Truthers or Government: Who said fire melts steel?

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

I need help arguing with a truther. He's claiming that the whole "fire melts steel" canard was actually started by the mainstream media, which he says is controlled by the government. He's given me these quotes, supposedly from around 9/11, but has not been able to back them up. Any idea how these scandalous accusations involving the top news anchors and structural engineers got started?

Thanks. Below are the quotes.

Hyman Brown - structural engineer:

Structural steel is fireproofed to last between 1 and 2 hours, which it did, and then steel melts.

Garrick Utley:

But why did these buildings collapse? Buildings that went up only 30 years ago? They should have lasted for a century or more. It wasn’t the explosion, the force of the two planes, structural engineers tell us. It was the heat. The flames were burning too long and too hot, rising above 1500 degrees. It began to melt the steel. And the floors in the towers were connected to the steel skin, on the outside,. And that steel literally melted. That floor gave way, fell on the next, the next, the next . . .and down they came. That was the structural failure. They were not built to withstand 1500 degrees of heat.

Peter Jennings:

The heat was so intense that the steel melted and the building began to collapse down onto itself from on top.

Dan Rather:

They could be destroyed, and in fact were destroyed by the fact that this aviation fuel got loose and just, in effect, melted the steel.

Chris Wise - Structural Engineer:

Fire melted Steel.

[Skibum]

Just a bunch of quotes from reporters and "hey this guy is an engineer lets ask him for a off the cuff analysis".

ETA: Some of the engineers may have been "dumbing" it down for the audience so they didn't have to go into an hour long class on how heat affects steel etc.

[defaultdotxbe]

the argument fails if the government doesnt control all apsects of the media (right down to scripting man-on-the-street interviews)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Wait. What? They're trying to justify their wild conjecture by stating that part of their (past or current) wild conjecture about steel melting was based on news reports? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

CTist: Look! Melted steel! Proof of CD!
Skeptic: Err, no, there is no evidence of melted steel.
CTist: Fires never got hot enough to melt steel! Proof of CD!
Skeptic: Err, no, they didn't need to melt the steel, just cause loss of strength.
CTist: News Reporters said fire melted steel!

[Tbone]

Are any of those people you quoted part of the government? Shouldn't this title be "Truthers or Media/Clean-Up Workers"?

[BenBurch]

The entire amazingly stupid issue stems from what "melt" means.

To educated people, "melt" means that the steel is literally liquid.

To the average american melt means glowing hot and bendable.

Some people who were on the scene said the metal was molten... And the reality was that they meant red hot. And the rest is idiot twoofer history.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Wait, I'm confuzed. These alleged quotes aren't reporters, they are anchors. And they are quoting structural engineers, two of them by name.

I'm just trying to figger out if they are accurate quotes or if he made them up or what.

[jhunter1163]

The quotes are probably accurate, but the point is that the engineers don't mean the steel liquefied. They mean that it lost enough strength that it could no longer support the load on it, and failure ensued.

It's the Twoofy insistence on taking "melt" literally that has made this canard last as long as it has.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

You think they ARE accurate quotes?

Oops. I need to apologize to my twoofer friend.

Seems that Garrick Utley used the word "literally".

If these quotes are accurate, I could see how people would think fire melted steel.

Update, my twoofer buddy now says he saw a diagram published by structural engineer Chris Wise that said the fire was "hot enough to melt through steel floor supports".

This part cannot be true, can it? I asked my friend to send me this diagram, and he claims he can't find it.

[LashL]

Who said fire melts steel?


Fire does melt steel, and this is hardly contentious, let alone a "canard". It appears that your real question is something different entirely, though. So, why don't you ask the question that you really mean to ask, and then we can proceed from there?

[LastChild]

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/meltdown.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhRMoNGVaeY

[defaultdotxbe]

Fire does melt steel, and this is hardly contentious, let alone a "canard".
rosie might have something to say about that

[pomeroo]

I like the part about Dan Rather and Peter Jennings being part of Bush's gigantic conspiracy.

[T.A.M.]

