Started By
Message
Can Jet Fuel melt steel beams?
Posted on 3/8/15 at 10:39 pm
Posted on 3/8/15 at 10:39 pm
13
Posted on 3/8/15 at 10:41 pm to KSGamecock
Only employees at wineries are qualified to respond to this
Posted on 3/8/15 at 10:43 pm to KSGamecock
Engineering was not in the name of the school I went to, plus I didn't graduate Magma Cum Laude, so I'm not qualified to answer this.
Posted on 3/8/15 at 11:16 pm to KSGamecock
Posted on 3/8/15 at 11:18 pm to KSGamecock
Where does Fact #1 come from? The only place I've seen any mention of "pools of molten steel" is on crackpot sites, and even those don't present any evidence.
Steel doesn't need to "melt" to lose significant strength.
Steel doesn't need to "melt" to lose significant strength.
Posted on 3/8/15 at 11:20 pm to TMDawg
But in all seriousness there was some interesting stuff in Popular Mechanics about a decade ago regarding all of this.
Posted on 3/8/15 at 11:20 pm to finestfirst79
quote:^this
Steel doesn't need to "melt" to lose significant strength.
Posted on 3/8/15 at 11:21 pm to finestfirst79
It's common sense. Wood is combustable. Metal is not combustable. That's why we build stoves and skyscrapers out of metal because it beats fire.
Posted on 3/8/15 at 11:22 pm to KSGamecock
Steel doesn't have to melt to cause structural failure. At higher temperatures the material properties change so that the steel becomes more ductile and has lower yield and tensile stresses.
This post was edited on 3/8/15 at 11:23 pm
Posted on 3/8/15 at 11:28 pm to KSGamecock
1) As someone else has asked, where's the proof that molten steel was found?
2) As someone else has alluded, it's a physical FACT that at 1800 degrees Fahrenheit steel becomes weak enough so that a building like the wtc WOULD collapse.
3) Pretty sure there were other materials in and of those buildings that burn at 2750 degrees Fahrenheit.
4) Hate to think our government would have spent that much money and energy to fake this thing and not a one of them said, "Hey, wait! Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel!"
2) As someone else has alluded, it's a physical FACT that at 1800 degrees Fahrenheit steel becomes weak enough so that a building like the wtc WOULD collapse.
3) Pretty sure there were other materials in and of those buildings that burn at 2750 degrees Fahrenheit.
4) Hate to think our government would have spent that much money and energy to fake this thing and not a one of them said, "Hey, wait! Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel!"
Posted on 3/8/15 at 11:28 pm to Ross
In World War Two a fully loaded bomber plane crashed into the Empire State Building and yet still it stands but yea, jet fuel can totally melt steel.
Posted on 3/8/15 at 11:31 pm to KSGamecock
quote:
In World War Two a fully loaded bomber plane crashed into the Empire State Building and yet still it stands but yea, jet fuel can totally melt steel.
That was a B-25. A prop-driven plane. It was fueled by high octane gasoline, not jet fuel (which is closer to diesel). Gasoline burns up very quickly. I have a farm and start a lot of fires. Gasoline is almost better for putting fires out than for getting them started.
Posted on 3/8/15 at 11:31 pm to KSGamecock
"I can melt all substances through Magma, who heats me"
Magma Opus 3:16
Magma Opus 3:16
This post was edited on 3/8/15 at 11:32 pm
Posted on 3/8/15 at 11:34 pm to Rebelgator
Posted on 3/8/15 at 11:35 pm to KSGamecock
quote:
In World War Two a fully loaded bomber plane crashed into the Empire State Building and yet still it stands but yea, jet fuel can totally melt steel.
Again, ask yourself who has said steel melted?
The crackpot theory is that explosives were planted throughout the WTC and that is what caused the collapse. But I've been involved in blowing stuff up for all of my career and I've never seen "pools of molten steel".
Posted on 3/8/15 at 11:37 pm to finestfirst79
Bush said it but I think the planes themselves were probably loaded with explosives.
This post was edited on 3/8/15 at 11:39 pm
Posted on 3/8/15 at 11:38 pm to finestfirst79
quote:
The crackpot theory is that explosives were planted throughout the WTC and that is what caused the collapse. But I've been involved in blowing stuff up for all of my career and I've never seen "pools of molten steel".
I think that the crackpot theories purport incendiary devices more than concussion explosives. No one can doubt that there were fires.
Posted on 3/8/15 at 11:42 pm to KSGamecock
quote:
I think the planes themselves were probably loaded with explosives.
What did we do with the two planes that did take off that morning and/with the passengers on board? Bury them under The Meadowlands?
Posted on 3/8/15 at 11:43 pm to derSturm37
The people were actors.
Posted on 3/8/15 at 11:45 pm to KSGamecock
quote:
The people were actors.
Oh, come on!
So there are several hundred of these "actors" out there who know the truth?
All of them CIA employees I presume?
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News