Jet fuel can melt steel beams.
Right Sup Forums ?
Jet fuel can melt steel beams
Chase Cook
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
boulder.nist.gov
twitter.com
Landon Mitchell
Maybe. It depends on the steel and how burning fuel behaves inside of a closed space, like a building.
But in open air? Not according to wikipedia and wolfram alpha.
Jacob Taylor
It weakens and becomes bendable then add weight and it breaks.
Hunter Diaz
youtube.com
He explains it here.
Jaxon Hall
...
Thomas Mitchell
It can melt aluminium though which was what a lot of the structure was made of (got to love that sweet cheap metal).
Molten aluminium + any water will weaken a structures integrity.
Justin Ramirez
...
Cameron Wilson
...
Jack Gutierrez
The point at which something melts and the point at which it becomes malleable are two different points.
Blacksmiths don't melt their swords once they've been initially cast. Instead, they heat them and use the increased malleability to hammer and bend the STEEL into shape with nothing but manpower.
Now you take steel that is being heated to similar temperatures and put, oh, several TONS of weight on it.
If one dude's arm is enough to bend hot steel, a few tons means it's fucking gone.
Nathan Clark
Juan Adams
i never got the whole "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" meme or why it was even created. To collapse a building you don't need to ruin the internal structure, just weaken it enough.
Fuel the type used in airlinres burns at up to 1000 degrees celsius.
The steel used for I-beams (and L beams etc.) starts getting malleable at 550~ degrees, by 850 it's play-dough. Way more than weak enough to completely bend under it's own weight, let alone the loads it usually carries. How did the conspiracy knuckleheads never take this into account?
Luis Miller
Steel with the fire resistant protection blown away, JP 10 (tons of it) ig nighties and poured down a skyscraper with howling winds causing a chimney effect=crucible
Dominic Jones
burned for 3 days - didn't collapse
Tyler Rodriguez
It was Jet A
Logan Foster
Did that have a 777 crash into it at 500 mph?
Justin Flores
There wasn't an airliner-sized hole in it, so that's kind of reasonable.
Also, 3 times lower than the WTC. smaller tower= harder to collapse.
Cooper Ward
It also didn't have a commercial airliner smash into it and leak nearly explosive fuel.
Henry Flores
No jet fuel, shits like kerosene
Evan White
Never suffered extensive high velocity impact to core beam structure. Jesus, you people are retarded. Don't talk about structural issues unless you actually know what you're talking about.
Joseph Reed
Evidence to support that?
Nolan Anderson
not melt, but the heat weakens them to the point that they can't support a building.
they don't need to hit melting point to do that.
Blake Ross
full of liquid fuel no less.
Andrew Collins
check dem
double trips
Michael Martin
so torroristic assiociation smash planes into twin towers in order to mass kill most people possible and they have the unluck that the 2 towers collapse like a driven detonation and drop perfectly into their own basements perimeter without causing other damage all around? okay