BLACKSMITH DEBUNKS THAT JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEEMS

Sup Forums BTFO

CONSPIRATARDS BTFO

MEMES BTFO

EVERYONE BTFO

GEORGE BUSH VINDICATED

youtube.com/watch?time_continue=127&v=FzF1KySHmUA

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=9EXb9LMeizA
youtube.com/watch?v=feQxYXHXewY
youtube.com/watch?v=VJnt8_PhHoQ
youtu.be/OjvCNDF4RYw?t=8m44s
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

This actually did change my mind about the Jet fuel honestly.


I still think the government knew about it.

Old video, but good.

I always hated how pol was so pro 911 conspiracy (the retarded parts like controlled demo, not the truth that they let it happen to justify PNAC agenda "a new pearl harbor")


then magically years later most people suddenly dropped it. Don't know why or how. I was proud of pol when I realized that.

This video just shows you how fucking retarded the guy is. The steel didn't melt. It's incandescent, not liquid.

Look at him, the fucking neck-beard contradicts himself in the video.

The World Trade Center wasn't Made of steel beams. It was made of concrete slabs.

The kikes knew it was going to happen. That is the only conspiracy.

>the retarded parts like controlled demo

>Building crumbles to dust on his own
>Symmetrical and sudden fall
>No other building fell under an office fire in the history of modern engineering.

Take the red pill:

youtube.com/watch?v=9EXb9LMeizA

I thought the jet fuel can't melt steel beams meme was not because the weakened steel caused the collapse, but because there was molten steal pouring out of the towers and found at the base of the rubble.

OP video hasn't disproved the molten metal that was found.

>this steel pipe I put in an enclosed area and brought up to perfectly 1500 degrees is the same temperature as the open area plane burning

He also didn't make it pancake like the WTC so basically Sup Forums was right again

>this idiot thinks the WTC bent and buckled in an obscure direction due to overheating making the steal lose it's integrity as a solid structure

Did the fucking tower bend at any point you stupid cock sucker?

the jet fuel steel beam meme is about the molten metal found at ground zero

It would be enough to support the government claim that it was enough to weaken them. A local steel bridge recently started sagging during a bad fire based on like tarps or something. From personal experience with torch welding, steel glowing like that is pretty close to liquifying.

However, it's not clear that a torch is comparable to an airplane, it doesn't explain how the buildings turned to dust, and it doesn't explain how they fell so neatly. And it also doesn't explain how WTC 7 went down exactly the same way from just an office fire without even having been hit by a plane.

>how are buildings made

Slabs held up by steel beams with steel inside the concrete

It bent inward because it's a giant column. Force of building falling a floor was to much.

That's a nice CIA home studio

>Claims to know how hot jet fuel burned inside the building
>80% fuel exploded on impact
>No temperature measuring on camera (not trustworthy even if he did). Trust me it's 1800 deg goys.
>Can't explain why Towers fell in near free fall on top of healthy steel

If you put to much weight on a table what happens?

It doesn't melt it, but it very clearly destroys its structural integrity.

>it bent inward

Okay then why were the structural beams not warped inward at any point, let alone the base, and instead cut at a motherfucking angle inwards.
That shit didn't bend nigga.

That being said, could have still be Alkaeeed or whatever the fuck they are calling themselves this century. Doesn't have to be the government that controlled the demo of the WTC. But a tower hitting that building didn't take the cocksucker down. That shit was planned for a while.

muh near free fall. what speed should a building fall if it was to fall like the 9/11 committee said it did?


not saying it is like they say it is but i just think the "near free fall speed" argument is moot point

Oh 100% they knew
As for jet fuel melting steel beams even if they didn't melt them all they have to do is to heat them enough to make them malleable to cause structural instability.

If the part above the blast area fell it would be so much force the floor below would buckle.

absolute braindead imbeciles
let's say the building had literally no other metal except the steel beams that can't possibly melt. how did the molten metal get there? explosions melt metal, right?

also this is the question that was never answered by any conspiracy theorist ever - what is the purpose of controlled demolition when you already flew 2 planes into the buildings? it makes no sense to orchestrate 2 plane hijackings just to set secret charges under the base of the building.

You're retarded and have zero insight in the matter. Shut up.

I can't talk with certainty about the 2 towers because of the planes. WTC7 however, it's undeniable.

wait let me guess! the table falls through the floor and picks up speed?

>replying twice

Depends where I put the weight.
If I happen to weaken on side of the table, 3/4 up the leg and then put weight on the middle, more often than not, the table will buckle to the weak side of the table, and not simply collapse straight down.

What point did you try to make?

>absolute braindead imbeciles

>Building falls on his own
>Calling others braindead

Kill yourself faggot.

