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 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.
Tiny masses like turbine blades are very easy to "overheat".
By contrast, 100,000 tons of steel (or even 10,000 tons) are VERY HARD to heat up.
You'd need hundreds, if not thousands of times the given amount of kerosene to generate enough calories to heat up a large steel structure enough to reach anything close to "softening".
This makes the "weakened steel" theory of collapse, ludicrous.
Size has nothing to do with it, only temperature. Only the steel in proximity to the fire would have been heated. I've never claimed anything "softened," just that the structural margin went to zero. How something fails after that doesn't matter, but there were signs of failure in compression shear. All it took was for one (or maybe two) stories to fail initially. The downfalling momentum would have been enough to defeat all the lower stories.
Size does matter since the size of a steel structure affects its likelihood to have its temperature changed.
Heating a turbine fin is calorically cheap, heating several tons of steel is expensive, which is why any small heat experiment doesn't represent the inner reality of the buildings.
The only calculations that shed light on this, are thermodynamic in nature, and account for the amount of joules required to heat up the structure.
And these fires come short by a longshot.
The upper floors falling on the lower ones have their kinetic energy drained as they encounter resistance from the floors below.
An EXCELLENT summary of this, from 01:18:56 until 01:23:08:
https://youtu.be/K7mDXHn_byA?t=4736
Well, if you want to establish your estimate of how much steel melted, and how many joules of heat energy would have been needed to accomplish that, and compare that to the combustion heat of both the jet fuel AND the fuselage aluminum...you might have an argument. But it is quite clear that steel did not need to melt in order for its strength to be completely lost.
Heating turbine blades (not "fins") depends only on temperature, and the point is that burning kerosene can reach that temperature (or higher). And the solutions were (1) dilute the flame temperature by adding more air, and (2) find alloys that melted at higher temperatures.
The point of a cascading collapse is that the next underlying floor has no "resstance". The columns are instantly overloaded and immediately fail in shear. It all happens in milliseconds. Then the upper mass gains more potential energy from the continued fall.