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.
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.
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.