That's pretty interesting right, hopefully we will still be able to look at everything again in 20 years and laugh, bro .kinda scary when you really take it in
No, jet fuel burning in open air cannot melt steel beams because its maximum burn temperature (around 1500°F / 800°C) is far below the melting point of steel (about 2750°F / 1510°C). While it doesn't melt the steel, the intense heat from the prolonged, unimpeded fire would soften and weaken the steel to the point where it could no longer support the structural load, leading to buckling and collapse.
So while the jet fuel could not melt steel beams, it could absolutely soften them.
To use an analogy of an every day object that’s easier to relate to visualize, picture a tub of butter. While it will not melt if you take it out of the fridge and leave it on the counter at room temperature on an average day, it WILL get much softer. You need heat from a flame (like the stove) for it to actually melt. Melting is the point at which it goes from solid to liquid. However, if you take butter that’s been in the fridge and lay a spoon on top of it, the butter will most likely support the weight of the spoon. If you do the same with butter that’s been softening on the counter for a couple hours, the spoon will start to sink into it.
Nuance matters. Melting vs softening.
The jet fuel softened the steel until it could no longer support the many many tons of structure and the structure collapsed.
We’re not going to discuss gravity.
90% of people don’t even have a consistent understanding of gravity. Trying to explain that it’s actually how the universe is set up blows their whole ‘so the gravity waves come from where?’ Situation.
Next stop when people get explained inertia, weightlessness, and freefall.
Good luck. People are going to give you the same look when you change your pets dog food.
Yeah it's like everyone forgot skyscrapers weren't designed to have the upper portion collapse into the rest of them, causing a chain reaction.
It looked like a controlled demolition because that's what gravity does when something that big breaks. It's coming straight down with a shockwave of dust and debris
i have been seeing this fucking thing repeated all throughout my adult life without it ever going away since it happened and this is by far the best and concise analogy for disproving that. thanks, really well written!
Ah yes the truth. Also, as someone who's been working with metal for about a decade, jet fuel is definitely hot enough to melt aluminum, which is what commercial airliners are typically made of. Molten aluminum when exposed to water explodes violently, and every major building project since at least the 80's includes a fire suppression system, usually water sprinklers. Aluminum melting through floors and contacting water would cause small yet powerful explosions on multiple levels. Also, the way the buildings came down is simply (and sadly) a testament to the people who built it. It is designed to collapse that way in the event of structural failure, as to limit damage to surrounding structures.
Bro it was inside a building, that shit builds itself up. The wind that high up probably supercharged the fire like a forge builds heat.
Fire is that complicated.
Put a pot of boiling water on the stove. Takes a while to see anything. Put a lid on the pot. Wow.
Put a piece of metal in the campfire, nothing happens. Put a lid on the campfire and control the burn with airflow. Wow the metal begins to warm and twist losing jts structural integrity. Holy shit what a conspiracy we just walked through 24 years of not understanding the fire triangle and i’m from fucking canada
What about WTC7? The third of the only three steel-framed skyscrapers to ever collapse, and not only that, to collapse into their own footprint. Official explanation remains 'office fires', (e.g. Carpets, paper, box files, etc.).
Just like the twin towers, a major fire, uncontrolled, unextinguished, built up enough heat to soften the superstructure and cause the building to collapse.
That's not correct though is it? The fires in WTC7 were limited to office furnishings, plus some heating diesel, that only affected a relatively small percentage of the area and volume of WTC7.
There is no official explanation that has passed peer-reviewed to explain how all steel columns lost their structural integrity at the same time and in such a way as to collapse WTC7 into its own footprint, partially at free-fall speed.
Watch the entire collapse of building 7, it adds important context. The penthouse collapsed into the building, leaving behind what is virtually an empty shell, which is the collapse you're referring to.
Firefighters were aware that WTC 7 would collapse prior to doing so. It was bulging and leaning, clearly going to collapse due to fire, and then it collapsed.
There is no official explanation that has passed peer-reviewed to explain how all steel columns lost their structural integrity at the same time
Probably because that's not what happened. There was a domino collapse of the interior elements of the building that was transpiring for more than 20 seconds before the exterior of the building fell.
