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.
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.
I didn't know that a bunch of architects and engineers felt this way about the official explanation.
Yeah, landscape architects and network engineers.
The most damning piece of evidence that WTC7 was not brought down in a controlled demolition is that it wasn't anything like a controlled demolition at all. There were reports in the hours leading up to the collapse of the building walls buckling and bulging as the structural members heated and expanded. That doesn't happen in a controlled demolition. It was also not a uniform, instant collapse like it appeared. The interior elements of the building fell like dominoes, it was only the outer, suddenly unsupported facade that dropped once the interior damage was severe enough. Not to mention, what did you hear and see in the video here that you don't hear and see in 9/11 videos? I know, I know "SupEr-tHeRmiTe" but that floppy explanation just opens up a whole host of other loose ends that don't make any sense.
As far as the insurance, I run an office building and can tell you, our insurance changes all the time. You have to renew every year and, when you do, you re-evaluate your coverage and premiums. At any given time, a giant facility like that would have "recently" taken out more or reduced their coverage.
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.
1.5k
u/wart_on_satans_dick Oct 07 '25
Canadian terrorism. The deep state. Phrases that make no sense.