I made this comment to a post earlier today, but I thought it was worth its own post. I can't believe I had never looked this up before. Am I missing something? A jet engine is OPTIMIZED to burn jet fuel the most efficiently possible. Jet fuel burning in a building fire is NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO REACH THAT TEMPERATURE! (and even that would not melt steel!) This discrepancy, if as simple as it appears to be, should have been broadcast loud and far long ago. Perhaps this simple fact, if indeed as simple as it seems to be, so clearly indicates the official 9/11 narrative absolutely can't be true, is the reason it seems to have been buried all these years. Please correct me if this is not as simple as it seems.
Comments (103)
sorted by:
This has been the Architects for 911 Truths argument from the get go. Nobody cares. That's the whole problem. The vast herds of sheep do not care.
Maybe they will by the time the next 3.75 years ends :)
Hope so more than anything!
I'd like to see that too. For the deep state to hold onto power, 9/11 is one of those Big Lies that they must keep the public under a sleeping spell. They'll have a very hard time surviving if the public wakes up, in full, to having been had.
Glad to hear you had an aha moment about jet fuel, burn temperatures, and steel. But it's actually a lesser point. In the lectures of architect and 9/11 truther Richard Gage it doesn't even make his top 10 list of smoking gun evidence. What makes the top 10 is interlocking facts pointing exclusively to incendiaries, explosives, and the physics of controlled demolition.
Richard Gage was interviewed yesterday on the Jimmy Dore show, along with Kamal Obeid, a structural engineer representing the organization AE911Truth. They run through (an abbreviated version of) the compelling evidence for controlled demolitions. The Official 9/11 Story is Collapsing! w/ Richard Gage & Kamal Obeid
In case you wonder, the false narrative version of how the Twin Towers collapsed is called the crush-down theory, and originated with Zdenek Bazant of Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois. His theory was published on - get this - September 14 2001, a feat even more ridiculous than George W Bush knowing right out of the gate that Osama bin Laden was the culprit.
Looks like your comment and my pdf link are over the target for someone.
Ok, I'll play devil's advocate. The official narrative is that the jet fuel fire "softened" the steel, leading to collapse, which then could supposedly result in the steel beams fracturing? from the sudden force of the collapsing building? (the more you think about it, the more ridiculous it becomes :) )
another thing to think about...even IF the temperature was hot enough to melt steel (which it was not), disbursement of the heat going floor by floor will drop the temp drastically. Then if the steel was heated to the conversion point (solid to melting temp) it becomes pliable not brittle... the official narrative is BS has always been BS and the buildings would NOT have collapsed like they did. This was a controlled demolition.
Discussion of jet fuel as a cause is sillier,still, with building 7 in the equation.
"Myth Busters" once had a discussion board.
I asked the question "Can naturally aspirated burning kerosene melt steel?"
Wanna know what their answer was?
They shut down the message board. Made my day.
Burning kerosene melted steel turbine blades in the early turbojet engines. "Naturally aspirated" means lots of air dilution of the burning gases. When you have LOTS of kerosene burning in a closed environment, you have essentially a stove, which creates a combustion environment that is always hotter than a "naturally aspirated" environment (campfire vs. fireplace). There was also melted aluminum, which engendered aluminum vapor, which burns at a far hotter temperature.
Your building "blast furnace" would draft upwards.
The lower floors were probably cooled by incoming air
It didn't soften the steel to make it brittle.
If you get steel hot enough but not white hot, it gets bendable easily, like you see in a blacksmith forge, red hot so you can bend it like rubber.
It doesn't fracture when hot.
But thermite was used, with pre planted bombs and other things to make sure the towers collapsed.
Lucky old boy needed his insurance claims for those asbestos ridden towers...
OK
You would think the building would bend over instead of collapsing straight down.
Bend doesn't mean it turns into jello.
Have you never seen how metal becomes when a blacksmith is working it?
Have you never seen cherry red metal before?
Not that its all that relevant since Israel and Bush and crew demolished the towers, but still... Metal when heated gets pliable, but isn't fucking jello
Yes
I do welding with a little bit of blacksmithing techniques.