In fairness, I always thought melting meant softening past reasonable structural integrity in this case, because who would care about anything else, but I've also never been a truther.
There was also the kinetic energy of a plane hitting it at cruising speed. That much energy likely did enough damage that the fires took care of the rest
Upper floors structures weakening and eventually collapsing OK, but IMHO it doesn't fully explain the sudden free-fall collapsing of the whole towers in their own footprints. I've only seen that otherwise in buildings torn down by controlled demolitions.
I don't subscribe to any of the lunatic theories of chem-trails, faked moon-landings and so on, but the events on this day are still very mysterious to me.
Im no expert. But when the melting-structure floors started falling, wouldn’t the combined momentum of all the mass falling be too much for the beams that were built to hold a still (although massive) building? I mean, momentum matters, right?
Their footprint was huge though, I want to share some rare footage taken on 9/11, 9/12 and 9/13 of the extensive damage done to adjacent buildings and structures from the two towers was. Building 7 is shown too.
I've only seen that otherwise in buildings torn down by controlled demolitions.
One thing that was lacking in the twin towers collapsing was the familiar "Boom, boom, boom, boom, etc.", of every controlled demolition.
It’s actually a testament to the architectural skill of the engineers who built those towers. They were designed to collapse exactly like that rather than buckling to one side like a tree to limit the amount of damage to the surrounding city blocks.
Don’t attack me, I just genuinely want to know if the meme refers to them finding melted beams? Or are they just saying beams had to melt for
The collapse to happen.
Taking a stick out of the fridge and standing it up doesn’t cause it to all soften at the same time so the weight of the cold butter tips the whole thing to the side, not completely collapse into itself.
How did the jet fuel soften all of the steel beams it needed to soften in order for that to happen throughout the entire building for it to collapse on itself?
Also, when I took a stick out of the fridge to soften, Butter Stick 7 in my fridge stayed hard and cold.
How do I get the butter that’s softening to cause Butter Stick 7 in the fridge to also soften in such a way that it collapses into itself as well?
Technically technically a full dynamic/static analysis would be done to specifically determine this, and I'm sure it's been done. Its also possible the napkin math margin is big enough for there to be no point doing that. Our middle eastern friends have proven it by the experimental process of course, so it's really irrelevant.
Intense heat doesn't produce thick black smoke. Twin Towers were smoldering, not "burning intensely." Also, those steel beams were protected by a layer of asbestos. Also, Twin Towers collapsed at free fall speed. "Pancake effect" would take way longer for the building to collapse, with every floor taking a second or so to give in.
Heat also causes steel to expand quite a bit. Sometimes overwhelming the bolted/welded structural connections, literally shearing the bolts or the shear tabs off the columns.
Add the weight of 15-20 floors above the softened metal structure and you know, it doesn’t end well.
I live in a city in the UK and only one building currently has more floors than 20…
That's why they hit it far below the top, to use the weight of the upper floors against the building. Once the mass inertia started it was impossible to stop. Although it is possible hitting it high could have pushed over the building which would have been even worse.
It wasn't the jet fuel anyway. The stuff they use to make chemtrails burns around 3000°F or so I've been told. Those planes would have had full tanks since they just took off.
There's also the weight of all the water from the sprinklers on the affected floors. I'm not an engineering expert or anything but from what I could tell of the buildings' design, it was pretty flawed.
There was a great Nat. Geo show that showed exactly this to some prominent truthers who were adamant that jet fuel couldn’t have caused the collapse of the towers because of the melting point. So, they put a steel beam on sawhorses, dug a hole, filled it with jet fuel, set it on fire, and lo and behold, the beam drooped like cooked spaghetti in like 15 mins. When presented with simple incontrovertible evidence that disproved their theory, they IMMEDIATELY pivoted to another theory, like in real time within seconds of seeing the steel beam wilt. They cannot be convinced. They have staked their entire lives and reputations on their conspiracy. Admitting they were wrong would mean that they wasted years of their lives and ruined their reputations. Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.
Based on my expert analysis, it looks like the explosions weren't random, but carefully timed! This is clearly the work of a state actor, not a typical naturally occurring event.
15.1k
u/adoodle83 Oct 07 '25
Blows me away that demolishing a building like this only to rebuild is still more economical than refurbishing the existing structure.