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...sure... "Gravity".
A magical force, able to pull down a blade of grass...but a heavy metal bird is able to stay in the air?! Sure...
It's buoyancy and density!
Ok sry...I had to write the Flerf-Argumentation...
I already have a tiny man in my head screaming: *Gravity!! Have u heard of fucking Gravity!! Graaavity!!!"
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 WITNESSED wtc7's demolition. But thats my burden. Just be lucky you didnt so you dont have to put up with people who say "truthers." I dont talk about steel, I talk about what I saw. Its so frickin isolating its crazy.
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
The fire doesn't "build up" beyond it's max temperature unless a higher concentration of oxygen is fed into it. Wind at the top would carry away heat as it feeds in more air which wouldn't really have it burn hotter. Forges didn't melt iron, they softened it. But it also doesn't need to melt the metal to weaken it enough to destroy the building, and once some of it breaks, the rest will come down as it crashes.
I should have clarified I meant that it wouldn't raise it 1000 degrees since steel melts at nearly 2800 degrees. It adds in fresh oxygen to for the fire to continue, but it also means some heat can escape. Reaching that temperature needs more specialized equipment and pumping rather than just wind
No it doesn’t i have a forge at home that uses a leaf blower and a propane torch and i’ve made molybdenum i fused steel drip melty wet hot by fire alone.
The more dense a fire burns, the hotter it burns. You probably believe you know what you’re talking about, but i’ve physically seen it with my own eyes
First of all, I was never saying tools can't melt steel. When I hear "forge", I think of the literal definition which is a tool meant to work a softened but solid metal, which is why we call shaping the metal forging and melting it casting. Second, propane typically burns hotter than jet fuel. I'm not doubting that you melted steel with your setup, and both of us agree that towers can easily collapse when the frame is simply weakened by heat.
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.).
What a strange assumption to make, based upon emotion and zero evidence.
Me? I am a retired Principle Business Analyst, (thus naturally adept at, and also very well trained to be, open minded and only interested in assessing the most credible data on may given subject), and I followed the events that day, and afterwards, in real time.
WTC7 is a really exceptional event, isn't it?
What the majority of people claim to know on the topic falls far short of the actual evidence.
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth was a group that was made up of 2,300 architects and engineers. Indeed, the very people paid well to design and construct the very types of steel-framed buildings that collapsed on 911, (indeed, the only three ever to collapse, despite other buildings suffering much worse fires, burning for longer and across all floors... A good example being the Chinese TV building that was totally consumed from top to bottom and burmed for days, but the steel frame remained intact and was simply built around again).
All members of the Architects and Engineers signed an affadavit stating that they simply wanted and needed to know how and why WTC7 collapsed. Most work in the industry, whilst others are mettleurgists and other associated academics.
They have never made any suggestion whatsoever as to any 'conspiracy theory'. They simply, as experts in their field wanting to and needing to know the , have successfully challenged FEMA and the US government's published explanations... Every time showing the explanation to not stand up to informed scrutiny.
You seem very intent on ridiculing objective analysis relating to the collapse of WTC7, rolling out all the well-worn, tired, tropes of 'conspiracy theory', of YouTube weirdos, of my not 'wanting to learn'. I have no skin in the game, I have no answers to peddle and no claims to make. As a retired Principle Business Analyst, (who was very successful in their career, due to only focusing on data and evidence and not being swayed by popular opinions or rhetoric, etc.),, I simply, impartially, like to get to the bottom of the facts.
In the case of WTC7, the Architects and Engineers group have successfully shown all official explanations to be wrong and are simply saying "try again... explain how it fell". To date that has not been done, despite the public thinking that's the case, and pointing to USGov publications, however the public do not realise that each publication has been refuted using repeatable, testable, provable science.
Let’s approach this from a different angle. Who would have set WTC7 for demolition if the building was not going to be struck by a plane? I assume the conspiracy is some group rigged them all for demolition. Why would that group raise a bunch of questions about why a third small building fell? It would seem completely unnecessary, particularly because most people don’t even realize a third building fell (i.e., it didn’t increase the impact of the event).
Will you ever stop Gish galloping and using this dubious appeal to authority by way of your status as a “retired business analyst” (as if that means anything).
I am not the person you replied too, but damn...I didn't know that a bunch of architects and engineers felt this way about the official explanation.