(I've actually had a coal fired forge)
I think we are agreeing ----- the failure is not consistent with a slow loss of steel strength --- if that temperature could have been achieved. One tower was starting to lean over ---- OK, that looks like soft steel ------ THEN, suddenly, everything below it started to crumble in free-fall. Those few seconds stuck out like a sore thumb.
For the floors where there was no fire, it was unlikely the columns had the mechanical freedom to buckle, so they failed in compressive shear, which results in fractures at 45 degrees to the axis of the column. And there is no particular reason why a weakened column would take its time to buckle, when a load failure would be immediate.
Thermite is a supposition because no one has any other explanation for the presence of aluminum oxide ash. The fact that this is the combustion product of aluminum vapor is not considered.
There is also the visible molten metal dripping down, seen in photos of the tower upright, and from the rubble, and firemen themselves saying how the heat was so Intense there was molten metal even days later, at the center of the rubble pile.
Firemen's videos are still out there for you to watch.
There was far more to the towers collapsing than just an airliner and it's fuel burning
If the molten metal was aluminum, that's all it would have taken. There is nothing about thermite that causes iron to remain molten for a long period of time. It is commonly used to weld railroad rails, and the resulting melt hardens up pretty fast.
I keep pointing out that no one considers that conditions were available for the airplane ALUMINUM to burn. And that is one hot fire. It is the active ingredient of thermite.
I like how the building spontaneously self-assembled into an optimum jet engine
Your first error in your advocating is to assume that the steel in those buildings (beams; and especially bolts) were properly manufactured according to specifications. Fraud exists everywhere, and those shiny "steel" products we all see, and buy, are not immune from being cheap fakes. Fake steel building materials have been around for decades.
That little topic is one that Big Brother doesn't like the proles knowing about.
I think that's why there is a range in steel melting temperatures, with the lower number probably associated with lower quality steel. My main point in this post is that any consideration of melting steel is not relevant. Softening may be relevant, but softening should have caused some kind of unequal failure of the buildings, not pancake collapse, especially bldg 7. Bldg 7 is the mistake they made; they should have held off on that one, because it reveals the pre-planned explosives installation, and therefore, fore-knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, which means likelyhood of pre-installed explosives in the twin towers as well.
These are all primarily iron based --- their melting temperatures are all in the same ballpark. Stainless Steel actually melts at a lower temperature than low carbon steel.
I absolutely agree.
Your theory, although plausible is near impossible in being probable. Sure fraud exists. But in the construction of a high rise like the WTC there are many layers of checks and balances that ensure the design of the structure is met. Many codes of construction are in place that drive the requirements of the material like IBC, AISC and AWS just a few for example. Also including multiple independent inspector and engineering verifications. I've performed 1000s of structural steel building Inspections and the inspector of record and structural inspector would not accept or be able to approve continuance of work due to the process involved that meets the code requirements for the materials.. they are physically tested and witnessed.. yeah the whole crew from contractor to sub contractors to design and structural engineers could be corrupt but on that scale and level and amount of people involved for permitting and acceptance on a structure that massive. No. Not possible.
"Rivers of molten softened steel!"
I have wondered about that. Did they get any samples of the melt?
There was supposedly a lot of aluminum on the building.
Any serious investigation would EASILY prove the entire operation one way or another. Fact is, there has been an active SUPPRESSION of an investigation. So no, I doubt the steel was ever sampled, or if it has, it's been suppressed.
You CAN however, watch this very interesting documentary:
https://odysee.com/@MakeOrwellFictionAgain:d/hy.poth.e.sis---Full-Movie-(Steven-Jones-documentary):b
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF2yixhc4Fw
There was a lot of aluminum in the airplane. The fuselage, deck, wings, and tail were made of aluminum.
these facts have been brought up many times only to get blown off every time......
Just a LIL' Help from a Mech. Eng & helped design down hole explosives for casing to perforate pipe to get oil out of the ground ...here are the facts as they come from engineering:
"Steel typically melts at temperatures ranging from about 2,500°F to 2,800°F (1,370°C to 1,540°C), depending on its composition. However, it begins to lose strength at much lower temperatures, around 1,100°F (593°C), which can compromise structural integrity in a fire."