We knew this already m8.

>people still debate this

Idiots

The world Trade Center was actually made of concrete slabs suspended in an exotic skeleton so that if a plane ever hit them they'd fall like an accordion instead of tipping over.

It was a controlled demolition, because the wtc was designed that way.

>building falls on it's own
literally 2 planes hit the building, how about you off yourself you retarded blind mongoloid?

it would be worth watching if he could re-create the actual happening but he can't so 0/10

A floor would be stronger than a table. If you drop a weight strong enough to break a table then what happens.

I figured you were retarded.

Good luck mate.

You fucking retard.
Do you know what an alibi is? You're colossally stupid.

One plane hit each building. They were designed to withstand a plane hit. And it's the only time a steel-frame building went down like that due to a plane crash or a fire.

Thermite and nanothermie are two completely different things you filthy plebians.

Punch yourself in the face hard. See if your fist continues at initial velocity at impact, or does it slow down?

Equal opposite reaction, you shills.

This doesn't mean anything. He totally missed the point.

The reason people even bring this fact up is that there was supposedly melted steel at the bottom of the tower.

This guy needs to learn how to address the correct point.

>what is the purpose of controlled demolition when you already flew 2 planes into the buildings? it makes no sense to orchestrate 2 plane hijackings just to set secret charges under the base of the building

In theory, it means that the side that got hit by the plane doesn't bend independently of the other side and fall over sideways like a tree, which helps keep the structural damage localized to the towers, while still making for a dramatic image in the media.

Meant to say tower of tables.

so are you assuming a top of a 100+ story building is stronger or equal strength to the lower part?

IT'S A FREAKIN NOODLE

I wasn't even talking about those buildings. I was talking about WTC7 but that guy's a fucking pleb. Probably never even heard of it like most people.

>building falls on it's own
>2 planes hit the building
>i guess it fell on it's own ey
at least attempt to make a coherent argument you imbecile

Did he use jet fuel in the video? I don't really see any proof of this. I don't get it. This doesn't prove anything one way or the other kek.

Blacksmith defies health and safety regulations by throwing heated steel towards camera mans feet.

wow, 15 years to figure this out
I'm impressed

This is as bad as Sup Forums fags thinking the earth is flat.

It's almost impossible to tell if people are just being satire or if they truly are fucking retarded.

If the force of the top of a tower falling one floor breaks the floor below then it will fall another floor and break that one with more debris. Vertical dominos

once again...you said near free fall...so at what speed would you be happy with a building collapsing in on itself? 6 seconds behind free fall speed? is that not near?

>Thinking that the controlled demo was just a meme

not gonna make it

>earth is round
round earthers are so pathetic they have to go into other conspiracy theory threads to justify their delusional beliefs

Yeah, it's surprising how many people don't know about WTC7.

Bob Tuskin here just got arrested at a football game for showing people footage of WTC7 without telling them what it was and they all said, "oh, that's a controlled demolition!" Then he told them it happened on 9/11 and they had no idea what WTC7 and immediately backtracked to the official story.

And they arrested him and had to release him because there wasn't any legitimate reason for it, but who cares because they shut him down.

If I drop an anvil the height of one table above a tower of tables and it breaks the first table, it will fall again breaking the next.

yes, i'm full well aware of the term alibi. are you full well aware that there is a lack of motive to openly smash planes into a building and then secretly blow up the building?

ok, fair enough, the only time a plane hit a building of that size and went down. what, in your opinion, does that mean?

So how should a building, steel, floor(s) react when a 250,000lb aircraft @500mph slams into it and lights on fire?

this. plus he is comparing a tiny needle with huge beems surrounded with concrete?
And jet fuel don't heat that much that the tool he use. This video is so retarded, you have to be a braindead to see this shit as an argument.

I still don't see how all of the unmelted beams below the impact collapsed so easily. I think it would have been able to handle the weight.

Which would leave massive center structural steal beams standing into the sky, but we didnt see that because they were cut at various floors to slide inwards as the floor fell.

Nigga, I ain't even mad, but are you trying?

>they had no idea what WTC7 and immediately backtracked to the official story.

Wt7 collapsing is official...

That wasn't the argument around melted steel, the goal posts were moved to discredit truthers.

They argued that molten steel was found on site, which was believed to be caused by explosives rather than the plane crash and burning furniture.

This, I don't know why people think this proves anything.

It's not a question of why the towers collapsed. It's a question of why there are steel beads in the WTC dust that prove the steel was melted.

