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.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (103)
sorted by:
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.