They are all in on it Ron, didn't you know...all of the media except Keith Olbermann and Alex Jones (one for each side of the political spectrum).

TAM;)

[PhantomWolf]

Fire has been used to melt steel for hundreds if not thousands of years. In the Case of WTC 1 & 2, some early reports stated that the fires had melted the steel. These were prior to any investigations and subsequently found to be incorrect. All official reports say weakened or softened.

[Dave Rogers]

What the [rule10] is the actual issue here? Science isn't a game of he-said-she-said. Who cares who was the first person to say that fire melted the steel? It isn't true, it doesn't need to be true for the collapse to have happened, and the fact that people's initial speculations about the cause of collapse turned out not to be correct is about as unexpected as rain in Manchester.

Dave

[gumboot]

I think I'll take the opinion of NIST over the opinion of a sleep-deprived Peter Jennings, thanks very much.

As far as truther arguments go, this one is spectacularly stupid.

-Gumboot

[nicepants]

They are all in on it Ron, didn't you know...all of the media except Keith Olbermann and Alex Jones (one for each side of the political spectrum).

TAM;)

Actually, Alex Jones is helping the NWO. Every time he picks up that bullhorn and screams nonsense he's doing us a favor. He should sign up for benefits.

[Anti-sophist]

Attributing mistakes to deception discounting the possibility of simple error is a -classic- truther move.

[Quad4_72]

Why does it matter if a couple people were quoted saying that fire melted the steel? Its called speculation. Some people also said that they thought it was a cargo plane that hit the towers. This is not true of course, just speculation. Upon further research and analysis based upon scientific evidence we find that the steel was weakened by the fire, not melted. Just tell him to read the NIST report, its all in there.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Attributing mistakes to deception discounting the possibility of simple error is a -classic- truther move.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." aka "Cock-up before conspiracy"

[RedIbis]

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." aka "Cock-up before conspiracy"

Can we reverse that aphorism?

Never attribute to incompetence what can be explained by malice.

[e^n]

Can we reverse that aphorism?

Never attribute to incompetence what can be explained by malice.

I doubt it, although I have noticed that in general 'truthers' seem to have much less trust for their fellow man. For example a truther friend of mine consistently calls into question the qualifications of JREF types, but implicitly believes in the conspiracy because it sounds plausible to him. It is quite bizarre, but by your logic he's doing this maliciously because he has some undisclosed reason to do so.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Can we reverse that aphorism?

Never attribute to incompetence what can be explained by malice.
I think Occams Razor might prevent that:
{incompentence} vs {compentence, malice}

[Dave Rogers]

Can we reverse that aphorism?

Never attribute to incompetence what can be explained by malice.

Possibly. I feel that way, for example, about the Journal of 9-11 Studies.

Dave

[RedIbis]

I think Occams Razor might prevent that:
{incompentence} vs {compentence, malice}

Well that's entirely debatable. If it's even possible to quantify, incompetence is actually a very fine cover. Maliciousness is not out of the realm of possibility, especially if we are talking about this administration.

[RedIbis]

I doubt it, although I have noticed that in general 'truthers' seem to have much less trust for their fellow man. For example a truther friend of mine consistently calls into question the qualifications of JREF types, but implicitly believes in the conspiracy because it sounds plausible to him. It is quite bizarre, but by your logic he's doing this maliciously because he has some undisclosed reason to do so.


I'm not talking about your "truther" friend. Besides, a healthy skepticism doesn't mean cynacism towards "fellow man." It might mean a skepticism towards those in this administration. Big difference.

[e^n]

I'm not talking about your "truther" friend. Besides, a healthy skepticism doesn't mean cynacism towards "fellow man." It might mean a skepticism towards those in this administration. Big difference.

No offence intended, but truthers are hardly the healthiest sceptics.

[RedIbis]

No offence intended, but truthers are hardly the healthiest sceptics.

