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:
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.