Jet Fuel Can't Melt Steel.....

0  2015-04-20 by TyFenrir

I don't know for sure where I stand on 9/11. I believe a lot of things are possible. However, I think people need to stop using the "Jet fuel can't melt steel" argument.

Fuel doesn't melt anything, heat does. Steel holding up a building wouldn't need to melt but just be heated enough to bend or snap.

Ive seen people throw out statistics of jet fuel fire but forget about how heat works in enclosed areas. You don't need powerful fuel to get a good heat going in confined spaces.

You can melt steel with BBQ charcoal as your fuel.

That being said, keep up the theories please, one day we will get to the bottom of it all.

29 comments

11  Rocket_Admin_Patrick 2015-04-20

I'm pretty sure "Jet fuel can't melt steel beams" is satire no matter who is saying it. It is often used as a straw-man against conspiracy theorists.

6  MarioKart-Ultra 2015-04-20

Exactly this. It's a statement made to mock the 9/11 Truth community.

-7  Control_F 2015-04-20

9/11

The answer is: 0.81818182

This bot (C) 2001-2015 The Steel Beam Corperation

0  MarioKart-Ultra 2015-04-20

.8181818182 was an inside job.

-1  TyFenrir 2015-04-20

I find that it is usually the conspiracy theorists that use the line and not those against it.

2  ZoinksJeepster 2015-04-20

Uhhh... Don't think you can melt steel with a BBQ...

-3  TyFenrir 2015-04-20

Reread. I said BBQ Charcoal as fuel. As in Charcoal you use in most average BBQs. You toss that into a forge, add an air supply and let it heat up, it will get to the temperate to work, bend and shape steel. If you let it get out of control with too much air it will melt.

4  SoberJudgeJudy 2015-04-20

The top of the world trade center was acting as a forge now? The flash of the fuel igniting was over in half a second with fringe fire left behind. You cant be serious.

-1  TyFenrir 2015-04-20

Of course it could act like a forge. All it needs is a active fire(check) enclosed area(check) and a lot of air supply (check).

Im not saying this is what happened, im saying it is possible in the right circumstances. The winds blowing in at that height combined with the flames in an enclosed area of those office buildings would result in an EXTREMELY hot area that would disintegrate anything on those floors.

Im just playing the devils advocate here and I am by no means an expert. Im just going by what I learned in school for fire fighting and on my own as a Blacksmith.

2  SoberJudgeJudy 2015-04-20

Hmm, then why is this the only case?

2  KnightBeforeTomorrow 2015-04-20

Black smoke means an oxygen starved fire.

1  TyFenrir 2015-04-20

I HIGHLY doubt that the fire was oxygen starved with the wind speeds at that height. The black smoke can be caused by chemical reactions of certain things burning.

2  KnightBeforeTomorrow 2015-04-20

In case Just proof that there was no blast furnace condition in the north tower isn't good enough,listen to Fire Chief Orio Palmer describe conditions on the 78th floor of the south tower.

http://thewebfairy.com/911/binaries/Firemen%20in%20the%20trade%20towers03.mp3

"Two small pockets of fire , send up two hoses and we'll knock it down".

1  KnightBeforeTomorrow 2015-04-20

This deals with the fuel used, in the place we are discussing, at the relevant time and accounts for the best possible air flow.

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064[1] ,

2  [deleted] 2015-04-20

You can melt steel with BBQ charcoal as your fuel.

The fuck are you talking about? Steel melts at 2500 degrees Fahrenheit. Your little BBQ charcoal isn't going to melt any steel unless you sprinkle some thermite on there.

4  TyFenrir 2015-04-20

I guess you never heard of a charcoal forge before? I do it on a daily basis with Charcoal or Propane as my fuel. Heats up steel enough to completely rework it. If you crank your air and it gets out of control you can overheat and actually melt your steel.

2  [deleted] 2015-04-20

Lol yes you can melt steel inside of a forge. No you cannot melt steel with a BBQ grill and no you cannot melt steel by flying a plane into a building. You need lots of air and pressure (sustained by a forge) to reach temperatures high enough to melt steel.

