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?

by Brian Dunning

Filed under Conspiracies

Skeptoid #54
July 10, 2007
Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe
Also available in Greek
 

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.

Tip Skeptoid $2/mo $5/mo $10/mo One time

That way, your children will be better prepared to visit a blacksmith shop, and know when they're being lied to. ;)

Brian Dunning

© 2007 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information

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.

The 9/11 Commission Report: National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. New York: Norton, 2004.

Reference this article:
Dunning, B. "The Twin Towers: Fire Melting Steel." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc., 10 Jul 2007. Web. 2 Sep 2014. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4054>

Discuss!

10 most recent comments | Show all 472 comments

Just a thought. Buildings are mostly air (by volume) otherwise they would be of little use. The 20 floor chunk of WTC1 collapses into a rubble pile that occupies a small fraction of its original volume but all the mass is still present driving the collapse with its inertia. In fact as the collapse proceeds the rubble pile driving it gains mass as each floor collapses.

peter, Newcastle
October 17, 2013 5:26pm

At last, someone (peter) posts to Skeptoid with a fair discussion as to why the collapse of WTC 1 appeared to driven by only a pile of rubble.

Macky, Auckland
October 18, 2013 3:00pm

Hi all,
Regarding the issue of fire melting steel: A friend of mine shared a video (http://topinfopost.com/2013/07/03/911-explosive-evidence-experts-speak-out) in which NY fire fighters on the scene on 9/11 reported to have seen melted steel flowing like lava.

While I remain sceptical of the many conspiracy theories, I have no argument against claims that the steel was melted - to liquid, not just warped - unless these accounts are false. I am looking for input from those more informed than myself - any response in appreciated.

Also, does the collapse of the Bridge in Oakland account for the near-symmetrical collapse of WTC7? I have to say, the argument made in this video for controlled demolition being the cause of WTC7's collapse is quite convincing, however it was presented to me by those entirely certain in their belief that 9/11 was an inside job - and I'm still not quite ready to buy into that.

Help me understand!

Cheers,

Andrew, Australia
November 10, 2013 7:52pm

Well peter at least addressed my observation about only a pile of rubble continuing to drive the collapse of WTC 1 right to near-ground level, and although he made a good point, I see no reason why an unstable mass of various size bits of building, with easily seen large quantities of it being ejected out all sides, should remain stable enough and grow large enough to continue to drive straight through greater and greater resistance the lower it descended, demolishing 47 main load-bearing columns that at the base used to hold up 500,000 tons.

I have no evidence that the collapses were inside jobs, and I can see why WTC 2 continued to fall, once its collapse started. A large part of WTC 2 remained intact to drive the continuing collapse.

But WTC 1 had a far less chunk of the building bearing down on its crash site, and even that chunk was seen to be breaking up rapidly after the collapse started.

That it continued right to ground level as a rubble pile through a progressively stronger building the lower it continued, is a mystery.

Macky, Auckland
November 18, 2013 8:11pm

The NY Times has a slide show showing pics from Oakland bridge disaster. You can see some of the steel girders appear warped but not melted. An eyewitness wrote the following: "The fallen section seems to about 10 car lengths long, so perhaps about 70 meters or 200 feet (give or take 50 per cent). The entire section is draped over the underlying ramp in a manner clearly indicating that melting and flow of the asphalt road surface had occurred. These ramps were about 2 car widths wide, plus minimal shoulders, so perhaps 10 meters or 30 feet. I could not see deformation of the concrete pillars, nor any clearly melted and resolidified steel. However, the steel supports at the ends of the fallen section of ramp were very clearly bowed and twisted."
Check out 9/11 videos of WTC south tower before collapse. You can clearly see molten steel streaming out of the side of the building??

Michael Stillie, Topeka
December 8, 2013 7:32am

probably silly commenting on something this old, but I have only just gotten to this one as I have been catching up on all the previous broadcasts. Now while I normally am in agreement with your logic and knowledge, I must take issue with this rather obvious mistake.