Again with the labels. Among the basest forms of ad hominem is this simpleminded labelling of those who you wish to marginalize because you don't want to address the questions they raise.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Well that's entirely debatable. If it's even possible to quantify, incompetence is actually a very fine cover. Maliciousness is not out of the realm of possibility, especially if we are talking about this administration.
You are suggesting, at least for this specific scenario, that, all things being equal, assume malice over incompentence. Barring any evidence of such malice; what semi-formal proof (as in logic proof), or circumstantial evidence, can you offer to substantiate such an assumption?

[RedIbis]

You are suggesting, at least for this specific scenario, that, all things being equal, assume malice over incompentence. Barring any evidence of such malice; what semi-formal proof (as in logic proof), or circumstantial evidence, can you offer to substantiate such an assumption?

Please restate your question. Are you asking for evidence or not?

[Par]

Again with the labels. Among the basest forms of ad hominem is this simpleminded labelling of those who you wish to marginalize because you don't want to address the questions they raise.


So, what should we call people who, say, deny the Holocaust?

[RedIbis]

So, what should we call people who, say, deny the Holocaust?

Idiots.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Please restate your question. Are you asking for evidence or not?
Sorry, should have broken that all up into something more verbose.

Assuming we do not have direct evidence of malice of this administration regarding 9/11. (if we have such evidence, then by all means, please present it.

How do you build a logically consistent case for malice and what indirect, or circumstantial, evidence will you use to support this case?

[e^n]

Again with the labels. Among the basest forms of ad hominem is this simpleminded labelling of those who you wish to marginalize because you don't want to address the questions they raise.

I apologise, people who believe in controlled demolition of the towers or one of the many other conspiracies unsupported by the evidence tend not to be the most critical and correctly sceptical people.

I am perfectly fine with answering questions that are raised, and I am constantly trying to find enough time to answer them! Of course when it comes down to it you can always go the 'well it COULD have happened' route and any responsible sceptic will admit as much.

While labels aren't the most appropriate thing in the world, the majority of truthers follow the same pattern (see poll threads at LCF, the Evolution thread is an excellent example)

[Par]

Well that's entirely debatable. If it's even possible to quantify, incompetence is actually a very fine cover. Maliciousness is not out of the realm of possibility, especially if we are talking about this administration.


No one is claiming that malice is simply impossible. They’re saying that it’s a less parsimonious – and consequently less rational – explanation.

[RedIbis]

While labels aren't the most appropriate thing in the world, the majority of truthers follow the same pattern (see poll threads at LCF, the Evolution thread is an excellent example)

Which is a fine example of prejudice. You are assuming that a person you have termed a "truther" will follow a very predictable pattern based on the behavior of other individuals you have termed a "truther."

[Dave Rogers]

Again with the labels. Among the basest forms of ad hominem is this simpleminded labelling of those who you wish to marginalize because you don't want to address the questions they raise.

Actually, some of us wish to marginalise them and address the questions they raise. That's why we address the questions.

Dave

[DavidJames]

Again with the labels. Among the basest forms of ad hominem is this simpleminded labelling of those who you wish to marginalize because you don't want to address the questions they raise.Let's play like grown ups for a minute. Let's stop asking questions and start doing research and analysis and start documenting and presenting evidence.

[RedIbis]

Actually, some of us wish to marginalise them and address the questions they raise. That's why we address the questions.

Dave

Any marginalization of your opponent in debate is disingenuous.

[Par]

Start a new thread if you want to discuss this “label” nonsense.

[twinstead]

I would imagine that absent actual evidence of malice, error or incompetence is what any RATIONAL person would assume.

[Dave Rogers]

Any marginalization of your opponent in debate is disingenuous.

If an opponent in debate is advancing arguments that are demonstrably insane, then it's a bit difficult to demonstrate that they're insane without marginalising your opponent.

Dave

[e^n]

Which is a fine example of prejudice. You are assuming that a person you have termed a "truther" will follow a very predictable pattern based on the behavior of other individuals you have termed a "truther."

Not at all, I don't presume that all 'truthers' (I didn't invent the term) act the same way, just that the majority seem to.

You have said that you would call Holocaust deniers 'idiots', is this not a clear example of prejudice on your part? You take offence when it's suggested your particular clique may not be critical thinkers in the majority, but blanket label anyone in a different clique without a second thought?