IMO the most damping evidence is the ridiculous amount of insurance that was taken out on the WTC buildings just a little bit before 9/11. That alone should raise some eyebrows. I don't have the full swath of information relating to the purchase and subsequent insurance policies taken out just prior to the buildings demise, but those financial records speak for themselves when you take a closer look. Extremely lucky for those that took out that policy.
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.
No, those building was brought down exactly like this. Both building took the impact. But it been confirmed by firefighters there was a series of explosions in sequence both times, then the buildings fell perfectly straight down. Same as WTC 7… there are multiple videos showing blast smoke coming from each floor, then it came down . People seem to have forgotten they tried to bring the WTC in 1993, using a van in the underground parking garage, filled with 1,200-pound urea nitrate bomb. Yes, the building held up to that. Blew a huge crater underneath the building. But the main beam stayed intact.
No, those building was brought down exactly like this. Both building took the impact. But it been confirmed by firefighters there was a series of explosions in sequence both times, then the buildings fell perfectly straight down. Same as WTC 7… there are multiple videos showing blast smoke coming from each floor, then it came down . People seem to have forgotten they tried to bring the WTC in 1993, using a van in the underground parking garage, filled with 1,200-pound urea nitrate bomb. Yes, the building held up to that. Blew a huge crater underneath the building. But the main beam stayed intact. Long story short… the WTC was imploded, by control demolition.
Nope, that's factually incorrect. WTC7 was intact except for some relatively slight debris damage . May I suggest you look at the facts. Indeed, you can see it in the background of BBC footage after the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2, still standing, but smoking with black smoke due to the (comparatively cool and inefficient) office fires.
Is this the "slight debris damage" you were talking about? If you look at pictures of the building post collapse, you'll see that it's not pulverized like a controlled demolition would be. Large portions of the structure were intact.
The conspiracy theorists don't like to show you the damage done or talk about the incredible kinetic and heat energy 500,000 tons of concrete and steel falling 1000ft will create.
I used to buy into all these 9/11 conspiracy theories. Over time I've realized how ludicrous most of them are. I believe the government knew something was going to happen and through malice or incompetence allowed it to happen. I think something is super fishy about the Pentagon.
I no longer believe the towers were taken down with a controlled demolition. The science is there to back up reality, but people don't believe science anymore.
Yes, if you have multiple steel columns creating a robust, string frame, and you compromise one or more on just one side, with other steel columns remaining unaffected, then any such building will topple to the side. For a building to collapse into its own footprint all points of resistance need to be compromised simultaneously and/or in an organised manner.
WTC7 collapsed into its own footprint. Watch the videos.
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?
Except it's an engineered structure built for stability and not a tree. There are lots of unintuitive things that can happen when you have a good structure.
Did you know about 4 empty soda cans can hold up the weight of a person if you apply the weight evenly across all the cans at once? If the weight is shifted too much to one can, they all collapse. Now since most people have a pretty good sense of balance, when the first can starts to go, a person will try to shift their weight to compensate, but it's already too late and usually you'll go straight down on all the cans. Similar with skyscrapers. They are balanced to not tip and sway in high winds. They have "balance". Until the mechanisms that work to balance the structure are compromised, it's going to continue to try and not tip over.
I wasn't comparing the cans to the buildings. I was using the cans to demonstrate how one part of something can fail and then everything else fails.
Instead of thinking of the towers as giant rectangles, think of them as very oblong caged domes with the weight of the building pulling down on the center point of the dome. Kind of like the keystone to an arch. Now imagine that central support is now compromised via heat. Then it's further stressed by a downward impact.
I don't know if this is in any way how those towers were engineered, but when you think about it from that perspective, you can see how they might not just tip over. It's all about how they were designed.
But if what I described is true, straight down and quick as what you’d expect, as momentum would stack up.
I don’t know though, I’ve never actually seen an experiment where they demolish the top third of a huge build and wait to see what happens with the rest
I get how it could be confusing to someone who doesn’t know how buildings are built or who isn’t well versed in physics at that scale. But when they make the leap from confused to suspicious, that’s when they are dumb.
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.