Blacksmiths are not traditionally those who would 'melt' steel/iron. We forge it. And we are not liars. We do often 'tell stories', but it is only for entertainment purposes.

Thank-you for your consideration

Thomas Barnett, St. Paul
December 20, 2013 10:18pm

In the UK, BBC News reported the collapse of building 7 twenty minutes before it actually occured. To many who dispute the official explanation, this is evidence alone that pre-knowledge of the attacks and subsequent consequences of the attacks was already known by the British government. A British man took it to a court of law and managed to win the case that the BBC misrepresented the facts. Of course, it can be said that the BBC getting it wrong is not evidence of anything at all, however, the very specific nature of the "reporting error" is more than a little suspect in my opinion.

Ivan, London, UK
December 23, 2013 4:32pm

Yes I understand the newsperson was reporting the collapse, and standing in a position where the building was clearly seen in the background still standing. The broadcast and background was also apparently shown to be live.

Doesn't prove any particular conspiracy, but it's just another one of many serious questions about that awful day.

Macky, Auckland
January 22, 2014 2:21pm

Brian good morning, yes your correct very little critical thinking is needed to rule out c.ddemolition of building 7. The slab that formed the roof collapsed. ( assuming it was a concrete roof ,though if not it doesn't. Invalidate this reasonable theory) Most videos because of the angle don't show the very large structure on the roof of building 7...when the roof collapsed under the weight of this structure, obviously causing the structure on the roof to fall straight down .The extreme wieght ,force and load caused each subsequent floor underneath to collapse adding even more weight, force and load to the slab underneath. The enormous amount and force and energy was enough to weeken then tear apart the structural steel components of the structure causing the building to collapse inward. The fire and heat caused the roof to fail..the collapsing of the roof is very apparent. Look at youtube video...9/11 wtc building 7 video compilation . At 4 minutes into the video it shows this to be true..The collapse starts from the top of the building. You can also see directly underneath as the building buckles ,the glass begins to break in these stressed areas first .

dave festa, florida
January 31, 2014 7:47am

Nicely done. Too bad this is preaching to the choir!

TC, Minot, Me
August 26, 2014 11:37pm

Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point).

Post a reply

 

What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?

Support Skeptoid
 
Skeptoid host, Brian Dunning
Skeptoid is hosted
and produced by
Brian Dunning


Newest
Harry Houdini and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Skeptoid #430, Sep 2 2014
Read | Listen (13:30)
 
The Many Voices of Frank's Box
Skeptoid #429, Aug 26 2014
Read | Listen (13:31)
 
The Haunted Dybbuk Box
Skeptoid #428, Aug 19 2014
Read | Listen (11:26)
 
The Legend of the Flying Dutchman
Skeptoid #427, Aug 12 2014
Read | Listen (11:49)
 
The Baldoon Mystery
Skeptoid #426, Aug 5 2014
Read | Listen (11:44)
 
Newest
#1 -
The JFK Assassination
Read | Listen
#2 -
Asking the Socratic Questions
Read | Listen
#3 -
5 False Arguments for Raw Milk
Read | Listen
#4 -
Fukushima vs Chernobyl vs Three Mile Island
Read | Listen
#5 -
The Riddle of the L-8 Blimp
Read | Listen
#6 -
Who Discovered the New World?
Read | Listen
#7 -
Listeners Have Another Say
Read | Listen
#8 -
6 Problems with Wind Turbine Syndrome
Read | Listen

Recent Comments...

[Valid RSS]

  Skeptoid PodcastSkeptoid on Facebook   Skeptoid on Twitter   Brian Dunning on Google+   Skeptoid on Stitcher   Skeptoid RSS

Members Portal

 
 


Follow @BrianDunning

Tweets about "skeptoid"

Support Skeptoid

Name/Nickname:  
City/Location:
Email: [Why do we need this?]To reduce spam, we email new faces a confirmation link you must click before your comment will appear.
Comment:
characters left. Abusive posts and spam will be deleted.