[RedIbis]

Not at all, I don't presume that all 'truthers' (I didn't invent the term) act the same way, just that the majority seem to.

You have said that you would call Holocaust deniers 'idiots', is this not a clear example of prejudice on your part? You take offence when it's suggested your particular clique may not be critical thinkers in the majority, but blanket label anyone in a different clique without a second thought?

True, and I acknowledged that in my editing comments.

This is precisely why I don't debate people who wish to deny the Holocaust. We are all here in this particular forum because we are interested in discussing this particular topic, 9/11.

As you can see I don't have any special labels for people who adhere to the official story because I am interested in the debate and I respect my opponents. I don't have much respect for people who deny the Holocaust so I don't debate them. If I did, I still wouldn't create some special slang for them.

[e^n]

True, and I acknowledged that in my editing comments.

As you can see I don't have any special labels for people who adhere to the official story because I am interested in the debate and I respect my opponents. I don't have much respect for people who deny the Holocaust so I don't debate them. If I did, I still wouldn't create some special slang for them.

I don't know whether you're trying to point out the usage of 'truther' here or trying to continue your previous argument that I am prejudiced because of what I believe is the majority mindset.

Addressing the 'truther' issue, it is a handy, non-offensive label for a particular subset of Conspiracy Theorists. Others have used 'twoofer', '911 denier' etc but I think 'truther' is the most neutral and the most widely understood and as such it's what I use.

With regards to prejudice, I don't believe every truther is wildly incoherent and utterly unable to form an argument but I do certainly think that a proportion of them are. Common mindsets are easily identifiable and often telling of particular logical failings. Identifying such mindsets is not a matter of prejudice, it is a matter of logical deduction as to the cause of such beliefs in varying cases.

I make no claims of being completely un-biased, but to label someone appropriately and to gauge a community statistically is not inherently prejudicial.

[peteweaver]

has anyone ever seen a blacksmiths forge in use ?

[rwguinn]

has anyone ever seen a blacksmiths forge in use ?
Got one in my back yard. Coal-fired, hand pumped, as a matter of fact...

[dudalb]

has anyone ever seen a blacksmiths forge in use ?


As a Historical Reenactor, God,yes.

[JimBenArm]

has anyone ever seen a blacksmiths forge in use ?
That's African-American smith, buddy!

[gumboot]

has anyone ever seen a blacksmiths forge in use ?


I have worked at an armourer's forge. (He'd slap me around if I called him a blacksmith, and he's currently the reigning world Jousting champion, you don't want to offend someone that climbs on a one tonne horse with a fifteen foot stick and gallops towards another guy on a one tonne horse with a fifteen foot stick trying to hit each other, just for fun!)

-Gumboot

[Arus808]

has anyone ever seen a blacksmiths forge in use ?

Yup...^_^...SCA...and all that....

[dudalb]

has anyone ever seen a blacksmiths forge in use ?


As a Historical Reenactor, God,yes.

[dudalb]

Yup...^_^...SCA...and all that....

Yup,SCA and American Civil War groups.
My Union Artilery unit has a neat ,exact replica of a complete transportable forge in a wagon, standard issue for Aritllery Batteries.

[BenBurch]

Fire has been used to melt steel for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Well, now, IIRC, most steel before about 1400 was an accidental result of trying to make iron. Some places had artisans who could intentionally make steel, but they didn't broadcast that knowledge for obvious trade reasons.

[BenBurch]

has anyone ever seen a blacksmiths forge in use ?

Absolutely. Learned to do it, too!

[BenBurch]

Any marginalization of your opponent in debate is disingenuous.

That's why you don't debate idiots, you ridicule, abuse, and demean them. And then LAUGH!

[kookbreaker]

As a Historical Reenactor, God,yes.

Good Ed, how many reenactors are there on this forum!?

[kookbreaker]

Fire has been used to melt steel for hundreds if not thousands of years. In the Case of WTC 1 & 2, some early reports stated that the fires had melted the steel. These were prior to any investigations and subsequently found to be incorrect. All official reports say weakened or softened.

