9/11, 9/11 fifteen years on, latest, War on Terror

Propaganda Can’t Melt Steel Beams

by Kevin Ryan

Eleven years ago, I initiated a discussion about the fact that jet fuel fires could not have melted steel at the World Trade Center. The government agency investigating the WTC destruction responded by holding “some of its deliberations in secret.” Although it’s not a secret that jet fuel can’t melt steel, due to propaganda from sources like The Washington Post and The Huffington Post, Americans often get confused about what facts like that mean to any national discussion. In a nutshell, what it means is that the molten metal found at the WTC, for which there is a great deal of evidence, cannot be explained by the official 9/11 myth.

Today no one thinks that jet fuel fires can melt steel beams—not even The Posts’ new science champion, who doesn’t bother to actually use jet fuel or steel beams to teach us about “retarded metallurgical things.” Instead, he uses a thin metal rod and a blacksmith forge to imply that, if the WTC buildings were made of thin metal rods and there were lots of blacksmith forges there, the thin metal rods would have lost strength and this would be the result.

If you buy that as an explanation for what happened at the WTC, you might agree that everyone should just stop questioning 9/11.

This absurd demonstration highlights at least two major problems with America’s ongoing struggle to understand 9/11. The first is that there was a great deal of molten metal at the WTC. Those who know that fact sometimes share internet memes that say “Jet Fuel Can’t Melt Steel Beams” when they want to convey that “Thermite Melted Steel at the WTC.” The second major problem is that certain mainstream media sources continue to put a lot of energy into dis-informing the public about 9/11.

Sources like The Posts, The New York Times and some “alternative media” continue to work hard to support the official myth of 9/11. That effort is not easy because they must do so while providing as little actual information about 9/11 as possible. The dumbing down of the average citizen is a full time job for such propagandists. Luckily for them, American students receive almost no historical context that encourages them to think critically or consider ideas that conflict with blind allegiance to their government. When it comes to the WTC, it also helps that almost 80% of Americans are scientifically illiterate.

As media companies attempt to confuse the public about 9/11, they must avoid relating details that might actually get citizens interested in the subject. For example, it’s imperative that they never mention any of these fourteen facts about 9/11. It is also important to never reference certain people, like the ordnance distribution expert (and Iran-Contra suspect) who managed security at the WTC or the tortured top “al Qaeda leader” who turned out to have nothing to do with al Qaeda. In fact, to support the official myth of 9/11 these days, media must ignore almost every aspect of the crimes while promoting only the most mindless nonsense they can find. Unfortunately, that bewildering strategy becomes more obvious every day.


  1. pavlovscat7 says

    THE DISSOCIATION CONSTANT…..visible on the matter on that day..THE DISSOCIATION CONSTANT…visible on the reportage to this day..THE DISSOCIATION CONSTANT..deconstructing a lot of shills in this forum.. Judy Wood is right on the money and Architects and Engineers are the stalking-horses being ridden by dilettantes and moles here… Judy Wood is right.

  2. So many people here need to thicken their tinfoil hats,

  3. Greg Bacon says

    I looked up ‘carbon soot’ in several places, to satisfy my curiosity, since this retired career firefighter and never heard that term causing immense damage in structure fires, as Mr. Saunders slyly alludes to.

    I first went to the “National Fire Protection Association” site, which has an immense volume of material on all aspects of firefighting, including building codes and couldn’t find ‘carbon soot’ anywhere.


    I did a search and could only find that soot can combine with carbon and make for hazardous breathing, which I already knew.

    Checked at the ” US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health” and they had this to say about carbon and soot:

    Carbon black and soot: two different substances.

    Carbon blacks are manufactured under controlled conditions for commercial use primarily in the rubber, painting, and printing industries. In contrast, soots are unwanted byproducts from the combustion of carbon-based materials for the generation of energy or heat, or for the disposal of waste. Unfortunately, the terms carbon black and soot often have been used interchangeably; however, carbon black is physically and chemically distinct from soot.


