oh please

Hahahaha! What was he trying to prove? What? What was he trying to prove?

I bet his pinkie is stronger than my arm .

That you don't have to melt steel to compromise its structural integrity.

I wish he would have flatly stated that. For what it's worth my comment has no leaning toward the politics of this. I wasn't able to follow exactly what argument he was building (even though it's obvious to us, I still watch these analytically to view them from others' perspectives), but that he 'drops the mic' at the end didn't help.

I really wish he hadn't heated it to 1800 degrees.

I can just picture the truther morons saying "aha! so the government added something to the jet fuel to make it burn hotter!"

Why not just heat it to 1500 and show what happens then (i.e. not quite as malleable, but still more than enough to bend under... oh, I dunno, about 45000 tonnes of tower sitting on top of it)?

they're so hung up on the word melt that they ignore anything else.

Yes, it doesn't melt the steel, but it makes it so weak that it collapses.

..HA! so it doesn't melt, so the conspiracy must be true!!

Yeh I anticipated the same stupid counter argument when he said it was 300 degrees over!

Best I've seen on the comments to that vid was someone suggesting that the molten metal seen dripping in some 9/11 vids could not have been aluminium because "Molten Aluminium is silver".

Derp!

I was disappointed that he didn't use his forge to prove how a blast furnace takes a fuel that burns at one temperature and with forced air added, raises that temperature significantly. He easily could have rigged his furnace to work on jet fuel, then just put a thermometer in it and showed them it goes to 2500deg.
That said, he still should have kept the temperature to 1500, since that's the temperature he was debunking, then done a second explanation to 'prove' that it doesn't matter that they're wrong about 1500 being too cool (even though it still bends at that temp), because the 1500 deg limit is a pure fantasy and fallacy from people who don't understand fire.

I am not an expert in these matters but (all comments should start like this right?) if the truthers fail to see the difference between plasticity and melting, they have a very weak argument.

This article in the Journal of Metals is one of the best I've seen for clear explanation of what caused the WTC collapses.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

It points out that the weaking of steel from heat was insufficient in itself to cause the collapse but combined with the distortion of structural members due to uneven heating and expansion and the weight of material above the impact sites was the main cause. The weight of the portion of the north tower above the impact site was about 50000T and the south was about 150000T, which explains why the south collapsed so much sooner after impact.

Hope his floor is fire proof.

*debunked, *fire

Adding video to channels (Debunked, Fire) - requested by Zawash.