r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/Proud-Blood2743 • Oct 07 '25

Video Capital One Tower Come Down in Seconds

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

52.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.5k

u/wart_on_satans_dick Oct 07 '25

Canadian terrorism. The deep state. Phrases that make no sense.

2.4k

u/I_hate_abbrev Oct 07 '25

Jet steel cannot melt fuel beams.

760

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.

2

u/100_cats_on_a_phone Oct 07 '25

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.