Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Is burning jet fuel capable of melting steel?

GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 12:32:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A key argument proposed by people who think 9/11 was an inside job is that a crashing jet is incapable of causing enough heat to melt steel, which is required to take down the buildings in the fashion that they did.

Obviously the implication is that if the crashing jets didn't take down the towers, than something else did, like bombs inside, etc.

It wouldn't necessarily prove that it was an inside job (after all, Islamic terrorists could have planted the bombs inside) but still, I'm interested in investigating this claim.

Does anyone know if burning jet fuel could have melted the steel, or if there are any problems with this argument?

Thanks. By the way, let's try to keep this impersonal and just treat this as a fun, hypothetical discussion.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 1:47:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 12:32:22 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
A key argument proposed by people who think 9/11 was an inside job is that a crashing jet is incapable of causing enough heat to melt steel, which is required to take down the buildings in the fashion that they did.

Obviously the implication is that if the crashing jets didn't take down the towers, than something else did, like bombs inside, etc.

It wouldn't necessarily prove that it was an inside job (after all, Islamic terrorists could have planted the bombs inside) but still, I'm interested in investigating this claim.

Does anyone know if burning jet fuel could have melted the steel, or if there are any problems with this argument?

Thanks. By the way, let's try to keep this impersonal and just treat this as a fun, hypothetical discussion.

Well, I'd point out that the jet fuel ignited other stuff, so the issue isn't really whether jet fuel alone can melt steel.

And it didn't really have to 'melt' steel: The floors were hung on an exoskeleton of steel, a somewhat unique construction. So a floor just had to break loose, and once the first one did, it set off a chain reaction as upper floors fell on lower ones. And then that whole stack of floors made the mother of all pistons, producing transient pressures and consequently temperatures that nobody could really model.
This space for rent.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 1:52:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, I would think the heat generated by the collision wasn't only from the fuel, but the collision itself.

the tower stopped a plane hitting dead on, traveling at what was probably over a hundred miles an hour...
I would think that might cause the steel that absorbed the impact to heat up, no?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 3:45:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 1:47:47 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/3/2014 12:32:22 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
A key argument proposed by people who think 9/11 was an inside job is that a crashing jet is incapable of causing enough heat to melt steel, which is required to take down the buildings in the fashion that they did.

Obviously the implication is that if the crashing jets didn't take down the towers, than something else did, like bombs inside, etc.

It wouldn't necessarily prove that it was an inside job (after all, Islamic terrorists could have planted the bombs inside) but still, I'm interested in investigating this claim.

Does anyone know if burning jet fuel could have melted the steel, or if there are any problems with this argument?

Thanks. By the way, let's try to keep this impersonal and just treat this as a fun, hypothetical discussion.

Well, I'd point out that the jet fuel ignited other stuff, so the issue isn't really whether jet fuel alone can melt steel.

And it didn't really have to 'melt' steel: The floors were hung on an exoskeleton of steel, a somewhat unique construction. So a floor just had to break loose, and once the first one did, it set off a chain reaction as upper floors fell on lower ones. And then that whole stack of floors made the mother of all pistons, producing transient pressures and consequently temperatures that nobody could really model.

I read somewhere that jet fuel burns around 1,500 degrees and steel requires around 1,000 hotter than that (I might be off a bit). I'll grant that the building could have simply collapsed without melting though. That leaves open another problem. Why did Trade Center building 7 collapse in on itself the same day that the other 2 were hit by airplanes? I haven't checked sources for this claim but I don't see why someone would make it up. If trade center 7 really collapsed the same way as the other 2, but without getting hit by a plane, well, that seems to show it probably wasn't the planes that caused the other 2 to fall.

Just saying my thoughts. I just came across this stuff.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Otokage
Posts: 2,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 4:21:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 12:32:22 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
A key argument proposed by people who think 9/11 was an inside job is that a crashing jet is incapable of causing enough heat to melt steel, which is required to take down the buildings in the fashion that they did.

Obviously the implication is that if the crashing jets didn't take down the towers, than something else did, like bombs inside, etc.

It wouldn't necessarily prove that it was an inside job (after all, Islamic terrorists could have planted the bombs inside) but still, I'm interested in investigating this claim.

Does anyone know if burning jet fuel could have melted the steel, or if there are any problems with this argument?

Thanks. By the way, let's try to keep this impersonal and just treat this as a fun, hypothetical discussion.