    Maybe Mr. Saunders could enlighten us as to where he gets his info about carbon soot being a fire danger? And please, cite an authoritative source!

  4. Greg Bacon says

    Construction of the new, 52-story WTC 7 was completed two years before the government knew what happened to the first WTC 7. In fact, when the new building was completed in 2006, the spokesman for the government investigation said, “We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” The construction of the new building, without regard for how the first one was destroyed, indicates that building construction professionals in New York City did not believe it could ever happen again.

    Ultimately, building construction codes were not changed as a result of the root causes cited by the National Institute for Standards and Technology for destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings. This fact shows that the international building construction community does not believe that the WTC buildings were destroyed as stated in the official account.


    What, no changes in building codes for steel skyscrapers? Good grief, how many skyscrapers will be falling down from ‘contents fires?’ I know the answer, ZERO.

  5. Seamus Padraig says

    Like a lot of people, I lack enough of a background in engineering to know what will or won’t melt steel under which circumstances. But I do know one thing: no plane ever struck building 7, so in that case, the whole jet fuel debate is irrelevant. The only possible explanation is a controlled demolition. And if they did it to building 7, that certainly raises the possibility that they could have done it to the buildings 1 and 2 as well.

    • Carroll Sanders says

      Carbon soot burns hotter than jet fuel at slightly over 1400C in air.

      The plastics and paper were the main fuels in the building the plane, and jet fuel were just the match.

      Diesel fuel and diesel generators in 7.

      • archie1954 says

        Why would fire be chosen by a of the pundits as the means of destroying a multi level building, when it has never brought down a building into its own footprint before? Not ever! Are American architects, engineers and builders so negligent that they are the only ones that build such deathtraps?

      • What jet fuel? When each plane hit WTC 1 & 2, there was an immense fireball of burning jet fuel, so what jet fuel are you referring to?

      • moriarty's Left Sock says

        Stop trying to deceive non-scientists and sow confusion. Seamus made a valid point that you “refute” by throwing in some “science-facts for boys” irrelevant observation about carbon fires designed to give the impression you are some science guru speaking on a higher level of understanding. But you are no such thing. You seem to have little to no understanding of basic physics, and no grasp of physical processes, their probability or anything else. You chuck out irrelevant random factoids simply to try and deflect or obfuscate.

        The fact is that the only three steell-frame high rise buildings ever to have collapsed due to fire all occurred on 9/11 2001. Such an event had never happened before and never has again, and was considered virtually impossible due to the redundancy of such structures.

        Given this, why did NIST assume from the outset that fire and fire alone brought down the building? Why did it not even examine the possibility of other additional agencies – such as explosives? It has never explained.

        People like you try ti make the idea of explosives ridiculous, but this is just hand-waving dishonesty. The ridiculous position is to claim that fire brought down the buildings without even bothering to explain how or look for other answers

        As to your nonsense about carbon soot, diesel fuel and all the rest of it. – These are common substances in all high-rise fires and so do nothing to explain the unique effects observed on 9/11.

        Are you such an idiot you think the fires in the WTC burned at 1400C – hot enough to produce yellow-hot steel?

        Even NIST refused to become as retarded as that in pursuit of covering up the truth.

        I do believe you are an intentional troll, with nothing to contribute but confusion and stupid irrelevant gobbets of misapplied irrelevant “science” you picked up somewhere and failed to understand.

        • Carroll Sanders says

          Please show me the evidence recorded on the steel of Monrue’s effect, Shrapnel, or mushrooming from being thermally cut while under tremendous loading?

          Or evidence sound waves or seismic data of actual detonation waves of over 5000 meters per second, and I will ask them, on your behalf, otherwise I wouldn’t want them thinking I was totally stupid!

          • moriarty's Left Sock says

            You’re doing it again. Why do the mods let you get away with this?

            Let me say it one more time: THE NIST REPORT WAS INCOMPLETE BY ITS OWN ADMISSION.

            That is enough of a reason to demand another enquiry.

            I’m not going to answer a load of baloney questions that have nothing to do with my point.

