necessary expertise took the conspiracy claims seriously enough to think they were worth the effort of debunking in this way? Let's face it, the "jet fuel can't melt steel" claim is pretty ludicrous to anyone with any knowledge of the situation.

[Farmer77]

Because no-one else with the necessary expertise took the conspiracy claims seriously enough to think they were worth the effort of debunking in this way? Let's face it, the "jet fuel can't melt steel" claim is pretty ludicrous to anyone with any knowledge of the situation.

No its not, this video compares apples (controlled environment, unknown exposure time) to oranges (explosive burning of fuel, uncontrolled environment).

[bee]

Because no-one else with the necessary expertise took the conspiracy claims seriously enough to think they were worth the effort of debunking in this way? Let's face it, the "jet fuel can't melt steel" claim is pretty ludicrous to anyone with any knowledge of the situation.

again it depends on the variables doesn't it - how much jet fuel, how long burning, how thick the steel, how soft the steel becomes - just very hot, bendy or actually melted...was the steel affected significantly load bearing ...what was the design of the tower in regards to the load bearing aspect - did the design of the towers make it impossible or extremely unlikely that they would come down after that kind of damage ---(etc?)

and that's what the debates have been about for 14 years and that blacksmith guy hasn't actually contributed anything apart from producing an amusing short video -

[Davros of Skaro]

A fiery pre-dawn tanker truck accident caused the collapse of a heavily trafficked freeway overpass near downtown today, sending hundreds of feet of concrete crashing onto a highway below and hobbling a vital Bay Area interchange.

The driver of the truck, which was carrying 8,600 gallons of gasoline, was hospitalized with second-degree burns

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/us/29cnd-collapse.html?referer=

Huge leaping flames from an exploding gasoline tanker melted the steel underbelly of a highway overpass in the East Bay's MacArthur Maze early this morning, causing it to collapse onto the roadway below and virtually ensuring major traffic problems for weeks to come.

http://m.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Tanker-fire-destroys-part-of-MacArthur-Maze-2-2575285.php

Edited December 18, 2015 by davros of skaro

[Farmer77]

Well since we're just throwing out things that have happened which are kind of relevant :

That skyscraper burned for 7.5 hours without falling

That one for 24 hours without falling.

[Davros of Skaro]

Well since we're just throwing out things that have happened which are kind of relevant :

That skyscraper burned for 7.5 hours without falling

That one for 24 hours without falling.

Without looking at the video. Did these buildings have thousands of gallons of fuel to keep them going?

[Farmer77]

Without looking at the video. Did these buildings have thousands of gallons of fuel to keep them going?

Neither did the WTC. See the big fireball? THATS the jetfuel burning. Its not like the aircraft slowly and methodically released jetfuel across the floors of the building. It exploded upon impact.

[Czero 101]

Well since we're just throwing out things that have happened which are kind of relevant :

That skyscraper burned for 7.5 hours without falling

That one for 24 hours without falling.

Without watching those videos (since they're probably not as relevant as you think) did either of them have a nearly fully laden widebody aircraft crash into / through them at nearly full throttle?

Didn't think so.....

Cz

[Farmer77]

Without watching those videos (since they're probably not as relevant as you think) did either of them have a nearly fully laden widebody aircraft crash into / through them at nearly full throttle?

Didn't think so.....

Cz

Neither did the WTC, oh wait I already posted that look up for the answer you need

[Czero 101]

Neither did the WTC. See the big fireball? THATS the jetfuel burning. Its not like the aircraft slowly and methodically released jetfuel across the floors of the building. It exploded upon impact.

You DO know that that's not ALL the jet from the aircraft right?

Even if we make a conservative estimate that the 767-200ER had a 1/2 load of fuel at impact (and it's a fact that it had more than that), that's STILL over 12,000 GALLONS of fuel. If all that fuel were to go up all at the same time the fireball would be MUCH bigger.

