The Twin Towers: Fire Melting Steel
Was the Oakland freeway collapse corroborating evidence for the official version of the World Trade Center failure, or was it another government lie?
Filed under Conspiracies
| Skeptoid #54 July 10, 2007 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe Also available in Greek |
|
By Brian Dunning, Skeptoid Podcast
Episode 54, July 10, 2007
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4054
Today we're going to really put the Men in Black under the microscope. And by Men in Black, I mean blacksmiths. You know, those evil government conspirators who expect us to believe that steel can be melted by something that ignites at a far lower temperature. For thousands of years, blacksmiths have been lying to us. They've been telling us that they use coal to melt steel for casting, which, according to a poster on the Skeptalk email discussion list, burns at about 560°F. Fortunately we know better. We don't buy into their lies. We know that steel melts at 2750°F, so we know that these blacksmith shops at local living history museums are all part of the government's master plan of deception. The whole smithing profession and false history was probably invented by the government to prepare us to believe in their biggest lie: That the fires inside the World Trade Center could have brought the towers crashing down.
Conspiracy theorists love to quote retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, who said "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire." But they conveniently omit the second half of his sentence: "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
One tactic used by conspiracy theorists that has frustrated engineers is their use of a straw man argument, which is where you repeat your opponent's position and carefully reframe it to be weaker and obviously false. Here, the conspiracy theorists have reframed the engineers' position as stating that the World Trade Center fire melted the steel. This is not true, no such claim has been made, as actual melting was neither necessary for the collapse nor possible with the amount of heat that was available.
Let's review the numbers one more time, if you're not already sick of hearing this over the past six years. Steel melts, or liquefies, at 2750°F. Let's take that off the table, because nobody claims that it got that hot, and it wasn't what happened. Jet fuel burns at up to 1500°F. Within about 10 minutes, the jet fuel was exhausted, and the fire then raged among the building itself: its furniture, rugs, curtains, papers, whatever, and temperatures preceding the collapse reached a maximum of 1832°F, according to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's analysis of heat damage to the debris, and as simulated using their computational fluid dynamics model known as the Fire Dynamics Simulator. According to the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F, and at 1800°F it is probably less than 10 percent." Even the lowest end of the temperatures inside the fire were way hotter than the hottest temperatures at which the steel trusses could have maintained integrity.
But for the conspiracy theory to work, you have to dismiss any statements made by any official or independent agency, because they could all be part of the conspiracy. The only figures considered reliable are those which differ significantly from official reports. Even expert Rosie O'Donnell told us "It's the first time in history that fire has melted steel."
But then, on April 29, 2007, fire melted steel for the second time in history. A freeway accident occurred in Oakland, California that made us all take a second look. A tanker truck carrying 8,600 gallons of gasoline lost control and crashed on an elevated underpass in the Macarthur Maze, a knot of converging freeway ramps taking cars from the 24, 80, 580, 880, and 980 freeways and funneling them into the San Francisco - Oakland Bay Bridge toll plaza. The fuel exploded into flames and burned fiercely for several hours, but it only took minutes for the span above the flames to collapse and fall onto the span below. The director of Cal Trans, the California state transportation authority, said the heat from the fire had melted the steel girders and bolts that support the concrete roadway. He said "If you have that kind of heat, you're going to have this kind of reaction. We're not surprised this happened."
The massive I-beams built into the structure of the freeway overpasses are far thicker and heavier than the lightweight steel trusses supporting the floors of the World Trade Center. The speedy and graphic nature of this failure demonstrated once and for all how easy it is for heat to soften steel just enough to sag, and that little sag is all it takes for the structure to come apart and then it's Good Night Ladies. In Oakland, these giant beams didn't just sag: they squished like they were made of clay.
Happily, the freeway collapse did have a silver lining. Engineers everywhere breathed a sigh of relief, since this was such a major bitch-slap to the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Now maybe those nutballs would shut up and go home, right? Maybe even take down their insulting web sites. But is that what happened? Don't bet on it. Remember how the logic of the conspiracy theorist works: Evidence against their theory is really evidence for the conspiracy. Within hours, conspiracy theorist blogs and web sites were charging that the government staged the Oakland freeway collapse in a transparent attempt to bolster the official version of the World Trade Center events.