NOTICE THIS WORDING: "IT begins to loose strength at much lower temperatures, around 1,100 deg F!!!!!!!!
Bldg 7 didn't pancake without a lil' help from well placed shaped charges...look at the mp4 file and when you see a flash, stop right there and backup AND YOU WILL SEE THE SHAPED CHARGES GOING OFF..EITHER ALL AT ONCE OR IN A ROW...
Good Hunting...and thank you for waking up a few brain cellls...😂😂😂😂🧨🧨🧨🧨🧨🧨🧨🧨🧨🧨
This is a bad argument because the steel doesn't have to melt to fail structurally.
I've seen a blacksmith heat steel to a temp well below melting, but even though it isn't about to melt, he can bend it with one hand because it is so easily bent.
There is plenty of other weird stuff like tower 7 that isn't so easily disproven.
What about the "bend over" argument above?
The steel beams were at the perimeter, which means some would've have been further from the fire than others, and thus not as bendy. Unequal coefficients of bendiness makes a tall tower tippy.
Thanks inov8r below for providing example coefficients of bendiness.
The way it fell was very weird. That is a more fruitful line of inquiry imo.
The heavy duty kitchen equipment at the restaurant on the top floor of the North Tower turned to dust. Neither jet fuel nor a fall of one thousand feet to the pavement could have done that.
The twin towers were turned to dust with mini nukes or some other high energy weapon.
With the thing with DEWs is that it relies on moisture in the air to increase potency. So that is why Maui was so devastating but even a dry area like California could succumb to a DEW.
They tried to float the narrative that the contents (such as carpet and office supplies) caused the intense heat.
To which I posited that OSHA had better get serious about how extremely dangerous office environments are.
There should have been a push to utilize the material that passports are made of.
Having tried to explain 911 to normies before, I believe that a technical explanation with proof and reason isn't the correct approach.
After all 911 is not about truth, it's about narrative and normies.
My take is that it isn't important exactly who was involved in 911 or how it was done, or whether it was an inside job.
It turns out that it's all about what the government WOULD do to get what they want, not what they DID do. You'll never convince a normie that the gov DID do 911 until you convince them that the gov WOULD do it. At that point it becomes immaterial who actually did it. The only take away of importance is that the government WOULD do such a thing and then use it to bring in the patriot act and the war on terror. That's all you need to know. How it was done and exactly who the players were no longer matters. I tell people this if they are going to argue about steel temperatures. None of it matters. It matters not whether it was a Davy Crockett, a DEW or thermite. It matters whether your government would do that to the people. That's the key implication which makes a normies different to an anon.
It's the same with Lahaina or anything else.
Perhaps the most important questions are: Why was it done? What happened as a consequence? Who benefitted?
Change out all the technical arguments and the whole c19 fiasco leads to the same questions of why it was done, the consequences and the benefit.
The covid partnership was much more inclusive in global orchestration.
Good point. The same principles apply.
https://greatawakening.win/p/19AxLLTzmR/x/c/4eSk0AZhket
Exactly.
(Only problem is that, in practice, I still argue with facts because I’m dumb like that.)
In the end we'll need the facts.
The melting point of quartz sand is around 1600 C which is a major component of concrete.
But concrete tends to fail at a lower temperature as it is a composite (800 C). But you are correct that the steel should be still intact as the concrete would have absorbed most of the thermal energy in the first place and it would not have reached the starting melting point of reinforced steel.
Was concrete even a component of the above ground floors of the WTC buildings?
Do you remember how long the firemen worked to put out the "burning jet fuel"? IIRC the main buildings melted down into the concrete and it took days to extinguish.
Jet fuel could never do that, but thermite could.
I do remember this very well and most of my engineering professors were very skeptical of what occurred that day for many reasons.
I will look into it because I do not know the answer. What I do know is that the buildings in NYC are built into existing stratified bedrock which creates stability for a structure to prevent swaying due to a change of the center of mass. A change to the center of mass could be a result of a "fire". However as others have pointed out steel only begins melting at a much higher temperature and to fully transition from a solid state to a liquid state takes a lot of energy.