            I try to be polite in online discussions, but your endless attempts to obfuscate and confuse are beyond defensible and ought to be stopped.

          • jaques says

            Unfortunately- the site was closely controlled- all cameras going in and out where checked/approved/confiscated. Every removal truck was tagged by GPS and closely monitored. Drivers that even stopped for lunch on route to Freshkills were sacked summarily. The steel was whisked away and melted/broken/destroyed- which of course was illegal- and contrary to standard crime scene procedures. NIST and FEMA only collected (hand picked?) very small percentages of the material for study- just a handful of beams.

            So how the hell do you know if there was ‘mushrooming’? Perhaps there was for all you know.

            and if the thermite was applied primarily to the bolted connections- and high explosives did the rest- there may have been no ‘mushrooming’ to speak of- of it’s even a thing.

            What do you say caused the beam with the perfect arc?

      • jaques says

        you scoundrel- now you say it was diesel fuel that bought down tower 7? It’s a wonder that demolition experts never use diesel fuel- they use high explosives? But you know better than NIST that concluded it was ‘ordinary office fires’? I suppose sitting at a computer with zero access to evidence, no laboratory and no credentials you know better than NIST? Just like you know better than R J Lee? Its true their explanations for the collapse of Building 7 are farcical- but yours is even more so- you just pulled it put of this air. At least NIST tried to cherry pick information, and create some fancy unverifiable computer modelling for their Big Lie. Your propaganda is a shameless joke and you are a fool or worse Carrol. You defend mass murderers- and you do it sloppily.

        There are only two options that explain your fervor, wilful ignoarance and intellectual dishonestly:

        Personal Delusions of Grandeur or paid-for Disinformation. Both are damning: as you are covering up mass murder and high treason.

      • According to NIST the fires were of office furniture and furnishings only.

        Nice try though.

  6. mathias says

    There’s the temperature steel goes molten at and there’s the temperature it goes a bit bendy at.

    • JanjoukedeHaan says

      How much energy does it take to heat 100.000 tons of steel from room temperature to be a bit bendy enough to collapse at near free fall speed?

      • jaques says

        Indeed- you could even ask: how much energy to heat a single 3 inch thick I beam sufficiently that it will bend. You have to imagine: the entire steel structure was like a giant heat sink- wicking heat from the places of high temperatures to areas of lower temperature. Imagine you wanted to uniformly heat a single I beam with an acetylene torch- and you stood at one end applying the flame. How many tanks of gas would you go through before the other end of the beam reached 800C? Now imagine 100,000 tonnes of structural steel all interconnected… then imagine a small swimming pool full of kerosene: 10 thousand gallons. Could you heat that 100,000 tonnes of steel by even 1 degree? I doubt it.

        • archie1954 says

          In truth you are being too kind to the perpetrators and their blatant coverup. you know as well as I do that such a scenario is impossible and the combination of two jetliners’ fuel is sorely deficient to destroy a steel building in such a way..

  7. I don’t believe that 19 mountain men from the hills of Pakistan via Saudi Arabia could outwit every security and intelligence agency in the US. If they actually did, it just shows me that all the money spent on these agencies is wasted. If you add up all the circumstantial evidence, you will come to the conclusion that something other than the official version of the 9/11 events occurred. Even the execution of bin Laden was unnecessary as he was unarmed when attacked by US assassins. If he had been captured instead of killed, we would have the true answers we all want about 9/11. I think his removal from the puzzle was to keep us in the dark!

    • rtj1211 says

      It is far more likely that the whole ‘bin Laden shooting’ was a media heist, with bin Laden dead from natural causes more than a decade before. How hard was it to take a scientist along to cut some hair off the dead body for DNA analysis and comparison with DNA of relatives? Too hard for the USA.