A building that was designed to be a building and not a forge will not create the same amount of heat and pressure, ya dummy.

1  TyFenrir 2015-04-20

1) Never said anything about a BBQ Grill 2) High wind speeds through a massive opening in a floor would be all the air supply needed to increase the heat in that floor to a temperature to at least bend steel.

3) Calling someone dummy just makes you look like an arrogant jerk and no one will take anything you say seriously.

0  one23four5six78nine 2015-04-20

Reworking steel is different than pools of molten steal. Sure steel can bend or sag or lose structure, but what is your explanation for the pools of liquid steel?

3  TyFenrir 2015-04-20

If you are working steel in a forge and you have your air supply coming in too high it will melt the steel and ruin anything you are working on.

When I first started Blacksmithing I went through a few firebrick forges and steel before I figured out that I needed to manage my air supply. The result of too much oxygen ends up being a pool of steel all over the brick.

5  [deleted] 2015-04-20

thanks for your insight. the airflow is everything. i was looking at a video of the WTC shot from directly below recently and noticed the insane winds and remarked to myself both how terrifying it must've been and how much more intense the fires must've been, wondering why i hadn't noticed it before.

anybody arguing that there weren't/aren't high winds 1000 ft over a city is a fucking idiot.

1  3Try8 2015-04-20

The only user pushing the "no winds" disinfo is that Knight guy. He's just a regular disinfo agent and regularly has comments deleted for overstepping the rules.

2  Irradiance 2015-04-20

Ok, once again the meme is being misunderstood. "Jet fuel can't melt steel beams" refers to the rivers of bright red hot liquid steel that poured out of the windows.

Yes, steel weakens and deforms when it is heated, but that has nothing to do with this. This is about the observed liquid steel.

1  KnightBeforeTomorrow 2015-04-20

If kerosene could melt (or weaken) steel we would not need welding torches, foundries or blast furnaces. We'd just forge our steel products on stove tops with a fan.

2  TyFenrir 2015-04-20

You can melt steel with propane or even charcoal with enough air flow. I am not an expert and this was just a shower thought for me but I figured with the enclosed space and high winds the floors would act like a forge.

2  KnightBeforeTomorrow 2015-04-20

In High winds (which were not present because the smoke drifted slowly) The hottest the steel could have gotten was 537 F. if all of the fuel burned inside, none burned in the huge initial burst outside and the air flow inside was perfect.

Here's an expert.

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064[1] ,

2  KnightBeforeTomorrow 2015-04-20

Regarding the high winds.

Here is Edna Cintron standing in the hole in the north tower, other wise known as the air inlet.

http://imgur.com/JLfw37G

Her very long hair is NOT blowing and she is holding on to the frame of the building. The anomalous heat was generated by the demolition of the building

http://homageofreason.blogspot.com/2010/11/wtc-north-tower-victim-edna-cintron-and.html

1  AlwaysSpeakTruth 2015-04-20

I believe you are confusing (and misrepresenting) this particular argument.

I think it can best be clarified by viewing this 6 minute video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU

To understand this argument, you have to be aware that there was physical evidence of molten steel and iron at the WTC site, as well as witnesses testimony. Yes, fire can weaken steel, but can it create the effects we have witnessed (as shown in the video) such as completely fusing steel beams, or creating a "meteorite" of molten steel and concrete?

I don't know the answer to the question. I don't claim to understand the physics of the collapse, or exactly how hot the steel beams would have to be to weaken and collapse the towers. Like most of you, I am open to research, discussion, discovery, and criticism. Here are my questions for the community:

1) What forces caused the molten steel effects seen in the video, such as the "meteorite" or the previously-molten "cross"? Would normal fire be capable of producing these effects? Would the collapse of the building generate enough heat from friction that could produce these effects? I don't know.

2) What exactly did those witnesses see who explained witnessing "pools of molten steel"," streams of liquid steel", "like a foundry", "like lava"? Apparently temperatures were exceeding 2,000 degrees in the rubble for weeks after the collapse. What was the source of this heat? Again, is this something that could be produced from fire or from friction? I don't know.