I really don't know what to believe in all honestly. Being GW Bush the president at that time, anything is possible lol
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 4:54:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 4:21:18 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 11/3/2014 12:32:22 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
A key argument proposed by people who think 9/11 was an inside job is that a crashing jet is incapable of causing enough heat to melt steel, which is required to take down the buildings in the fashion that they did.

Obviously the implication is that if the crashing jets didn't take down the towers, than something else did, like bombs inside, etc.

It wouldn't necessarily prove that it was an inside job (after all, Islamic terrorists could have planted the bombs inside) but still, I'm interested in investigating this claim.

Does anyone know if burning jet fuel could have melted the steel, or if there are any problems with this argument?

Thanks. By the way, let's try to keep this impersonal and just treat this as a fun, hypothetical discussion.

I really don't know what to believe in all honestly. Being GW Bush the president at that time, anything is possible lol

Yeah lol, my thoughts exactly, except you could probably replace 'GW Bush' with almost any president and I still wouldn't trust em
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 10:17:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oh yippy ki yay. A 9/11 truther thread. I wish I had the time to engage this discussion, but things are not so well IRL right now.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 10:30:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 3:45:17 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 11/3/2014 1:47:47 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/3/2014 12:32:22 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
A key argument proposed by people who think 9/11 was an inside job is that a crashing jet is incapable of causing enough heat to melt steel, which is required to take down the buildings in the fashion that they did.

Obviously the implication is that if the crashing jets didn't take down the towers, than something else did, like bombs inside, etc.

It wouldn't necessarily prove that it was an inside job (after all, Islamic terrorists could have planted the bombs inside) but still, I'm interested in investigating this claim.

Does anyone know if burning jet fuel could have melted the steel, or if there are any problems with this argument?

Thanks. By the way, let's try to keep this impersonal and just treat this as a fun, hypothetical discussion.

Well, I'd point out that the jet fuel ignited other stuff, so the issue isn't really whether jet fuel alone can melt steel.

And it didn't really have to 'melt' steel: The floors were hung on an exoskeleton of steel, a somewhat unique construction. So a floor just had to break loose, and once the first one did, it set off a chain reaction as upper floors fell on lower ones. And then that whole stack of floors made the mother of all pistons, producing transient pressures and consequently temperatures that nobody could really model.

I read somewhere that jet fuel burns around 1,500 degrees and steel requires around 1,000 hotter than that (I might be off a bit). I'll grant that the building could have simply collapsed without melting though. That leaves open another problem. Why did Trade Center building 7 collapse in on itself the same day that the other 2 were hit by airplanes? I haven't checked sources for this claim but I don't see why someone would make it up. If trade center 7 really collapsed the same way as the other 2, but without getting hit by a plane, well, that seems to show it probably wasn't the planes that caused the other 2 to fall.

Just saying my thoughts. I just came across this stuff.

There are easily found explanations for WTC 7's collapse. Basically, debris from the other two weakened its structure to the point of collapse. These "alternative" explanations by "911 Truthers" are as feeble as they are far-fetched...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
enderpigdebates
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 10:48:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 10:30:11 AM, Fly wrote:
At 11/3/2014 3:45:17 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 11/3/2014 1:47:47 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/3/2014 12:32:22 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
A key argument proposed by people who think 9/11 was an inside job is that a crashing jet is incapable of causing enough heat to melt steel, which is required to take down the buildings in the fashion that they did.

Obviously the implication is that if the crashing jets didn't take down the towers, than something else did, like bombs inside, etc.

It wouldn't necessarily prove that it was an inside job (after all, Islamic terrorists could have planted the bombs inside) but still, I'm interested in investigating this claim.

Does anyone know if burning jet fuel could have melted the steel, or if there are any problems with this argument?

Thanks. By the way, let's try to keep this impersonal and just treat this as a fun, hypothetical discussion.

Well, I'd point out that the jet fuel ignited other stuff, so the issue isn't really whether jet fuel alone can melt steel.

And it didn't really have to 'melt' steel: The floors were hung on an exoskeleton of steel, a somewhat unique construction. So a floor just had to break loose, and once the first one did, it set off a chain reaction as upper floors fell on lower ones. And then that whole stack of floors made the mother of all pistons, producing transient pressures and consequently temperatures that nobody could really model.