      • deschutes says

        Totally agree. The ‘bin Laden shooting’ was staged, so many ridiculous claims made by Obama, Clinton and the media. Can you imagine? After spending over 10 years and billions of dollars trying to track down bin Laden, when they finally ‘kill’ him in the Pakistani compound–they dump his body in the ocean? Instead of showing off their long sought after trophy to the world? And remember how, with every passing day in the aftermath of this ‘killing’ they kept changing the story of how it all went down? It’s worth mentioning that the US government and military refuse to reveal the names of the Navy Seals who allegedly carried out this attack to the media. How convenient. Especially if the ‘killing’ actually never took place. Also, no verification by any other country of the killing by autopsy since the body was ‘dumped at sea’. It’s all so fucking ridiculous and unbelievable.

      • deschutes says


        Evidently Rob O’Neill is the Navy seal who killed Bin Laden. He has retired from the armed forces and how is a correspondent for Fox “news”. He is now a public speaker employed by Leading Authorities, the Wiki bio above linked says. Now this really does throw a monkey wrench into the Bin Laden died in a cave a few years after 2003. Is Mr. O’Neill actually the man who killed bin Laden? Or, is this yet another conspiracy? Hmmmm…….

  8. To whom are you addressing your question? There seems to be no such image in this thread.

    • Carroll Sanders says

      Sorry Admin I was addressing GTFONWO those really bright images are nothing but highly reflective blankets over victims body’s swamping out the photo receptors in video Cameras.

      They appear as fires but are not.

  9. “In fact, to support the official myth of 9/11 these days, media must ignore almost every aspect of the crimes while promoting only the most mindless nonsense they can find.”

    In Australia, they just black it out completely. In Sydney, there was only one article published about 9/11 on the 15th anniversary but in that article http://www.smh.com.au/world/fifteen-years-after-september-11-attacks-one-aim-of-terrorism-remains-unchanged-20160909-grclc0.html, by SMH’s chief foreign correspondent, Paul McGeough, was a carefully worded sentence:

    “The audacity of 9/11 transfixed the world – years of meticulous central control and transnational planning that culminated with hijacked commercial aircraft serving as bombs that killed about 3000 people in two iconic cities, in the name of al-Qaeda.”

    McGeough obviously does not buy the official story (the vague, “transnational”, “in the name of al-Qaeda” (al-Qaeda didn’t claim responsibility)) but he obviously feels constrained in speaking the truth.

  10. Jet fuel is a form of kerosene, so if it can melt thick steel beams, designed to hold an immense amount of weight, just think of what it must be doing to all those kerosene heaters Americans have in their homes.

    They don’t know that at any moment, their kerosene heater will melt, due to all that heat, spreading the fire into their home.

    I fully expect some government agency to issue a warning to not use those kerosene heaters and to issue a recall to get them out of homes before tens of thousands of homes go up in flames this Winter!

    • deschutes says

      Carroll Sanders may correct your lay-person’s understanding of the science involving home kerosene heaters here. They often do melt according to Mr. Sanders. He says it has something to do with Monrue’s effect, carbon soot lying around the house, plastic, paper, etc.

        • JanjoukedeHaan says

          Toner, which will launch your heater skywards and leave the whole area heavily infested with iron microspheres for miles and miles.

  11. bill says

    The 16 survivors in Stairwell b must have been hugely relieved that the molten metal and fire was so selective and whizzed straight past them without even singeing their eyebrows and allowed them a subsequent cool escape route,,as well as all those property owners and people between the Towers and Roosevelt Drive where many cars were torched , who avoided all injury and damage. How fortunate that the fire jumped over whol,e acres ,only went down parts of the building and only discarded scalding dust in certain directions as first aid stations scratched their communal heads over the paucity of burn victims.Other car owners found their engines burnt out but the frontal car body relatively undamaged… What foresight too that the office administrators of TT businesses had all begun using fire resistant paper,and as for all those stubbornly cold trees,bushes and flags….. ! And all that hot dust turning folk into crispy creatures….oops whats that we see,people carrying on walking out from the area through utterly covered and what,, entirely unburnt …. that damned inconsistent selective fire again”! THE HIGH HEAT was the lie which sought to seal “the steel melted by kerosene fires “myth but has been kept on to try to justify a prioiri conclusions of cherry-picked evidence of what really happened,.What doesnt fit then becomes an anomaly and not one of those pesky facts

    • GTFONWO says

      So you are alluding to the outstanding work of Dr Judy Wood – the only one to take a truly thorough scientific approach to the TTs collapse: FIRST gather ALL the evidence, THEN cross-match to the proposed theories to see what survives falsification. The scalar weapon hypothesis AND nano-thermite demolition is what works. This, of course, requires a very high level of physics knowledge which makes it hard for 99% of people to understand, but we are greatly in her debt.

