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:
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.