And all the troofers got into a tizzy when about that. Which makes me wonder: How many of them ever left a chocolate bar in a car on a hot day. I wonder if when they get to it they say it 'melted'. But did the chocolate really reach the point of being liquid chocolate or just weaken a whole lot?

Think about that before hystericly blaming the S.E.s for using the term 'melted'.

[lapman]

That's African-American smith, buddy!
It's Color Challenged smith or Light Spectrum Challenged smith. Get it right!

[BenBurch]

Retraction; I was wrong on early steel.

From Wikipedia;


Steel was known in antiquity, and may have been produced by managing the bloomery so that the bloom contained carbon.[9] Some of the first steel comes from East Africa, dating back to 1400 BCE.[10] In the 4th century BCE steel weapons like the Falcata were produced in the Iberian peninsula. The Chinese of the Han Dynasty (202 BCE – 220 CE) created steel by melting together wrought iron with cast iron, gaining an ultimate product of a carbon-intermediate—steel by the 1st century CE.[11][12] Along with their original methods of forging steel, the Chinese had also adopted the production methods of creating Wootz steel, an idea imported from India to China by the 5th century CE.[13] Wootz steel was produced in India and Sri Lanka from around 300 BCE. This early steel-making method employed the use of a wind furnace, blown by the monsoon winds.[14] Also known as Damascus steel, wootz is famous for its durability and ability to hold an edge. It was originally created from a number of different materials including various trace elements. It was essentially a complicated alloy with iron as its main component. Recent studies have suggested that carbon nanotubes were included in its structure, which might explain some of its legendary qualities, though given the technology available at that time, they were probably produced more by chance than by design.[15] Crucible steel was produced in Merv by 9th to 10th century CE.

In the 11th century, there is evidence of the production of steel in Song China using two techniques: a "berganesque" method that produced inferior, inhomogeneous steel and a precursor to the modern Bessemer process that utilized partial decarbonization via repeated forging under a cold blast.[16]

[BigAl]

The entire amazingly stupid issue stems from what "melt" means.

To educated people, "melt" means that the steel is literally liquid.

To the average american melt means glowing hot and bendable.

While we know there is nobody we can find that confirms liquid metal on the pile, (and the physics is -ahem- improbable) there are also reports of red-hot beams being uncovered in the pile after 9/11 that I have never seen anyone catalog or debunk.

[e^n]

While we know there is nobody we can find that confirms liquid metal on the pile, (and the physics is -ahem- improbable) there are also reports of red-hot beams being uncovered in the pile after 9/11 that I have never seen anyone catalog or debunk.

There are plenty of reports of liquid metal present at Ground Zero however no evidence that I know of other than people describing it as such that it was steel. Temperature readings taken by the USGS indicate a surface temperature of around 700C.

[beachnut]

Any marginalization of your opponent in debate is disingenuous.
If you mean the people with idiot ideas from 9/11 truth, they have marginalized themselves by not having facts or evidence to support their pathetic conclusions and lies.

[leftysergeant]

We have a good case to show GWB and all the PNAC members incompetant. They have foisted off on an unsuspecting public the worst ever Attorney-General, the worst-ever Secretary of Defense, the worst-ever ambassador to the UN (and second-worst if you count Khalizad) the worst-ever Director of EPA, the worst-ever Secretary of the Interior, worst-ever Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff....The list goers on and on. Yeah, cock-up before conspiracy works for me.

[leftysergeant]

While we know there is nobody we can find that confirms liquid metal on the pile, (and the physics is -ahem- improbable) there are also reports of red-hot beams being uncovered in the pile after 9/11 that I have never seen anyone catalog or debunk.

The steel got red hot, but that is to be expected in a prolonged, buries class A fire. And i would be surprised not to find small scattered ingots of aluminum and copper in even a mid-sized house fire.

Stell is quite another matter. There is noo solid evidence of steel ingots in the rubble, anywhere. Even the meteor, sometimes described as having been "fused" together, was actually rusted together like a can of rusty nails left out in the weather.