      • moriarty's Left Sock says

        Judy Wood is barely definable as a scientist. Scientists produce papers and cite sources. They quantify and theorise. They don’t do “ooh-err” roadshows where they point to pics of the WTC rubble and say “where did the towers go”, and point to fires and say “these aren’t fires”, and point to the buildings falling down and say “nothing is falling down.”

        And they don’t quote non-science shysters like Hutchison and their stop-motion vids.

        Wood and her lunacy are being promoted to discredit the truth movement

        • jaques says

          I think the plan goes like this:

          person A has doubts about 9/11
          person B pops up and tells person A”Dr Judy Woods is a genius- she know what happened: particle beams’

          if person A believe person B- they walk away with a false belief implanted int heir brains.

          when they run into person C and say “Did you know the Twin Towers were ‘dusitifed’ by a ‘particle beam’?”- person C rightly concludes that person A in mentally unhinged- and that possibyl all 9/11 ‘truthers’ are too.

          At least that’s how it’s supposed to go- I think.

          Same recipe works for ‘no planes’, ‘holograms’, ‘no jumpers’, ‘hollow towers’ and ‘mini-nukes’.

          They want you to look at anything, anything- except the likes of David Griffin, Kevin Ryan, Niels Harrit, Steven Jones or Richard Gage. And it is amazing how often you see it in action- there is talk of 9/11- – count to ten: Bingo: Up pops a Judy Wood’s acolyte or a ‘no planer’. Makes you wonder.

          • jaques says

            how I wish there was a five minute ‘edit’ spell check option here…

          • Jacques says

            Your just as bad carrol. With your ink toner nonsense, your ‘the beam was bent by the plane’ -your chimney affects. Etc.

            • It’s not necessary to have an alternative theory in order to see the flaws in the one being discussed.

            • Carroll Sanders says

              Problems in a theory do not invalidate a theory until a better one is proposed.

            • Carroll Sanders says

              Under the law, the first thing that has to happen, is for the people who request an independent investigation, to go under oath and point out why one is needed.
              Would love to get the truth movement leaders on the witness stand under oath and have them explain themselves.

            • Carroll Sanders says

              And you haven’t a clue as to how thermite works.

        • GTFONWO says

          I understand the political desire to present a united front on the mechanism of TT destruction. On the basis of all the available evidence – which is immense – I fully understand and agree with Gage, Jones etc. I also fully agree that it was an inside job, and I’m fairly clear on who the perpetraitors (sic) were. I’ve publicly said so many times; I have broad shoulders and am never discouraged by knee-jerk initial reactions, its to be expected. But it is factually incorrect to impugne Dr Wood’s scientific credentials, her CV is abundantly clear. I am saddened that there is a combative contest in the thermite and energy weapon proponents – it should be clear that BOTH were used in the destruction of the towers.
          I’d encourage readers to give Dr Wood a fair hearing. There is no need to ‘take sides’ – this is science, not football, nor party politics. Her methodology is ab initio the most scientific. As she herself says, the implications of the directed energy weapon is so shocking, so sinister, it initially provokes an unconscious rejection of the very idea. But the same was true for the initial description of the atomic bomb. “A single bomb to vaporize a whole city? Preposterous!” (And btw, if Hutchinson was a useless crank, the CIA etc would not have gone to such lengths to confiscate all his equipment and forbid him work in the field.)
          This rabbit hole goes much deeper yet. Good luck to you all.

          • Moriarty's Left Sock says

            If Judy wants to be taken seriously she needs to pursue the scientific method. Assemble the data. Formulate a hypothesis. Test the hypothesis. Publish when she has something that stands up to testing.