3) If the molten steel, or previously-molten steel does/did exist, as the evidence and witnesses seem to suggest, then why does John Gross, lead NIST engineer of the WTC collapse investigation, deny the presence of this evidence? NIST is not trying to explain this evidence, but rather deny the existence of it. This strikes me as strange.

So I believe when people claim "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" they perhaps may be referring to actual melted steel beams, and wondering how they got that way.

Please feel free to criticize me and point out flaws in my thought process.

1  holocauster-ride 2015-04-20

Bending steel beams doesn't explain why WTC7 started collapsing from an area of the building with no fires. It also doesn't explain the melted steel.

0  KnightBeforeTomorrow 2015-04-20

The fall of the twin towers either acted according to physical laws as us 'truthers' say, or they violated physics at least 3 times if the government story is correct.

Here's how,

As the south tower started moving from it's normal standing position, it's uppermost floors moved towards the tilting position. seen here

http://imgur.com/Kwb8A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJOP6Gw83vY

Normally that portion, once moving, would have been forced by physical law to conserve momentum and continue to tilt further falling over the side of the lower floors in the direction of least resistance, beside, the lower undamaged 78 floors as all objects do fall.

The end results, if physics prevailed, would be the upper 30 some floors would lie crushed in the street beside the still standing stub of the remaining lower floors. At the moment pictured above the entire building had to have been semi sequentially pulverized by an unseen force for the collapse to have proceeded as seen.

If the upper floors were pulverized in mid air by an unseen force then each small piece of that section would have conserved momentum or motion by appearing to change direction because each tiny piece would now follow a comparatively tiny new arc of descent. That is indeed what happened. If there was a demolition, that would be normal, If the building collapsed under the force of gravity on a 'weakened' steel frame, then it was a violation of physics because motion was not conserved.

If the government's story, that the collapse used gravity as it's source of energy, is true, then the change of direction in mid air from tilting to falling straight down would be anomalous and defy the law of conservation of motion.

The next problem for the official story is that the top portion then fell in the direction of most resistance, through the undamaged lower portion.of the building.

Normal physics would demand that the upper portion of the building fall beside the lower portion following the direction of least resistance, not most.

That didn't happen, a second violation of physics.

No violation occurred if the truthers are right and the buildings were demolished in a controlled demolition because each pulverized piece did follow the path of least resistance, not through an integrated steel and concrete framework, but through open air.

The third problem for proponents of the official story is found within the debris piles.

If gravity was the cause of the collapse, then each 1 acre square floor would pile up on the ground in the same relative position they had occupied while standing because the official story provides no available source of horizontal energy to move any given floor out from under the one above it.

Each floor would be captured in place by the floor above it causing what are described as pancakes or layers of floors on the ground. You should see layers of floors caused by gravity but what you do see is a lot of shrapnel and no layers , which is what would happen if the collapse was caused by explosives. So under the official explanation we should see layers. but what we did see instead was shrapnel.

There were three violations of physics under the official story.

None were necessary if the buildings were the subject of controlled demolition

Shrapnel caused by explosives, not layers caused by gravity.

http://imgur.com/4KLSY2v,oreM9zZ,vSjv3Ph

http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc100301/wtc021.jpg

http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc100301/wtc073.jpg

http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc100301/wtc072.jpg

http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc100301/wtc067.jpg

http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc100301/wtc064.jpg

http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc100301/wtc071.jpg

0  one23four5six78nine 2015-04-20

Reworking steel is different than pools of molten steal. Sure steel can bend or sag or lose structure, but what is your explanation for the pools of liquid steel?

2  SoberJudgeJudy 2015-04-20

Hmm, then why is this the only case?

2  KnightBeforeTomorrow 2015-04-20

Black smoke means an oxygen starved fire.

2  [deleted] 2015-04-20

Lol yes you can melt steel inside of a forge. No you cannot melt steel with a BBQ grill and no you cannot melt steel by flying a plane into a building. You need lots of air and pressure (sustained by a forge) to reach temperatures high enough to melt steel.

A building that was designed to be a building and not a forge will not create the same amount of heat and pressure, ya dummy.