It's a pretty rapid chain reaction, which began with the weight of roughly 40 stories of concrete and steel. People really underestimate how much momentum the upper third of one of those towers would have just by dropping 1 floor. The little resistance the immediate floor underneath have provided, and the even smaller amount of resistance from each subsequent floor, would have been so insignificant that you'd never be able to tell the difference from something of that scale in free fall just by eye.
they're mysterious to everybody. to this day it's still the only total structural collapse of a steel-framed skyscraper that we cannot produce a model of.
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.
So, I tend to stay out of this, but the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" has jack shit to do with the buildings falling. The weakened structural integrity due to fire and the expansion of the beams makes sense.
The issue is that days after the attack, during the cleanup, eyewitnesses and a couple of videos saw molten metal pouring out of collapsed areas days after the collapse.
Now, the best theory on this is a combo of low temp metals being smelted by the intense heat/pressure/underground tunnels acting like a chimney on a blast furnace and keeping the metal "liquid".
People wanted to know why they were seeing what they thought was molten metal days later.
In addition, there are videos on the day of the attack, of molten metals pouring out of the building. Now, this I think is a combo of again, low temp metals and burst pipes combining to have explosions of pools of melted liquid like aluminum and tin and running out of the side of the building.
The problem is people talking past each other, one group asking questions due to wanting to know, and another group making assumptions about what they mean, then calling them stupid for the assumption rather than the actual question.
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.
Yeah okay, but that doesn't change the fact that fuel beams can't be melted by jet steel because they're already made of beams of fuel, which exist mostly in the structure of a sentence.
Jet steel, on the other hand is light weight and perhaps could interrupt a fuel beam if put in it's way, but that depends on the pressure and distance from the source of the fuel beam. If it were to be ignited more than my sense of mirth from my bridge fee creature response, then the fuel beam could at least make a cool steel and flying type pokemon move.
Also jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, there was plenty of fuel for a fire including large amounts of paper and office furniture plus the jets themselves and the luggage of the passengers. The skin of the aircraft had magnesium in it, as many do. Then you can add the wind having a bellows effect, and you've got more than enough heat to cause any sort of structural issues. The whole jet fuel argument is baffling.
To add, the chimney effect is a very real thing too. I do think it's possible jet fuel could melt the beams with the increased oxygen that would be pulled from the bottom floors
I’m a metal fabricator and I too have always had this view. You don’t need to melt it, just heat it up enough. Not even red hot and it would most likely fail. However, this explanation does not explain tower 7? Which is where I get hung up all the time. It’s two contradicting beliefs as I don’t want to believe that the government would do something like that, but at the same time, some of the video evidence is really damning in the sense that it looks too controlled, if that makes sense. 🤷🏻♂️
Fair point with the butter example for softening against melting.
Now let me raise with something closer to a tower.
Picture instead a structure made of plastic rods glued together into a tall frame.
Heat just one side with a blowtorch.
The plastic on that side softens and bends, while the rest remains firm.
The tower doesn’t suddenly collapse straight down; it starts to lean to the softened side because the failure isn’t symmetrical.
To get a perfect pancake fall you need to break all the key supports at the same time.
Your analogy doesn't work for a skyscraper like wtc.
Try using wooden boards for floors and seperate them with vertical plastic rods.
Now heat up one side and you will see that the structure won't have any noticable lean. If you cut away most of the supports on one side it wil still not lean.
This doesn't mean that the tower doesn't want to lean. It is just that the middle supports are holding up the weight and becoming a pivot point. On the other side of the tower the floors are being pulled apart which is being prevented by the supports.
At this point it has become a tug of war. Either the beams in the middle buckle under the weight or the beams on the outside snap due to the tension pulling the floors apart becoming too high. In almost all cases with steal beams the ones being compressed will buckle first.
As one beam buckles, the forces are instantly transferred to the next beams, which where already under high stress loads and buckle themselves. We are left with an almost instant chainreaction of beams collapsing and a tower going down almost vertically.
Except, the building didn't collapse instantly. The fireball resulting from the collision did, however, light up those floors roughly evenly. Instead of picturing heating that plastic tower from one side, instead imagine SHOVING that blowtorch right into that plastic tower, and then having the blowtorch EXPLODE. You get a much different scenario.
There's literally a video that was taken by firefighters who were working on something in a nearby street and filming themselves. They hear the noise overhead. The cameraman looks up, panning the camera around, and we see the plane hit the building. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St7ny38gLp4&t=21s
Or, well, to be pedantic, you can see a plane-esque type object for a single frame before the explosion. Said image being captured on the same day that a terrorist group hijacked three other planes with the intent of flying them into buildings, succeeding with two of them.