Three basic arguments have been made alleging the conspiracy. First, it just seems consistent with what an evil government might do. But, like the majority of the 9/11 conspiracy "evidence", appearing consistent with one possibility in addition to others is hardly proof that that one possibility is the true one.
Second, this fire was outdoors, and not insulated within a building. For some reason the conspiracy guys have turned this one completely around, saying that an uncontained outdoor fire traps heat in better than an enclosed fire. This logic is a little too bizarre for this podcaster to attempt to address. This has nothing to do with oxygen availability, which was the only remotely intelligent extrapolation I could make from this, as the World Trade Center fires were fed not only by airliner sized holes in the side of the building, but also by millions of cubic yards of oxygen inside the buildings.
Finally, the conspiracy guys argue that of all the hundreds of thousands of freeway overpasses in the country, how could this accident just happen to occur at one of the busiest interchanges on the busiest bridge in one of the most traffic congested urban areas in the country? If you wanted to deliberately select the most disruptive and highly visible interchange in the country, this is quite possibly the exact one you'd choose. The two spans that were destroyed carry 160,000 cars a day. What are the chances that this is where such an accident would just happen to occur? Next to impossible. Clearly, this location had to be deliberately chosen. The only possible explanation is that the wreck was staged by the government.
It's kind of hard to argue against that kind of logic. So, I say, don't bother. People who are smart enough to know better, and educated enough to understand the physical sciences, and yet still believe the conspiracy theories, are beyond help. Don't waste your breath on them. And also, don't worry that their fantasies will eventually creep into the history books and infect your children, any more than you should worry that the schools will start teaching the Flat Earth theory. The conspiracy theories are false, so they're unprovable, and all the evidence will always be against them. They're never going to go away, and they're never going to shut up, and as offensive as their paranoid pipe dreams are to civilized people, they have every right to present them and argue their point of view. This is the lesson for your children. Show your children the facts of what happened, and explain why the terrorists did what they did — that's the easy part — and then expand the lesson to the importance of free speech. Better if your children first hear these conspiracy theories within the context of an example of protected free expression of an offensive idea.
That way, your children will be better prepared to visit a blacksmith shop, and know when they're being lied to. ;)
© 2007 Skeptoid Media, Inc.
References & Further Reading
Aaronovitch, D. Voodoo Histories: the Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History. New York: Riverhead, 2010.
Hodapp, C., Von Kannon, A. Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publications, Inc., 2008.
King, M. "Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories." Journal of Debunking 9/11. Journal of Debunking 9/11, 13 May 2007. Web. 18 Jan. 2010. <http://www.jod911.com/>
NIST. "National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster." National Institute of Science and Technology. National Institute of Science and Technology, 30 Aug. 2006. Web. 5 Jul. 2007. <http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm>
Reagan, B. Debunking 9/11 myths: Why conspiracy theories can't stand up to the facts. New York: Hearst Books, 2006.
Reference this article:
Dunning, B.
"The Twin Towers: Fire Melting Steel." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
10 Jul 2007. Web.
23 May 2013. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4054>
Discuss!
10 most recent comments | Show all 435 comments
I think it was me. The "anecdotes" on behalf of the conspiracist are mildly amusing for such a disgraceful continuation of self promotion that continues under the banner of 911 denialists.
Its akin to the hypochondria involved in pseudoscience, it just has a greater propensity to humiliate the survivors and families involved in the attacks that occurred that day.
From afar, these appear curmudgeons, close up they have identity crises that demands self gratification.
Mud, sin city, Oz
April 09, 2013 9:53pm
More "clever" pronouncements that are as usual nothing more than ad hominem attacks on those that are doing what we have all been invited to do, discuss, and to use critical thinking to analyse pop phenomena.
Macky, Auckland
April 11, 2013 5:43pm
Trouble is Macky, some people's 'skepticism' (not neccessarily yours) amounts to no more than kneejerk scoffing and appeals to 'common sense' or accusations that those of who accept the official story are no more than shills, sheeple or disinformation agents.
Darren, Liverpool, UK
April 12, 2013 3:45am
Yes and I accept what you are saying Darren, totally.
I do not regard those who stick to the official story as shills, sheeple or disinformation agents, especially here on Skeptoid.
While I can hardly believe how thinking people can still ignore plain evidence, it has been obvious to me that I haven't got it right all the time either.
That's what constructive discussing is all about, to my mind.