But with the way the buildings imploded something is rotten in Denmark.
I looked into it and I didn't say anything about concrete used with the steel above ground. But in any case what I did find is that at the base concrete was used as all building in NYC are posted into the geological existing bedrock. So any swaying from structural failure at at higher point of the center mass is not likely. The steel was tapered towered the top.
Worse than that, WTC 7 fell hours later because of small fires throughout the building.. Total horseshit
Regardless of what happened, jet fuel in this qty can most certainly take down a steel structure like that. No problem and no doubt. And yes I am a multi disciplined engineer. Not debating the reasons that the cabal took them down. Im setting the applied science aspect strait.
Flight Fuel Capacity Est. Burned Est. Remaining at Impact Flight 11 ~23,980 gal ~4,000 gal ~20,000 gal Flight 175 ~23,980 gal ~3,800 gal ~20,000 gal
My bil is a structural, electrical and chemical engineer. He disagrees it could take down a building that size as well as a building that didn't even get hit. He currently is an engineer for a huge refinery.
But do you agree that such a fire would not result in such a controlled demolition collapse?
On the two towers, considering where the heat was at and seeing the bulge outward, no, I dont agree with that. They used Jets and hit that building in the most prime location to cause a cascade type event. Once the lower floors buckled and dropped the top sections, the kinetic energy would have done the rest. The architecture was designed to restrain a consistent vertical load. not a variable shock The structure was designed to absorb side loading from winds. I am not debating with anyone regarding the reason why they were destroyed. We are all pretty much on the same page I believe. In my mind they did use jets because its the best plausible deniability and it points all of us at an external enemy all while the real enemy was reading books to kids in FL. Engineers can debate this till their blue in the face but cannot deny that 20k gal of Jet-A at that height with the wind blowing through it is going to burn at high enough temps for mild steel to lose it ability to hold the loads it was designed for. Thats is just applied physics folks. They very well could of and most likely had some backup plans but that doesnt change the physics.
MOST of that plane fuel was gone during the huge fireball at the moment of impact.
The architecture was designed to restrain several times the weight of what's above.
No steel-framed building has EVER collapsed due to fire, despite burning HOTTER and LONGER than those on 9/11.
No amount of fuel can weaken 100,000 tons of steel, that's just laughable.
There was never any reason for the lower floors to buckle, besides the planted explosives.
Explosives are also undoubtedly what pulverized the concrete, otherwise large slabs would have made most of the rubble.
Not to mention the distinct possibility of burning aluminum vapor coming off the molten aluminum of the airplane fuselage. Much hotter than burning kerosene.
Those two building were turned into powder nothing survived it but yet a "terrorists" passport was some how found & building 7 didnt kill itself.
Don't be so sure. Watch this example of what happens in a high-momentum collision. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4CX-9lkRMQ. Notice how stray bits of light material are not affected. Notice how the entire airplane is reduced to imperceptible dust. A collapsing building would be much the same process.
It never occurred to you that the passport could have been ejected at the time of the original collision?
Ofcourse it occured to me but what are the odds that the "terrorists" passport was found.
Out of all the possible other items that could have been found, it was consistent. And it was found, so it really happened.
Jet-A fuel in open air (e.g., a building fire) burns at a max temp of ~980°C to 1,100°C, depending on ventilation and mixture. Not 1,350°C as claimed.
Steel does not need to melt to fail structurally.
At ~600°C, structural steel loses 50% of its strength.
At ~1,100°C, it can lose up to 90%+ of its load-bearing capacity.
Deformation, not melting, is what causes collapse in fire-weakening scenarios.
The "jet fuel melts steel beams" line is a strawman. No official report ever claimed melting. The NIST report (right or wrong) said the heat caused softening and collapse — not liquid metal.
Rumsfeld’s missing $2.3T (announced on Sept 10, 2001) being linked to Pentagon records destruction is one of the real issues, and that building segment was hit, conveniently.