I mean... you've actually read the witness reports that speak of jet fuel flowing down the stairwells and down the elevator shafts...right?

Seems that someone as informed of you would already know about those facts from the day, so it seems a reasonable question to ask whether you're purposely ignoring those facts for some reason or unaware of those facts.

If you're ignoring them, that speaks to your motives.

If you're unaware of them, that speaks to you inability to do proper research...

So... which is it?

Cz

[Czero 101]

Neither did the WTC, oh wait I already posted that look up for the answer you need

So now you're claiming that NO AIRCRAFT hit WTC 1 and 2 on 9/11? Is that what you're saying?

Cz

[Farmer77]

So now you're claiming that NO AIRCRAFT hit WTC 1 and 2 on 9/11? Is that what you're saying?

Cz

No what i'm saying is the fuel onboard the aircraft exploded upon impact and burned instantly. ......OOOOHhhhhh nope thats my bad I missed the difference between your post and the one I had just addressed.

SO like I said yesterday you guys keep jumping back and forth first the jet fuel provided "thousands of gallons to keep the fire going" now once faced with a picture of said jet fuel burning outside the building its not the jet fuel its the aircraft running into the building that melted the steel.

[Farmer77]

You DO know that that's not ALL the jet from the aircraft right?

Even if we make a conservative estimate that the 767-200ER had a 1/2 load of fuel at impact (and it's a fact that it had more than that), that's STILL over 12,000 GALLONS of fuel. If all that fuel were to go up all at the same time the fireball would be MUCH bigger.

I mean... you've actually read the witness reports that speak of jet fuel flowing down the stairwells and down the elevator shafts...right?

Seems that someone as informed of you would already know about those facts from the day, so it seems a reasonable question to ask whether you're purposely ignoring those facts for some reason or unaware of those facts.

If you're ignoring them, that speaks to your motives.

If you're unaware of them, that speaks to you inability to do proper research...

So... which is it?

Cz

Sure I have, I dont believe them, Ive also read the eyewitness statements about explosions in the basements prior to the planes hitting and firefighters having the fires extinguished prior to collapse and you dont believe them.

I also read where the terrorists on the aircraft managed to somehow have their passports survive the impact, explosion, fire and collapse of the building AND as if that werent lucky enough they were also found BY AUTHORITIES.

The "facts of that day" are very much in contention.

1) The jet fuel that was available to flow down and away via openings, after accounting for the external fireballs and impact zone fires, was estimated by FEMA to be about 3,500 gallons. And NIST stated that, “No evidence or analysis emerged that significantly altered the FEMA estimate” (NCSTAR 1-5F, p 56). The 3,500 gallons would need to flow evenly across the entire, acre-wide area of the impact floors.

Edited December 18, 2015 by Farmer77

[Czero 101]

Ok.. so now we've established that you're not a "No Plane-er" (which is good), but we've also established that you don't know how large quantities of liquid fuel burn (drop a match into a glass full of liquid fuel and see what happens), and that you don't know how a building that has been impacted by a 150,000+ lb aircraft, critically damaging it's unique structural design (the WTC towers were very unique in their design) and burning uncontrolled for several hours will react differently than a more conventionally designed building that has been burning for several hours but had no prior structural damage.

Not quite so good...

And again, I didn't look at the actual examples you gave since they are irrelevant, but I'd be willing to bet that they don't take into account that the fire suppression systems in the WTC Towers were ineffective since the aircraft severed most of the water lines service the building above the impact zone

Also, I don't think that anyone here has said that "the jet fuel kept the fires going", at least not with the meaning you are implying... while the fuel did indeed burn longer than you are assuming, there were also lots of other materials in the buildings that also burn, a lot of which burn at higher temperatures than jet fuel.

While it is accurate to say that the jet fuel did burn off rapidly, it is NOT accurate to say it burned off instantly.

