How The Viral Moronic Jet Fuel Video Got It Wrong


So here we are almost 15 years after 9/11 and the debate over jet fuel melting steel beams persists. The recent viral video addressing the “moronic jet fuel argument” is again a moronic argument in and of itself. It fails to address numerous other factors which have been part of the debate. What this video demonstrates is that a half inch steel rod can be heated up to 1800 degrees Fahrenheit and bent. That’s it. The creators of this video appear to jump into a conversation that has gone on for more than a decade, seemingly unaware that their demonstration does nothing but attempt to newly establish facts that have long been put to bed.

The title of the video is also misleading as nothing in the video melts. The idea that jet fuel can melt steel beams and turn them into the molten metal we have all seen in videos and pictures is an obvious fabrication. I don’t believe anyone even attempts to make that claim. The fact of the matter is that steel beams in a large structure do soften and lose structural integrity. The real question up for debate is whether or not jet fuel which burns at a maximum of 1500 degrees Fahrenheit could have softened the steel sufficiently to cause global collapse and account for the other unusual anomalies. What anomalies? Well for starters the previously mentioned molten metal, most likely iron, which was found pooled beneath the three fallen towers. Jet fuel, even at 1800 degrees which was the temperature demonstrated in the video, could never has caused this.


Two of the best indicators that the temperatures in the World Trade Center were far above the temperatures of jet fuel have been aptly dubbed the Horseshoe and the Meteorite. The horseshoe is a solid steel I-beam which as been bent into a perfect half circle. Well this could have been cause by sheer force right? Well the problem is, if the horseshoe had been simply bent, there would be areas of buckling and the steel would crack. The horseshoe has been heated to temperatures high enough so as to cause the metal to disfigure without leaving a single crack or other trace of simple bending. This can only occur at temperatures well above 1500 degrees. Sure you can bend a half inch steel bar at 1500 degrees, but a six inch thick steel I-beam? Never at the temperatures demonstrated in the video and never at the temperatures reported in the NIST report of 1000 degrees centigrade or 1800 degrees Fahrenheit. Oh, they’re the same.

Next are the iron microspheres which are considered by all laboratories which have examined WTC dust, to be a signature component. If it doesn’t contain iron microspheres, it is not considered to be authentic WTC dust. Iron microspheres, regardless of the means by which they were created, are only formed in extremely high temperatures, a thousand degrees above the temperature of jet fuel. The iron microspheres are not a thing of conspiracy. The USGS or United States Geological Survey also identified these microspheres as a signature component of WTC dust. Anyone who is familiar with welding knows that iron microspheres are produced during the welding process and require temperatures in excess of 1500 degrees. Now could 1500 degree jet fuel fires cause the painted steel beams to produce iron microspheres? Sure it could, but the fires were localized and any microspheres produced by the fires would remain localized and not find their way into a signature component of all WTC dust, including building 7.

Now one of the biggest questions people ask is although jet fuel burns at 1500 degrees, were the fires actually that hot inside the world trade center? This is hotly debated. As the towers fell, people will assume that the fires must have been hot enough to weaken the steel. The problem with this assumption is that the fires in the impact zone appeared nearly burned out by the time of collapse. This was confirmed by firemen who described the floors affected by the impact as containing only small pockets of fire. This is also demonstrated in the famous photo of Edna Cintron who is caught waving from the opening made by the jet plane in WTC 1. In all videos of the two airliners impacting the twin towers, you can clearly see the large orange fireballs as the planes impact. The only conclusion that can be drawn fro this is that the majority of the jet fuel was burned off in the seconds immediately after impact. That being the case, typical office fires are found to burn at temperatures ranging from 570 degrees Fahrenheit with a high end of 1700 degrees Fahrenheit, averaging around 1100 degrees. Far below the required heat to result in the toppling of the towers.