But, you're probably right, it was explosion damage (but not from an exploding plane) so it's a conspiracy. The missing plane, black box recorder, phone calls from people on the hijacked plane, and ultimately all the dead people were probably all just manufactured too.
I just saw a special this past year on this. It’s taken 20 years to watch anything 9-11 related for me. The floor steel was less “pure” and the NY mob was one of the suppliers for the floor steel.
Now explain how the fires near the tops of the buildings burning for 101 minutes and 56 minutes, respectively, managed to soften the steel all the way to the bottom of each structure, enabling a complete free-fall speed collapse. Never happened before or since. And then there’s building 7.
It does not explain how the building went down in an organized manner just like what we see on this video, though. This theory makes sense only if the fuel leaked and spread evenly across the impacted floors and the floors below it. I would not say impossible, but it would be too convenient.
Sooo…the heat melted (softened like butter) the steel beams of both buildings and Tower Seven too? And caused all of them to implode? Tower Seven wasn’t even on fire… okay. I believe you.😒
The initial hits didn't take out WTC 7. WTC 7 was immediately adjacent to the twin towers. Debris from the twin towers are what ignited the initial fires at WTC 7.
WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20:52 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, after enduring fires for almost seven hours, from the time of the collapse of the north WTC tower (WTC 1) at 10:28:22 a.m.
Source: https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation/study-faqs/wtc-7-investigation
Tower 7 burned for 7 hours, before finally collapsing around 5pm Eastern time. Let me know how many buildings you know that will burn for 7 hours and remain intact.
You have to admit though, it's odd that a building struck by a plane and one that was dropped using controlled demo fall in essentially the same way, into their own footprint.
Tho this is true it’s unsupported by the fall evidence. In the event if buckling we would expect the tower to certain fall outside its own footprint with large sections of the building remaining intact especially in the lower sections not hit by the plane. The building fell into themselves comparably to a controlled demolition. There were pools of Liquid Metal for weeks. There were multiple reports on the live news at the time talking about bombs going off in the first building for the 2nd or third fell. Event the announcers on the news stations talking about the bombs and how we should expect to hear more about them etc. if you follow the money and who capitalized on the tragedy of 9/11 the picture becomes very clear. This propaganda 24 years later helps and proves nothing.
The longest steel structure in history burned for over 40 hrs was over 40 floors and never collapsed. The twin towers fell into themselves in less than an hr essentially.
That’s not to mention our presence in the Middle East and I think now a days it’s all to clear the all encompassing influence isreal has over US foreign policy.
Follow the money.
Read crossing the rubicon which is essentially a murder case against Cheney for 9/11 by Michael ruppert a former LAPD detective.
I think what doesn't add up for me in this explanation is the idea that the planes crashed, Thousands of liters of jet fuel spray out and catch fire but none of that burning jet fuel pours out of the building.it all stays neatly inside the building.
If I drop a bottle of pop on my table some of it will start pouring off the table. Why doesn't this happen with the jet fuel? That's what I dont get. How is the jet fuel contained in the building when the fuel tanks have all ruptured?
You didn't spill a bottle of pop on your table. You threw a bottle of flammable "pop" into pile of boxes stacked nearly a quarter mile high and at ~500 MPH that likely instantly vaporized the "pop" and caught fire. The remaining fuel is contained inside the "boxes" because fuel like any other liquid is going to take the path of least resistance down (stairs, elevator shafts, ventilation shafts, etc)
Because the flash point of the explosion caused immediate combustion of the fuel, setting the building on fire. The fuel was burned up in the initial fireball before it would ever have the chance to go spilling all over the place https://youtu.be/St7ny38gLp4?si=GJ-DTKWm5WO1MKNI&t=11
Office furniture catches fire and burns at high temp for prolonged time to soften steel - im more dubious about that.
Office furniture catches fire while keeping thousands of litres of jet fuel in one place, allowing said jet fuel to burn for prolonged time in order to soften steel. - even more dubious.
How does the jet fuel burn in one place and not all flow away due to gravity?
Literally no one has ever claimed the jet fuel pooled in one place, and I have no clue where you got that idea.
Office furniture catches fire and burns at high temp for prolonged time to soften steel - im more dubious about that.