While it is accurate to say that the majority of the fires burning on 9/11 were initiated by the jet fuel, it is NOT accurate to say that jet fuel was the ONLY thing burning.

Cz

[Czero 101]

Sure I have, I dont believe them, Ive also read the eyewitness statements about explosions in the basements prior to the planes hitting and firefighters having the fires extinguished prior to collapse and you dont believe them.

I also read where the terrorists on the aircraft managed to somehow have their passports survive the impact, explosion, fire and collapse of the building AND as if that werent lucky enough they were also found BY AUTHORITIES.

The "facts of that day" are very much in contention.

1) The jet fuel that was available to flow down and away via openings, after accounting for the external fireballs and impact zone fires, was estimated by FEMA to be about 3,500 gallons. And NIST stated that, “No evidence or analysis emerged that significantly altered the FEMA estimate” (NCSTAR 1-5F, p 56). The 3,500 gallons would need to flow evenly across the entire, acre-wide area of the impact floors.

So basically we';re back to the same old "I don't believe the official story because of reasons others tell me are true and the official side lied anyways so nyahh "....

No point in continuing to discuss this with you then.

Good day.

Cz

Edited December 18, 2015 by Czero 101

[jugoso]

I'm talking about CT in general.

Do you think that burning Jet Fuel in enough amounts bends Steel?

I so? Look at the picture again.

Yes, I do and yes I did. We´ve already covered this. The video shows the jet fuel melting the steel and the pictire shows the sunlight shining through the WTC under construction. Taken together they prove _____________________________ (please fil in blank).

[Wreck7]

I'm afraid his experiment is misguided at best. Pulling a piece of round bar out of a furnace and bending it back and forth proves nothing. If he would have laid that same piece on a lit bbq he wouldn't have been able to bend it as easy. A lit bbq would probably be closer to the temperatures inside the WTC. With that being said the actual floor collapse would probably be easier explained by the expansion and contraction of steel. When the plane exploded it blew off the fireproofing insulation which led to uneven heating of the steel causing it to warp, sag and pull apart bolted joints. Couple warped steel expanding and then contracting as it cools with a lot of weight sitting on it and something has to give.

I've been working steel (structural,plate and pipe) for 32 years and I've even seen steel beams that had the bolts tightened in the afternoon sun contract overnight and pull out bricks and concrete. None of that explains WTC-7 or why the Pentagon with cameras every 2 feet (I've worked there as a contractor) doesn't have any pictures of an airplane hitting it. We'll never know the whole truth.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

The conspiracy theorists allways leave out the small matter of the kinetic energy that an impact from a fast flying and jet would have. So we don't just have the effect of the heat on stell, we also have a tremendous kinetic energy imoact at the same time, damaging the fire proofing in the tower. The towers were designed to withstand a slow moving plane on approach to an airport, thus carrying very little fuel, rather than a fast flying (400 knots) and heavily fueled airliner (10.000 gallons)

I did the relevant math on it in this post: http://www.unexplain...50#entry5361725

Edited December 19, 2015 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy

[Czero 101]

The conspiracy theorists allways leave out the small matter of the kinetic energy that an impact from a fast flying and jet would have. So we don't just have the effect of the heat on stell, we also have a tremendous kinetic energy imoact at the same time, damaging the fire proofing in the tower. The towers were designed to withstand a slow moving plane on approach to an airport, thus carrying very little fuel, rather than a fast flying (400 knots) and heavily fueled airliner (10.000 gallons)

I did the relevant math on it in this post: http://www.unexplain...50#entry5361725

You should know better than to try and confuse the poor Truthers with such things as Facts, Evidence and Math....

Cz

[Davros of Skaro]

Neither did the WTC. See the big fireball? THATS the jetfuel burning. Its not like the aircraft slowly and methodically released jetfuel across the floors of the building. It exploded upon impact.

So all the fuel, and hydraulic fluid just burned right up then?

Enjoy your conspiracy.