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:
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.