The biggest problem with video like the moronic jet fuel argument, is that it is pure disinformation. Most of the time, people think that disinformation is only perpetrated by the government. This is not the case. The video proves that 1800 degree torches can bend a steel bar. No one can deny this, but the connection between bending a heated steel bar and the collapse of the twin towers due to jet fuel fires is a stretch and uses facts out of context. That is often the problem with the disinformation created by the general public. Debunkers fall into the same traps that many truthers fall into. They attempt to make arguments without understanding the argument in the first place. Such is the case here. While the motives of this debunker appear to be genuine in nature and well intended, we all know what paves the road to hell.


Get Your Anonymous T-Shirt / Sweatshirt / Hoodie / Tanktop, Smartphone or Tablet Cover or Mug In Our Spreadshirt Shop! Click Here



  1. I find it absolutely astonishing that ANYBODY with a sane mind can try to convince people that the buildings that fell on 9/11 was anything else other than controlled explosions. I have seen WAY too much evidence, without a shadow of doubt it WAS an inside job but for some fucking INSANE reason it appears that MOST simply can not face the TRUTH.
    JUSTICE will prevail in the end, at least that is what i hope.

    • Thats the way society works. People tend to live on cloud 9. It’s just simply easier to cope with the “fact” that terrorists did it, even though thats probably not the case

    • A telling thing happened recently. The BBC website got hacked. That got me thinking. What if the Zionist-controlled media were actually vulnerable through their websites. Come on you hackers, I want to see some carefully crafted factual articles and videos posted quietly on the major websites which can actually influence millions to our cause before they are taken down. Those who gave us ISIS are vulnerable to exposure of 9/11 as a false flag. 9/11 is vulnerable to a factual investigation of the collapse of WTC7 (amongst much else). The BBC is vulnerable to the established fact that it reported the unlikely WTC7 collapse repeatedly on live video (with it still standing in the background) an hour before it happened. The third world war is approaching fast because of the effects of false flag terror on our abused populations. If some responsible hackers were able to prevent this happening, what a triumph! Here’s hoping we see some real news of the perpetrators of 9/11, ISIS, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Paris etc. in court some time soon.

  2. I was an aircraft mechanic and there is no way an aircraft wing is going to cut through the steel beams as shown in pictures. Four airplanes crash and no parts can be identified. Towers fall and turn to dust. Good story

  3. Friction creates heat. Collapsing structures create lots of friction and pressure. The argument that fuel can’t melt steel beams is sound, but the plethora of other factors nobody seems to think of still support the not controlled theory. This argument can’t be made in intervals, it has to be taken as a whole. And as a whole, it is entirely possible through friction, stress, and heat, to have this kind of damage without controlled explosions. Let alone the fact that a high rise building like that, burning air so intensely, would create what is essentially a blast furnace on those levels as air rushes into an enclosed space to feed the fire…

    Not saying there isn’t a conspiracy here, just think it is more simple. Government knew about the incoming attack, and simply did nothing in order to vamp the nation for invasion, simple as that.

    • Yeah, engineer here. Legion is completely right with this one. All of the things seen in the WTC are characteristic of what you would expect in a real heat-based tower buckling collapse. Including all the things that “shouldn’t” be possible.

      • 2 planes, 3 buildings. No its not “plausible” 4rth hitting the pentagon. One shot down by a jet fighter who is now in a prison. (Not reported by your American government, which Norad was 109 minutes late. meaning 109 minutes before even sending a Jet. NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE after any event. Sept this one, they were “late”)
        2.3$ trillion stolen ( I mean “missing”) from the pentagon on September 10th 2001. Then one day later, the treasury was struck, destroying all documents and killing accountants and more.

        You’re are so full of shit.

        From America not caring about the Nazi regime, to creating the U.N and its headquarters being located in New York. To you guys being the most adamant in fighting “All” forms of terror apparently.

        You are stealing all the planets resource and your hours of work has increased to serve and build the Government Gods Empire which will stretch all over the planet.

        You are not their friend. You do not know Obama, Clinton and Bush.

        Trust NO ONE.