Thank you for this i made a similar comment. found some info different from yours though. 500°C vs 600°C for the half strength.
But, I did not find the 90% at 1,100°C. The argument of melting steel doesn't hold up well with those facts. Still think it was allowed to happen, and/or it was orchestrated.
I just cant take the melting steel means it was 100% conspiracy/demolition, when there are so many more well grounded arguments to make, like the ghost planes, the simulation a few years prior of almost the exact scenario, etc.
Here is a reference for losing 70% at 600 C.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html
You can't make hundreds of tons of steel reach this temperature with mere surface burns. There is way, way too much heat dissipation.
If you would like to read the actual physics that disproves the official narrative - here’s the link. https://www.ae911truth.org/images/WTCPhysics/World-Trade-Center-Physics.pdf
I call that the billiard ball model.
It can't fall that fast ---- even with NO SUPPORT
You would have to destroy each floor BEFORE the failure sequence got there ---- to fall as fast as it did.
It was in free fall. Can't fall any faster. The impact of the upper stories on the next lower story imposed compressive loads above the margins of the columns and they all failed in compressive shear in less than a split second. And the upper mass continues downward.
When things are at limit load, they fail immediately. There is no protracted struggle between a structure and its inevitable fate.
Strictly speaking it can, but somehow doubt that pure oxygen was being added to the burn....
Using air(21% oxygen) the adiabatic(burn so efficient there is zero heat transfer) flame temperature of jet-fuel is 1.900-2.000C.
Adiabatic efficiency isn't what they are going for in a jet engine as that would likely reduce trust but afaik finding the sweet-spot between adiabatic(minimal waste heat transferred to parts of engine) temperature and maximum gas expansion by way of deflagration is, adding pure oxygen to the fuel can however up the temperature to more than 2.700 C.
That said the whole jet-fuel burn temperature is kind of a wild goose chase that distracts from what actually happened(in the eyes of media, those that listen to it and officialdom in general it is already established in their heads that the jet-fuel DID burn hot enough for long enough to weaken the steel parts of the towers enough to cause the collapse), trying to disprove the 'established thought' inertia is an exercise in futility.
It is always harder(damned near impossible) to disprove something that has has already been 'proven' as it requires making a shitload of people unlearn what they already 'know'(look it up, unlearning takes 3-6 times the amount of repetitions(or energy/effort) it took to learn it)
A better approach is to expose new information that sneaks around the notions already set in peoples brains(explosives, construction, access to the buildings, financial movements connected to the towers in preceding months and year), ripping the covers of a sleeping teenager will invariably see the kid withdraw deeper under them, now giving the same teenager a reason to wake up because you are doing or presenting something that isn't overtly trying to rip the covers of and instead peaks interest and curiosity, now that is a WAY more efficient way to go about it...........
People have to wake themselves, forcing it will only be met with resistance and is a lost cause(there is more depth and truth to the 'you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink it' adage than people think....................)
Flame temperature in a jet engine is irrelevant to this question. The early jet engines suffered from the melting of steel turbine blades, so the problem was how to burn the fuel resulting in a lower turbine inlet temperature, and to make turbine blades out of materials that had a higher melting point than steel. No problem with jet fuel melting steel. It has about the same flame temperature as coke, and we use that in blast furnaces to make molten iron.
Structural steel loses 70% of its strength at 600 C, and worse above that. End of story.
There were hundreds of thousands of tons of steel. A small experimental burn represents nothing. Heating 2-inch thick steel enough for a structural collapse would require more energy than 50 full jets could ever contain.
What small experimental burn? What is your point? What makes you so expert on whether an "experimental burn" means anything?
"Small experimental burns" are the kind of experiments some people do(or simulate) before wrongly supposing the same heat concentration can be achieved on a gigantic steel structure.
I don't know anything about them. And I don't know of any theory that depends on them, or for which building. Back in the mid-1940s, German turbojet engineers were melting their steel turbine blades. Did these "experimental burns" include burning aluminum? I will suppose not.
Tiny masses like turbine blades are very easy to "overheat".
