There have been numbers conspiracies regarding the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York, but nearly all of them hinge on the oft-touted fact that the temperature at which jet fuel burns is significantly lower than the temperature at which steel melts.
Well, an iron worker on YouTube is causing quite a stir among people who believe that the towers were not, in fact, brought down by the jets flown into them.
In the video, the man attempts to debunk the theory that structural steel would remain strong at the temperature at which jet fuel burns by heating a peace of structural metal to that very temperature and bending it easily.
Move on to page 2 for the video:
wow you people are dumb
That’s not the argument though! The metal had not only melted, but it was flowing out of the tower like lava! AND IT DID SO FOR APPROX. A MONTH AFTER THE ATTACK!!!! THE LAVA FLOW DIDN’T STOP FOR A WHILE AFTER! How would you explain that?
the only thing he gets correct is that the building did not collapse because steel melted… Ant lemming who questions conspiracy can watch just about any history channel documentary on the subject, and if they are smart enough to understand all the big words used,,, they should lay their conspiracy theory to rest…. NOW, Oklahoma City was a total US government job… That is based on the amount of lies and cover ups they did on facts and physics.
The buildings were made in three components. The outer structure, the FLOATING floors and the massive inner structure of vertical I beams that held the elevators and the cranes used to build them. So if you put a giant turkey in your fridge that broke the top shelf, would the whole thing crumble before dropping into the basement through the floor? Oh, and one of the videos show the top of the building at a 30 degree angle relieving pressure on the opposite side before it miraculously travels straight down in free fall. Yeah, that’s normal.
any good documentary on the subject explains it pretty well.
Dennis Huxley there’s not but one problem with your statement, there’s never been a steel frame building in the world collapsed from fire except the world trade centers. Another problem you have, the men who designed these buildings have said fire would not cause this devastation, they actually designed these buildings to take a direct hit from the largest aircraft in the world. There was a huge steel frame building overseas that caught fire and burned for 2 days until it burned everything, but the steel frame was still standing.
Aaaand the picture of an I beam in the rubble cut on a 45 degree angle. That’s no salvage cut. I’d fire him if it was. That’s a demolition cut.
Does steel get weaker when heated that high, no matter what its size is? We all know that answer. Those building became rocket stoves.
David Brisebois did you take all temperatures of the fires and the fire at 9/11 are any of them accully record or just speculated by what they burn in a control environment ? The type of steel insulation of the steel and every factor before calling this guy a idiot .
A kiln is going to get much hotter than an Open flame in a structure