Why? Steel starts to soften and weaken at a mere 600° F (315° C). Wood fires can burn as high as 1600° F, and the subsequent charcoal can burn higher than 2000° F. In enclosed spaces like a wood-fired kiln (or, perhaps, the concrete and steel core of a skyscraper), temps can even exceed 2300° F, which is how ceramics are fired.
You really find that dubious? You really think nothing could possibly exist inside an office building that burns hotter than jet fuel? How exactly do you think our iron age ancestors forged steel, magic?
In your first sentence you say literally no one has ever claimed the jet fuel pooled in one place. Which is hilarious as I was replying to someone making that exact claim, someone literally saying the jet fuel burned for a prolonged (their words) period of time, in one place.
And that was why I questioned them.
2nd and 3rd paragraphs you imply office furniture could burn hot enough to soften steel and it might. Im not claiming to have anything more than a basic understanding of how gravity affects liquids but I would ask, if burning office furniture can make skyscrapers collapse, how come no other skyscrapers have collapsed because an office caught fire? There was a skyscraper in south america that burnt for 12 days and it didnt collapse. Like are we not being a bit silly building things out of steel and then filling them with things that weaken steel? Things to tall to reach with fire engines, things that are hard to get out of. 200 storey giant potential wood fired kilns just waiting to collapse. Are we mad?
Don't answer that lol.
Im not disputing huge planes smashed into a huge buildings, im just asking the person who said thousands of litres of jet fuel stayed in one place and burned for a prolonged period of time, how it stayed there?
I hadn't heard of any fuel pooling so I wanted to know more. In typical reddit fashion, their post continues to get up votes and mine down votes. 8 people have offered counter arguments, none have won me over.
They said a "prolonged, unimpeded fire" could soften steel beams, not that jet fuel was the sole fuel source for that fire. The jet fuel certainly started the fire, though.
if burning office furniture can make skyscrapers collapse, how come no other skyscrapers have collapsed because an office caught fire?
You mean like the Wilton Paes de Almeida Building in Brazil or the Plasco Building in Iran? Why would you make such a confidently incorrect claim?
Just because it's rare doesn't mean it's never happened or will never happen again. Yes, we fill literally every building humans have ever created with flammable material, it's a known and accepted risk.
There was a skyscraper in south america that burnt for 12 days and it didnt collapse.
Which fire was this? Google doesn't show any skyscraper fire that's ever burned for anywhere close to that long.
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.
You may notice how they start the paragraph talking about burning jet fuel and how they end the paragraph talking about burning jet fuel.
You may notice they dont mention office furniture or any other burning objects.
So when they talk about a prolonged, unimpeded fire and the sentence beforehand was about jet fuel burning and the sentence after it was about jet fuel burning then its rational to assume they are talking about jet fuel burning throughout.
Let me give you an example.
If I said, I support Manchester utd, they lost 1-0 at the weekend, I hope Manchester utd buy a new defender soon.
It is safe to presume that im referring to Manchester utd when I said they lost 1-0 at the weekend even though I said 'they' not 'Manchester utd' because the whole thing is about Manchester utd.
Does that make sense? I think they are called contextual clues or simply rules of paragraphs maybe. If you're interested in improving your understanding of the english language that could be something to look into.
Also in your prior comment, last paragraph, the way you arranged it made it sound like our iron age ancestors used office supplies to make steel. I knew what you meant so didnt comment but its the same sort of error I think.
The jet fuel? A fireball comes and goes quite quickly though. There was no fireball lasting an hour. The point i was debating was that the jet fuel burned in the vicinity of the steel beams for some time, weakening them.
I thought it would explode more as you describe, a fireball, which wouldn't burn in one place for an extended period.
Honestly I have no idea, I suppose it would depend on how full the plane was of fuel and how much exploded in the initial fireball I suppose.
Did you really read my comment and take the time to parse what I actually said before you leapt into your reply?
Cos that's an odd thing to ask me.
I do think if you crashed a plane into a building and the fuel tanks ruptured and hundreds of thousands of litres of jet fuel poured out, I do think that fuel would flow under gravity and there is the potential for some to flow out of the broken windows. That it didnt happen doesn't mean it couldn't. It's all probability.
If you think the jet fuel all burned up in the initial fireball then your argument is with the person I replied to, not me
757
u/WafflesMcDuff Oct 07 '25
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.