There were also pools of molten steel at the base of the towers - according to some first responders. So something melted that steel. What was it?

underrated

I mean that it wasn't a controlled definition and repeating the official story to backtrack from having called it a controlled demolition before knowing what they were really looking at.

it doesn't just make a dramatic image in the media, it actually caused a destruction of the arguably most monumental and important building in the entire united states. are you saying controlled demolition was meant to prevent collateral damage?

jesus you're dumb,
he is heating the steel at the exact temperature that jet fuel burns at.

Why would a collapsing buoldong have beams many stories up standing?

>Domino meme

3rd law still stands. Take your other hand place it between your face and your fist. Punch as hard as you can. Do your fist and hand move at the same velocity as your face?

Equal opposite reaction. The floors don't gain energy as they collapse on one another, they lose it due to material deformation. That's why your car has crumple zones to absorb impact.

Why won't NIST release their simulation? What about building 7?

This is David Icke, conspiracy theorist. Lizard dynasties.

What if the the towers built by the company were a bit inferior in quality and that's why the towers fell?

Would the insurance the owner got be higher or lower?

The fact that the 2 twin towers took a plane each that day overshadowed the fact that WTC7 fell.

I challenge you to ask any one about WTC7. People simply don't know about it. No wonder no one outraged about it.

>t. very low energy shill

you can't be that retarded, i really hope for you that's a bait

pancake theory explains that

>buoldong

Keked.

You have a good day, troll. Keep at it.

HE'S A FUCKING IDIOT
youtube.com/watch?v=feQxYXHXewY
The really hot jet fuel explosion could evaporates into the thin air within seconds and disappears, only catching on fire flammable things (furniture, paper, wood, electronics etc.) burning on a level not hot enough to even start weakening the core structure. Few seconds of jet fuel ignition will not even start weaken steel.

>i can't respond to his argument, quickly call him a retard!

maybe some, I don't know.............resistance?

I
The falling debris continued to collect mass. The floors below obviously removed less energy than gained by falling each floor.

No it doesn't.

>ok, fair enough, the only time a plane hit a building of that size and went down. what, in your opinion, does that mean?
It means it's very strange that two planes brought three plane-proof buildings down in the only known example of such a think all at once among the tornado of other unanswered questions, and the government still just covers it up and refuses to investigate, and then uses it as justification for everything since that's been happening in the world.

Any remotely rational detective would tell you there's obviously something up here.

I thought you were retarded. You're just dumb.

Im on a phone.

0 Excuses.
You can spell correctly without having Auto-Correct fuck it up.

Weren't the explosions and collapse a result hydrogen gas exploding for 90 tons of aluminum burning ?

youtube.com/watch?v=VJnt8_PhHoQ

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams but it does severely weaken in. So does structural fires caused by burning jet fuel leaking from the wreckage of the jet that plowed into the side of the building.

sry didn't saw any argument in your post proving it wasn't a controlled demolition, can you point it out for me ?

well i'm bringing up questions you're scared to answer because the most obvious answers prove you wrong. you're just flinging verbal shit like the mongoloid you are. how about you stop now ey?

but it would not break them all....if a bullet slows down when passing through objects why on earth would you believe an anvil will never slow down.


and another thing in your table experiment all the tables are the same but with a building you would have more and more supports the further down you go to support all the weight that is above it.

youtu.be/OjvCNDF4RYw?t=8m44s

APOLLOJOBS

I turned off autocorrect and forgot to manually correct.

For some reason this is completely crazy for some people, but anyway...

>There were also pools of molten steel at the base of the towers - according to some first responders. So something melted that steel. What was it?
For the sake of argument it's possible it wasn't pools of steel and was instead some other metal with a lower melting point like aluminum.

>They were designed to withstand a plane hit.
And did they test this out by building a demo building and then crashing a plane into it to see what would happen?

Wow you are so pathetic. Not to mention that the plane went through the entire building and the plane's weight easily made the level underneath fall on itself and then the level underneath that fall on itself and thus the whole building went down.

Listen. it's not the two buildings who were hit by a plane, you have to concern yourself with.

WTC7 is what you need to concern yourself with.

it got hit by NO PLANE, and NO JET FUEL.

so how the fuck that that fall on its' own imprint.

hurr durr. It's the same shillary tactic look at me don't look at my foundation.

Falling building vs coasting bullet.

Really makes you think.

No excuses.

Also, could this not be a controlled demolition by terrorist plan?

I ain't saying shit about who did it man. I'm saying those buildings got fucking removed by proffesionals, and the plane was simply part of the narrative, the stage however was and always is set different than the story.

sure, i agree. we can speculate that there might or might not be something off with the story. however people seem to be making wild leaps of logic and i'm trying to get some basic questions answered here to see where they're coming from. but instead of answering or giving any arguments i have people taking it very personally and resorting to ad-hominems and completely dodging the arguments.