How do the 9-11 "truthers" explain this?

Question

The 9-11 "truthers" keep saying that it wasn't fire that caused the buildings to fall because fire cannot melt steel. Oh really??? Then how would they explain this?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/truck-fire-melts-bridge/2007/04/30/1177788022254.html

Answer 1

Mmmmm, they don't. That the fires caused the steel to melt is actually one of the many strawman arguments the so called truth movement uses.

http://www.drury.edu/ess/logic/informal/...

The official version of the collapse doesn't say the steel melted but that it weakened the structural integrity of the building and eventually caused the collpase.

"In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply untrue

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs...

These self proclaimed truth seekers continue to attack not the official story but the wrapped view they have of that official story. That proofs once more they are anti scientific and use some of the most intellectually dishonest tactics known in the acedemic world. The strawman, presenting your oponents position different so that position is easier to disproof, is just one of them, quote mining for example another

Answer 2

I am still trying to understand why these people aren't  simply called 9-11 conspiracy theorists. The term 9-11 truthers makes it seem like they are telling the truth which they clearly aren't. Anybody who was watching on tv that day would be able to tell you that there was no conspiracy.

Answer 3

1. that is a specific area of burning, that is it occurred on the bridge not outside near the bridge

2. the bridge was already weakened by the 1988 earthquake (your source).

3. a bridge is a bridge and a building is a building.

4. source of oxygen was much better than it would be in a building.

Answer 4

I think that if our government spent more time and money investigating 9-11 than they did Bill Clinton, there might not be any so called 9-11 truthers.

Answer 5

How do you explain explosions can be seen in videos of the towers falling and they were heard by people inside?

Answer 6

Obviously you fell for this trick photography. This story was planted. And if it was real it collapsed because the government did it.

Answer 7

That's a good question for someone who never puts in their rants that Osama admitted to having those planes fly into the buildings.  They are simpletons who need someone else's lies to live on and feel good about those lies.

Answer 8

I don't even have to look.  It is ridiculous to claim that fire doesn't melt steel, how do people think steel is made and shaped?  Heat, I loved it when I saw Rosie O'Donnell say that it was the first time in history that fire melted steel, what a loon..

Answer 9

It is a totally different scenario,

Answer 10

If you are looking for serious scientific explanations from that crowd then you've got a long wait.  They'll shout some hate filled rant about Bush being Satan and pound their chest indignantly.  That's all they really have.

Answer 11

If steel is subject to the heat of fire from jet fuel and the loads it was bearing as part of the frame of the WTC it would definitely buckle and cause collapse.