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:
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.