By contrast, 100,000 tons of steel (or even 10,000 tons) are VERY HARD to heat up.
You'd need hundreds, if not thousands of times the given amount of kerosene to generate enough calories to heat up a large steel structure enough to reach anything close to "softening".
This makes the "weakened steel" theory of collapse, ludicrous.
Size has nothing to do with it, only temperature. Only the steel in proximity to the fire would have been heated. I've never claimed anything "softened," just that the structural margin went to zero. How something fails after that doesn't matter, but there were signs of failure in compression shear. All it took was for one (or maybe two) stories to fail initially. The downfalling momentum would have been enough to defeat all the lower stories.
Kinda my point(got a bit lost in the rest of the words though), it's technically possible so trying to make an argument against it not happening in this case is an effort best spent elsewhere...
This was discussed mere minutes after the buildings came down.
It's a very well known fault in the official narrative.
This is 20 years old info
I had never actually looked it up before today; just went with what I had seen or heard.
People can argue about the melting point of steel and the temperature created by burning jet fuel but the simple counter is Building 7.
It fell down just like the Twin Towers despite not being hit by a plane or being doused in jet fuel.
They say it caught fire but I have not yet managed to find another steel-framed building anywhere in the world that collapsed at free-fall speed as a result of fire.
Here is a good fire in a tower block and that remained standing! Article.
Yes, bldg 7 is the key to 9/11. I think when that Silver guy said "we decided to pull it", he figured people didn't know that it takes weeks to place all the charges necessary for a demolition, and thought by saying that it would provide an excuse for it coming down the way it did, as if they went in an placed the charges that day. Since explosives were obviously placed there long before 9/11, then it is obviously not a stretch for explosives to have been placed in the twin towers. Even if the twin towers DID fall as the official narrative states, the fact that the people involved with the bldg 7 take down obviously knew the attack was going to happen, so that alone is reason to question the whole official narrative of 9/11. And throw in the questions about the Pentagon attacks for good measure.
Now what is the temp till steel looses half its strength? at around 550°C, steel retains only about 50% of its yield strength and becomes susceptible to significant deformation and structural instability. Its not like that steel was holding tons of weight. I can agree that something is wrong with everything around 911, but the steel melting might have just been structural failure. I would wager to say some steel buckled and collapsed at 1350°C, I personally think it was allowed to happen, but the steel melting argument doesnt do it for me anymore.
During the original development of jet engines, the steel turbine blades would wear out from melting. This prompted two directions of development: (1) lean combustion (diluting the fully-burned fuel with cooling air) and (2) superalloys that melted at higher temperatures than steel.
The adiabatic flame temperature of kerosene in air is 2,093 C. This is easily attained in an enclosed environment (captured infrared radiation) and no air dilution. Moreover, at these temperatures, the aluminum airframe would melt and evaporate. (It doesn't need to boil. Water evaporates at temperatures lower than boiling.) Aluminum vapor is flammable and burns (with oxygen) at an adiabatic flame temperature of 3,732 C. Burning in air would tend to lower this a bit, maybe by 900 C.) (Aluminum is the major fuel constituent of large solid rocket motors, as used on the Space Shuttle or Space Launch System).
These ARE simple facts, but tend to be lost in the general unfamiliarity of the subject. Hardly anyone remarks on the possibility of the airplane's aluminum contributing to the fire environment, and leaving behind aluminum oxide ash.
What is your take on the Bldg 7 collapse?
The only analysis I have seen involved the presence of an internal fire that pre-gutted the building (initial internal collapse) and loosened up the beam-column connections, so the whole thing unzipped once it got started.
There is a basis for thinking a nearby seismic shock could have gotten the ball rolling. I saw a recent video clip from either Syria or Gaza that happened to capture the moments when a bomb or missile hit the footing of a multi-story building, and the shock caused the building to have a pancake collapse.
Can there be a better explanation? Possibly. Probably. But, unlike a paranoid person, I am used to seeing accidents in the world that have slender or no explanations. Just because we live in the world doesn't mean we know everything. Or that we ever will know everything.
I need to see bush in court for 9/11 before he dies.