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:
Flame temperature in a jet engine is irrelevant to this question. The early jet engines suffered from the melting of steel turbine blades, so the problem was how to burn the fuel resulting in a lower turbine inlet temperature, and to make turbine blades out of materials that had a higher melting point than steel. No problem with jet fuel melting steel. It has about the same flame temperature as coke, and we use that in blast furnaces to make molten iron.
Structural steel loses 70% of its strength at 600 C, and worse above that. End of story.
There were hundreds of thousands of tons of steel. A small experimental burn represents nothing. Heating 2-inch thick steel enough for a structural collapse would require more energy than 50 full jets could ever contain.
What small experimental burn? What is your point? What makes you so expert on whether an "experimental burn" means anything?
"Small experimental burns" are the kind of experiments some people do(or simulate) before wrongly supposing the same heat concentration can be achieved on a gigantic steel structure.
I don't know anything about them. And I don't know of any theory that depends on them, or for which building. Back in the mid-1940s, German turbojet engineers were melting their steel turbine blades. Did these "experimental burns" include burning aluminum? I will suppose not.
Kinda my point(got a bit lost in the rest of the words though), it's technically possible so trying to make an argument against it not happening in this case is an effort best spent elsewhere...