Never forget 4-29

How will we ever know the truth about 4-29. I say, it was a conspiracy to undermine 9-11 truth to show that fuel from a tanker truck could actually melt steel and cause a freeway to collapse. Initial photos from the site raise lots of questions.

i-ca67fb7eff8171811ebec7c440a2a2e5-429truth.jpg

And if you visit the 9/11 truth site 9/11 blogger, they've already gathered evidence this was all a hoax and has nothing to do with the physics of combustion. Clearly, no real authority doubts that steel can't be melted by fire, and 4-29 should do nothing to change your mind about this clear fact.

Now, luckily, 4-29 truth has been created to address this latest conspiracy to discredit the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I suggest we all support them in their efforts to find out the real story from 4-29.

This article brought to you by by our sponsor, tinfoil hats unlimited.
i-3a38ecb7855955738c9e961220d56e25-1.gif

(Photo from the Fark forums)

More like this

Ever since I started Your Friday Dose of Woo (YFDoW) back in June, I had always intended that someday I wanted to expand this loving deconstruction of various forms of woo beyond just medical woo and quackery. True, having a little fun with woo that claims to treat disease or restore health is…
I've sort of alluded to it, but grant fever took over the last couple of days as the deadline approaches. Unfortunately, it happened right around the time when the GMC ruling on Andrew Wakefield came down and came down hard on him and his unethical behavior. Oh, well, as they say, it looks like I…
As hard as it is for me to believe sometimes, I've been at this blogging biz a long time--well over six years now. However, I've been engaged, in one form or another, in combatting pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and crankery online since the late 1990s. Although I try hard not to fall into the same…
Way back on May 25, 2005, I first noticed something about a certain political group blog. It was something unsavory, something vile, something pseudoscientific. It was the fetid stench of quackery, but not just any quackery. It was anti-vaccine quackery, and the blog was Arianna Huffington's…

That 4-29 site is a spoof right? Right?

Please tell me it's a spoof.

Although when I first saw those pictures of the freeway collapsed because of the fire, the first thing I though of was - proof that steel CAN melt in a fire. ;-)

First, welcome to Scienceblogs!

Now, oh gwacks, my brain hurts--that "4-29" site has got to be some kind of a joke? Geesh...

B.t.w., am I the only one who is finding all these 10-code-like shorthands for various incidents (4-29, 7-7, 9-11, 18-36 (Ok, Ok, I made that one up!)) utterly confusing? Doublely so in this case since, living in France, I hadn't even heard of this one until I saw this article.

This made my day. Dog, those 9-11 "truth" fruitcakes annoy me.

By Craig Pennington (not verified) on 01 May 2007 #permalink

My head hurts.

In any case, if steel cannot be melted by fire, then how did we get steel in the first place? Aren't kilns just big, hot, contained fires? Oh, but perhaps they use a different sort of fire. Yes, that must be it...

Oops... make that 'smelters' instead of 'kilns'.

I am encouraged and entertained by the fact a number of commenters have questioned if this (4-29) is a parody site. The simple fact that it is questioned is a hoot and says a lot about our ability to entertain ourselves.

As it is written in the holy book of Fark, so shall it be.

Um, a fair bit happens to steel before it gets hot enough to melt: Thermal expansion, distortion from uneven thermal expansion, softening, perhaps ductile flow... . Do we know the steel actually melted? I'm not claiming that's impossible; per Ray's point hydrocarbon/air fires can obviously get hot enough to melt steel (and to create it in the first place).

I've read the NIST reports, and creep and thermal expansion were factors in their model of the collapse, but melting steel was not.

By Andrew Wade (not verified) on 02 May 2007 #permalink

Andrew Wade wrote:

Um, a fair bit happens to steel before
it gets hot enough to melt: ...

I'm sorry I can't give you a cite for this, Andrew -- but a
friend of the family who is a metallurgist told me that at
those sorts of temperatures, there is a phase change in the
most common sorts of steels, to phases that simply don't
have the same tensile strength -- even while solid, steel
at high temperatures becomes a much weaker alloy. Or so I
was told -- I have no idea if it is true, but if it is then
it would account for what we all saw on the TV that day.

I have no idea if it is true, ...

I couldn't tell you; metallurgy is not my strong suite. But when (9/11) conspiracy theorists contradict what I know in my areas of expertise (physics mostly), I find it reasonable to assume that cluelessness extends to other areas as well. And really, expertise is hardly required to debunk many of the claims of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

By Andrew Wade (not verified) on 03 May 2007 #permalink

The Chinese fortune photo suggests me that this 4/29 site must be a joke. Stupidity among denialists and cranks is always rising and they always surprises us, but a Chinese fortune is too much. Please, tell me it is too much.

By Martín Pereyra (not verified) on 03 May 2007 #permalink

The temperature of the fires on 9/11 was not high enough to melt steel. However, the structural strength of steel beams decreases rapidly with heat, long before the steel melts. This is what caused the collapse of the towers, and (I imagine) the collapse of the overpass.

By Walter Mitty (not verified) on 04 May 2007 #permalink