      • Engineer my ass! I guess the 2000+ architects and engineers who’ve studied this in depth are just tin foil hat kooks? You should hide in shame!!!!

        • The 2000+ architects and engineers haven’t “studied this in depth”, they merely signed a petition after being fooled by grifters and true believer tinfoil hat kooks who’s idea of “research” is watching (or making) videos on the internet. Everyone with credible and relevant expertise that has examined the collapses saw nothing suspicious.

          As for claims that steel-framed buildings have never collapsed due to fire, there has simply never been an event comparable to 9/11 before, so there is no valid comparison to make (although the collapses of the Twin Towers are comparable to each other to a point).

    • If only that were true. Physics though do not at support the uncontrolled theory. Any one who really wants to know build them to scale and try to recreate these events…

      • Physics, in fact, completely rules out controlled demolition. It is simply not possible that explosives or incendiaries were used to help bring the buildings down.

  4. Government knew about terror attack, knew it would not cause enough damage and aided in the collapse by installing large quantities of termite in the basement plus c4 in every tenth floor or so. In slow motion, Windows can be seen blowing outward every 10the floor. Large pools of molten melt in basement, stayed for weeks. Microsheres common by-product of a termite reaction. Testing of the termite residue also proved it was military grade termite, not industrial. Security pulled from ground floor few hours prior to attack, this allows time for installation.

    • and obviously nobody ever noticed the dump trucks upon dump trucks worth of thermite being delivered…. nor did they notice the maintenance man rigging every tenth floor with C4 explosives…

      You obviously have no idea how much would be required.

  5. Take the fire argument out of it,how about the eyewitness explosions From the firedepartment and witnesses,100’s of people just felt like lying So we will take that out to.(note all the same story)
    why can’t you guys just believe the corporate media? oops didn’t they say that building 7 was demolitioned?
    the fire was in the top floors how did it collapse at the bottom floors how did still get weak and down there????
    how did News broadcast it early??
    what about the lies and cover ups before and after 9/’re all a bunch of conspiracy theorists you starting to sound like Alex Jones

  6. Another factor to take into account is that the steel beans in the towers were not isolated like in the video; they were a structure which would have dissipated the heat throughout the other beams making it harder to reach the degrees needed to bend the steel.

  7. I’m afraid none of you are scientists or engineers. We used toluene, a component of jet fuel, to provide heat for our reaction that was regulated at about 1530 C, that’s 2786 F. This was in a pure O2 environment.In air, if we assume 50% excess air, the adiabatic temperature for burning toluene is 2963 F.

    Note that adiabatic is the temperature of the CO2, CO, N2 and soot after burning assuming that no heat is lost the environment. This could occur once the surface of an enclosure is heated or there is sufficient fuel (There isn’t when you’re talking about the jet fuel in an airplane compared to a large building.).

    Now, let’s consider the other side: can this temperature melt structural steel? That melting point is about 2750 F. So, in an enclosed space, with sufficient fuel, it could be possible to melt some structural steel.

    What would the devils advocate say? Not enough fuel, the structural steel was covered in a fire-resistant insulation to prevent melting and resist structural failure from being hot. These are all good arguments.

    Here’s another thought: wrong metal. It could be that puddles of softer metal could have melted. However, aluminum is flammable. Recently, there was concern in Dubai that their skyscrapers used an exterior material that was flammable.

    That’s as far as the science takes me so I’ll leave it alone for now.

    • To take the science a little farther (to the point of the blacksmith’s video), it is unquestioned that steel, when heated, loses its strength long before it starts to melt. No one thinks jet fuel is the cause of the pools of molten metal (very unlikely or impossible to have been molten steel), just that, in addition to damage and overloading, the heat from an office fire could and did cause floor trusses to sag and pull the vertical columns out of alignment until the system failed at some point triggering a chain reaction ending in the collapse.