Calling each other names is not what I call using critical thinking, especially since I regard Brian and the Skeptoid posters as friends, even Mud....
Macky, Auckland
April 13, 2013 12:04am
I read the whole
Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories
"paper" and with GOOD SCIENCE I have to point out a few things.
1-There are no references of anything other than FEMA, NIST, 911 commission, and Debunking websites. These are not scientific references! You need peer reviewed journals or easily repeatable experiments.
2-Mike King is a freelance writer and former reader, he has no scientific credentials listed. Do they even exist?
3-Alex Jones arguments are all that are "addressed", what about other references?
4-Sugar-coating "I don't know" as "there is no easy text-book answer" is not scientific or straightforward, it is deceptive speech.
University of Utah Student, Salt Lake City, Utah
April 14, 2013 2:44pm
Conspiracy Theorists bring up the fact that the towers were the first steel high rises to fall from fire in history. The fact is the towers had other firsts that day they never seem to include.
There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.
I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.
Knowledge, Everywhere
April 19, 2013 1:15pm
"and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses."
You don't know that.
"its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off.."
Apparently not enough of them to cause collapse though.
"which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed..."
Apart from you don't know that, if it was true, why did the building stay up for so long ?
"The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive...."
I agree there are many deceptive statements made in such a horrendous scenario as the twin tower collapses.
But as I've said, those buildings were over 25 years old. The processes that caused their collapses should be well-understood, with very little contention.
Yet we have engineers that supported the FEMA enquiry.
The NIST report that disagreed with FEMA was supported by engineers.
Now we have engineers who criticize the NIST report for not investigation the mechanics of the continuing collapse, only the initial failing of the buildings.
These engineers are calling for a new enquiry.
Other engineers are adamant the collapses should never have happened.
All presumably professionals, who normally should know what they are talking about.
With so much contention between these professionals, is it any wonder that conspiracy theorists and serious skeptics find plenty to argue about ?
Macky, Auckland
April 23, 2013 1:51am
Amusing.
1) Nobody who understands steel in a fire debates that the thin floor trusses could fail in fire. The problem is that structurally, the floor trusses only held up the floors not the building. So they fail? So what? The office furniture falls down to the next floor. This is where the dispute is. If floor failure brings down the core and tube.
2) Highway overpasses are not constructed the same way as steel framed sky scrapers. The WTC core consisted of a box design where the steel members were firmly attached to each other. same with the tube. A highway overpass beam is set upon concrete columns and has different end and support conditions. The spans are much much longer. The overpass beams were directly exposed to fire unlike the WTC's main structure. It's simply not comparable.
3) The government does not claim the main structural elements of the WTC towers failed from fire directly. The claim is indirect failure as the floor trusses which had the direct fire exposure failed.
4) this is a typical 'debunking' article where weak conspiracy theories are attacked and then used to discredit strong alternative to government theories based on engineering and scientific principles by associating them to the weak theories socially.
The government theory aims to find something that fits the narrative. That is flawed method and it shows. The strong alternatives attack these weaknesses. Having no real response, the counter attack is ridicule by association.
B, Lake Michigan
April 25, 2013 9:43pm
What I have trouble understanding is the WTC1 collapse.
With only 13 floors or so above the fires, on the initial collapse one can see those relatively small number of floors breaking up rapidly, before the smoke and dust cloud obscured them.
There was no consolidated chunk of building large enough to continue the collapse downward, especially when it is obvious as the collapse continued that large amounts of debris were being flung out sideways in all directions.
This to my mind should have slowed the collapse, and brought it to a halt, especially when one considers that the lower down the building was, the stronger the construction.
All that was really supposedly forcing the continued collapse was only rubble, and meeting increasing resistance from the building's structure (remember the 47 main columns) the collapse should have been halted at least by halfway down.
I find it strange that rubble, most of which is being flung out to the side in all directions, could continue a collapse of an ever-increasing strong building right to ground level.
Another point is the 47 main columns, now relieved of the weight of the floors collapsing and breaking up, should have been left sticking out noticably a long way into the air above the collapsing rubble. They were strong enough before, to stand and support the building's weight. Why weren't they still standing dozens of floors into the air afterwards ?
Macky, Auckland
May 18, 2013 9:59pm
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation, or join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
Who is Oz, Griff? Who are you addressing?
Darren, Liverpool, UK
April 08, 2013 4:26pm