Comments on: Fire Doesn’t Melt Steel: Celebrity Moron Edition

By: Julian

Julian — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:10:07 +0000

I know this is all just accusations against accusations, but Sam, a “campfire-sized” fire will not melt steel, this is either an extremely naive and “optimistic” opinion or it just a straight out lie.

I don’t want to offend you, but reshaping steel and melting it is COMPLETELY different, do not assume that you just need to wait a little longer to see it happen.

By: Sam

Sam — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:39:19 +0000

Um… I have reshaped steel using a “campfire-sized” fire in my back yard. I invite any skeptics to perform this experiment to confirm that steel, indeed, will weaken and given enough time would melt. I don’t know if there was a conspiracy or not, but I know this “steel won’t melt” aspect of it should just be let go. It makes its adherants seem… spoon-fed. Hard to take someone serious when they are so wrong about something so simple.

By: lorien1973

lorien1973 — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:41:15 +0000

You didn’t research anything. Don’t make it sound like you did. Or you’d find out that, in fact, all the hijackers are dead – because, you know, they are.

By: jewl

jewl — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:27:55 +0000

look I dont want to fight I just want to know what happened loren or whatever you name is… Im just telling you what I have researched. I dont understand how you can just discredit everything everyone says like you know everything… honey look everyone has their own opinions so why must you be so hostle?
look first of all go to the time magazine website and look at the info on the 15 highjackers it is true… second of cool down I just wrote what I found out so chill

By: lorien1973

lorien1973 — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:03:56 +0000

The things you believe as “facts” are not facts. So if you really want to know the truth, maybe you should ask intelligent questions. First. K?

If you look at some pictures of the world trade center just before it was hit you can see plumes of smoke comming from the windows.

Nope. Not true.

also the 15 highjackers that where anounced 7 of them are alive!

Nope. Produce pictures.

also one specifically calles hani hanure(forgive my spelling) failed all of his flight schools all of them he didnt even know how to even start the plane also how did they know his name?

Nope. His name was on the passenger manifest.

they reportably found a passport on the ground outside of the trade center. how could it have not been insinerated?

Maybe you should read up on momentum. They also found the bound hands of stewardesses on the road too.

the flight pattern of the sesna (spelt wrong?) was only possiable for a military plane to fly

It wasn’t a cessna. And apparently, by your own words, a cessna could have also maneuvered like that, not only a military plane. eh?

not even the titaniam engines… they said that they melted… maybe they did

Engine parts were found.

the FBI confinscated all of the surrounding hotels footage of the crash anf hour after it supposably happend why would they do that>

normal in an investigation. footage has since been released.

Your desire to “know the truth” is highly suspect.

By: jewl

jewl — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:50:06 +0000

i have read all of your comments and see the side of all of them, though it can be argued that the way the jet fuel burned the steel columns could have melted, but all of them?
you may believe otherwise but if you think about it something is fishy. If you look at some pictures of the world trade center just before it was hit you can see plumes of smoke comming from the windows. how is that possible when the plane hadnt even been hit yet? also the 15 highjackers that where anounced 7 of them are alive! how is it possible that they flew into the building and are still alive? also one specifically calles hani hanure(forgive my spelling) failed all of his flight schools all of them he didnt even know how to even start the plane also how did they know his name? they reportably found a passport on the ground outside of the trade center. how could it have not been insinerated?
also the pentagon…. the flight pattern of the sesna (spelt wrong?) was only possiable for a military plane to fly. The sesna was to big and clumsy to turn like that… also no remnants of any plane were found… not even the titaniam engines… they said that they melted… maybe they did… but how if they melted is it possible for bodies to be found with recognizable finger prints? wouldnt they be insinerated also with the engines?
the FBI confinscated all of the surrounding hotels footage of the crash anf hour after it supposably happend why would they do that>
Im not rying to dicount anyones theories, I just am telling the world what I have discovered in my reasearch… please comment on mine… i really just want to know the truth…

By: Eli

Eli — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 06:59:27 +0000

It seems to me that everyone here likes to think that they “Know” something about this. But the truth of the matter is you only have ideas. The truth is only known by the Govt who for some reason isn’t telling us everything. I personally find it moronic to believe that Al Queda had something to do with it. I do believe our govt is hiding something and if you believe in what the govt says, your a bigger fool than you appear to be. NEVER TRUST WHAT THE GOVT TELLS YOU..NEVER.

By: L HALL

L HALL — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:23:46 +0000

Please get your facts staight it wasnt the heavy exterior steel columns which overheated and caused the collaspe of the WTC buildings. What really caused the failure of the bearing members was the heating and sagging of the interior steel floor trusses. That building was designed to carry the majority of it load on the exterior steel columns. However, in order to maintain this type of const each floor must serve as a diaphram in order to keep the exterior walls from buckling. When the planes crashed most of the foam fire protection was blown off the light weight steel floor trusses. The resulting fire cased the sag and failure of many of the required floor systems. As these floor systems failed the bearing exterior walls lost there ridgidity and became unstable to the point where the weight of the undamaged floors above was just too heavy for the weakend building diaphram. At the time this was a new type of building system which is very stong as long as as each system did its job. THe heavy exterior steel beams carried the weight and the diaphram in the light weight floor trusses on every floor made the building rigid. Alot of folks seem to think that the steel would need to become molten for it to fail, in this type of building system all it takes is the failure=sag or collapse of enough floors for a buiding of this size until it just cannot hold it own weight anymore. This type of failure can cause a pancake type of destruction where once the exterior walls give way and allow the colapse of the upper floors the weight of the these upper floors basically rip each floor away from the exterior steel columns and cause the building to implode on its self. Once it starts it cannot be stopped. This type of failure is also what occured at building 7.

By: josh, (steel construction, scaffold and rigging 28yrs exp)

josh, (steel construction, scaffold and rigging 28yrs exp) — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:07:22 +0000

i like what you both said, but answer this? (and please excuse my spelling,) the building fell at free fall rate, it took about 10 seconds to fall, about 100 floors. the building was built as a grid mesh, for the buildig to fall that quick and that perfectly, all the joints at each floor would have had to popped at the same time, not the skelleton… the joints, thats thousands of joints per second, as a scaffolder i could not see how that could happen, if the steel tower collapsed at the top it would not collapse at the bottom, expecally not at free fall rate, if the fire was at the bottom of the building maybe i could understand, but then it still wouldent have fallin so perfectley, and i still dont know why we havent been showen a video of a plane going into the pentegon, im sure the worlds most protected building must of got clear footage of that,

By: Frank H

Frank H — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:09:18 +0000

Tony said a bunch of stuff that he really doesn’t know about.

Steel (a misnomer, as “steel” can be any of a bunch of different metal alloys) that is used in construction has a melting point (according to U.S. and European standards) of 540 degrees C, or about 1004 degrees F.

Aircraft fuel burns at temperatures about 600 degrees C (and UPWARDS) depending on MANY variables including weather, the density of the fuel/air mixture, etc.

If one leaves a fireplace poker in a fire, it WILL affect the steel in the poker. Whether Tony is willing to admit it or not.

BTW, most fireplace pokers are pure iron, and therefore have a higher melting temperature…which is why they are made of pure iron.

If you’d like to try Tony’s experiment with a common garden shovel, which is made of steel (and is NOT pure iron), and leave it in the fire overnight, you will DEFINATELY weaken the shovel’s blade. It is likely to remove the “tempering” of the steel.

That being said, Tony’s support of the idiocy of the left wing whackos is apparent, and his attempt to reparse their words shows his.