  8. I’m a blade smith like Trenton and was on the same show as him. I hold a completely different opinion than him. I’ve even smelted my own steel. The heat required to melt that much steel is incredible. A little blacksmith’s forge can’t even melt a rod of steel. It will come close but by no means melt it. That’s under controlled conditions, with forced or Venturi air, insulated to retain as much heat as possible.

    The bent I-beam is the most telling. Rule of thumb to heat steel for bending, forging, etc.. is 5 minutes for every quarter inch of thickness, or 20 minutes per inch. That I-bean is said to be 6″ thick. That means it had to be at excess of 1500 degrees for an hour and 20 minutes to bend like that. I don’t recall the fire lasting that long.

    In order to melt the steel it needed several things:

    1. forced air or Venturi affect
    2. to be insulated or to retain the heat.
    3. time at temperature.

    1. Being that high up with the wind I believe it had plenty of air. No problem their.
    2. It needs to retain the heat to soak the steel, or only the outside layer of the steel is affected with the core is still plenty strong. I see this being a problem. I don’t see how all that heat was captured and not let out. If you got air coming in you got heat going out.
    3. The six inch beams need one hour 20 minutes to soak to bend at 1500 degrees. It needs just as long at 2300 to 2800 degrees to melt completely. To sustain that temp. it needs a constant supply of fuel and air. Air it has, but fuel is another story. Their is only so much office furniture, so much jet fuel. The fire seemed almost out when it collapsed meaning cooler temperatures.

    I just don’t see it being possible as presented. I don’t think we will ever know the truth. Maybe in another 15 years someone will find the extra things needed to melt the steel.

    • The steel did not have to melt, it just had to be heated enough to lose enough strength to fail. This might not have been very much for damaged and overloaded columns or the long span trusses supporting the floors (which are known to have been sagging due to bulges in the side of both of the Twin Towers). As I’m sure you realize, steel loses half its strength by 600C and trusses have a much smaller thermal mass than I-beams do.

      • You are correct about steel losing strength in high temperatures but this fact does not explain why three buildings fell to the ground due to global, symmetrical collapse at near free-fall speeds. It is the way the buildings failed that is important here. NIST didn’t even bother to explain it in the twin towers. They tried to offer an explanation for WTC7 but it is so lame as to be laughable (the curtain walling stayed standing until the end – lol). Even a physics teacher had to prove to them that WTC7 started its global collapse at free-fall speed. Other published papers have assumed the twin towers failed because of the pile-driver effect whereby the upper sections collapsed onto the lower ones yet a simple photographic search makes that argument redundant because there’s no falling pile driver to be seen.
        If you want poof that steel buildings stay standing in fire then you need look no further than what happened to Building 5 on that day. It was struck by debris from the falling towers and engulfed in fire for most of the day, yet it stood standing until the site was cleared some weeks later. You seem to suggest that failure is inevitable – it isn’t. Officially, WTC7 remains the only building ever to have collapsed due to fire and there have been some far worse cases in other high-rise steel structures which remain standing to this day. WTC7 wasn’t even struck by a plane and NIST themselves ruled out any structural problems due to damage inflicted by debris so there shouldn’t have been anything out of the ordinary.

          • Conspiracy buzzwords? NIST used every one of those terms in their reports. Have you read them?

            I could use the words flour, eggs, butter, cheese but I think they would be more relevant to a discussion about food.

  9. you can make thermite from aluminium mixed with iron oxide and a hot igniter. theres a lot of those tihngs in the combination of highspeed aeroplane wreckage and a steel building which is full of exploding jet fuel.

    “Although the reactants are stable at room temperature, they burn with an extremely intense exothermic reaction when they are heated to ignition temperature. The products emerge as liquids due to the high temperatures reached (up to 2500 °C with iron(III) oxide)—although the actual temperature reached depends on how quickly heat can escape to the surrounding environment. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered”


  10. I know why you wrote this whole article, but you didn’t need to. Just bring up the fact that no plane ever hit any of the towers and that zero boxes indeed do did “bring them down”.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here