            If you’ve read here you know I am no proselytiser for thermite. I am not convinced about this as yet. But Harrit et al pursued the proper methodology and provided something for scientific consideration. Wood has not done this up to now and it seems likely she will not.

            Ergo, we have nothing scientific to evaluate. A sort of guess about a possible “beam” with unknown properties and unknown location using unknown energy sources to do unknown things is not anything that can be discussed scientifically.

            • Manda says

              Watch the video and buy her book of evidence. She also lodged cases against NIST… kicked into the long grass.

            • GTFONWO says

              You need to actually read Dr Wood’s work, because these statements about it are demonstrably incorrect.

              • moriarty's Left Sock says

                which statement is incorrect? Please specify.

        • Carroll Sanders says

          No woods actually believes this lunacy, she is convenienced the 1980 star wars program of Ronald Reagan was real.

      • Manda says

        I still recommend anyone with a serious interest fork out and buy Dr Judy Wood’s book. ‘Where did the towers go’. I find her work outstanding as well.

        If you look at photos you see people walking on supposedly hot debris and one photo shows a digger clasping glowing material…how are the hydraulics still functioning if the red = heat?

        ‘Hot things glow but not everything that glows is hot’.

        Dr Woods study of the evidence available is the only work that makes sense to me even as a non scientist.

  12. the fires under Ground Zero sustained themselves for 90 days at temperatures high enough to melt Steel. inspite of 1 Million Gallons of Fire Retardant Water being hosed in by the NYFD. The Only similar Fire happened at Reactor 4 at Chernobyl in the Ukraine. Towers 1 &2 collapsed after Explosive Demolition in their own footprints as though their Foundations had evaporated ; 70 ft deep foundations. Did anybody run a Geiger Counter over Ground Zero ?

    • jaques says

      I don’t know- but I imagine their are innumerable geiger counters in Manhattan? It’s pretty hard to hide radiation… I have seen no evidence that supports any type of ‘nuclear event’- but I have seen some patently absurd claims of them… The high temperatures in the pile CAN be explained by thermitic reactions: thermite provides it’s own oxygen- and the reaction can occur underwater and is virtually unstoppable.

      from what I have seen of the evidence my assumption is that very large quantities of thermite/thermate were employed in the destruction of the Twin Towers- leaving large quantities of unreacted thermite in the rubble pile- thermite that reacted over the next weeks/months. There is also evidence that high explosives were used. If there is no independent investigation with subpoena powers etc, it may be impossible to know exactly how everything was done. But the evidence for thermite is overwhelming and comes on multiple fronts: molten metal before collapse, witnesses of molten metal in the rubble/sub basements, etc, high levels of iron microspheres, voluminous white smoke, fires that burnt despite vast quantities of water and fire retardant, deformation and sulfidication of girders, etc, etc, etc.

      Don’t believe lies about ‘chimney affects’, or ‘ink toner’: I am with George Bush Jnr on this one:

      “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracies, concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty…”

      • Carroll Sanders says

        OK jaque how many tons of thermite are you talking about?

          • Carroll Sanders says

            Magnetite is Iron oxide so it is Iron and Oxygen.

            Yes Magnetite is iron rich.

    • marc says

      anthony hall, tests revealed that NO extra radiation was found. This was NOT a nuclear event.
      (Half of Manhattan would be down with radiation sickness, if it was)

    • moriarty's Left Sock says

      There was some radiation above background, but nothing to indicate a fusion/fission bomb. Tiny levels of tritium have been claimed by non-scientists to be a “proof” of a hydrogen bomb, but this is very misleading and the opposite of the truth . High levels of tritium are indeed indicative of a hydrogen bomb, but according to the studies there were no levels approaching these found in the WTC dust.

      In fact the very low levels of tritium found is a sure indicator there was no hydrogen bomb in the WTC.

    • Carroll Sanders says

      There was no carbon core reactor at the twin towers, and how about the centuries old fire in the coal mine in China?

Comments are closed.