I read somewhere that jet fuel burns around 1,500 degrees and steel requires around 1,000 hotter than that (I might be off a bit). I'll grant that the building could have simply collapsed without melting though. That leaves open another problem. Why did Trade Center building 7 collapse in on itself the same day that the other 2 were hit by airplanes? I haven't checked sources for this claim but I don't see why someone would make it up. If trade center 7 really collapsed the same way as the other 2, but without getting hit by a plane, well, that seems to show it probably wasn't the planes that caused the other 2 to fall.

Just saying my thoughts. I just came across this stuff.

There are easily found explanations for WTC 7's collapse. Basically, debris from the other two weakened its structure to the point of collapse. These "alternative" explanations by "911 Truthers" are as feeble as they are far-fetched...

don't forget about all of the items inside that could have been involed. then again, this is coming from a guy with a pbj sandwich as a profile picture....
When in doubt, pinky out. -Patrick Star
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 3:38:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 10:48:10 AM, enderpigdebates wrote:
At 11/4/2014 10:30:11 AM, Fly wrote:
At 11/3/2014 3:45:17 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 11/3/2014 1:47:47 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/3/2014 12:32:22 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
A key argument proposed by people who think 9/11 was an inside job is that a crashing jet is incapable of causing enough heat to melt steel, which is required to take down the buildings in the fashion that they did.

Obviously the implication is that if the crashing jets didn't take down the towers, than something else did, like bombs inside, etc.

It wouldn't necessarily prove that it was an inside job (after all, Islamic terrorists could have planted the bombs inside) but still, I'm interested in investigating this claim.

Does anyone know if burning jet fuel could have melted the steel, or if there are any problems with this argument?

Thanks. By the way, let's try to keep this impersonal and just treat this as a fun, hypothetical discussion.

Well, I'd point out that the jet fuel ignited other stuff, so the issue isn't really whether jet fuel alone can melt steel.

And it didn't really have to 'melt' steel: The floors were hung on an exoskeleton of steel, a somewhat unique construction. So a floor just had to break loose, and once the first one did, it set off a chain reaction as upper floors fell on lower ones. And then that whole stack of floors made the mother of all pistons, producing transient pressures and consequently temperatures that nobody could really model.

I read somewhere that jet fuel burns around 1,500 degrees and steel requires around 1,000 hotter than that (I might be off a bit). I'll grant that the building could have simply collapsed without melting though. That leaves open another problem. Why did Trade Center building 7 collapse in on itself the same day that the other 2 were hit by airplanes? I haven't checked sources for this claim but I don't see why someone would make it up. If trade center 7 really collapsed the same way as the other 2, but without getting hit by a plane, well, that seems to show it probably wasn't the planes that caused the other 2 to fall.

Just saying my thoughts. I just came across this stuff.

There are easily found explanations for WTC 7's collapse. Basically, debris from the other two weakened its structure to the point of collapse. These "alternative" explanations by "911 Truthers" are as feeble as they are far-fetched...

don't forget about all of the items inside that could have been involed. then again, this is coming from a guy with a pbj sandwich as a profile picture....

delicious
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 3:42:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 12:32:22 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
A key argument proposed by people who think 9/11 was an inside job is that a crashing jet is incapable of causing enough heat to melt steel, which is required to take down the buildings in the fashion that they did.

Obviously the implication is that if the crashing jets didn't take down the towers, than something else did, like bombs inside, etc.

It wouldn't necessarily prove that it was an inside job (after all, Islamic terrorists could have planted the bombs inside) but still, I'm interested in investigating this claim.

Does anyone know if burning jet fuel could have melted the steel, or if there are any problems with this argument?

Thanks. By the way, let's try to keep this impersonal and just treat this as a fun, hypothetical discussion.

I think a good follow-up question would be, "Well, what could melt steel that could conceivably caused the collapse en lieu of the airplane(s)?"

Because, if an entire airplane and the resulting fires/explosions couldn't, I'm pretty sure that C-4 isn't going to, either.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 1:09:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Okay, one more time. The steel did not melt. The steel used in the construction rapidly loses strength as it is heated. there is a safety factor of three in the design, but by 1000 degrees, well below the temperature of burning jet fuel, the strength is well below the safety factor so the structure failed, leading to the collapse. The steel is coated with insulation to give the fire department two hours to put out the fire before it fails. The impact blew away the insulation, and the fire department could not reach the fire to put it out in any case.

The molten metal seen in videos is not steel, it was a eutectic composed of aluminum and other junk. The plane had about 100 tons of aluminum, plus there were aluminum furnishings. Aluminum melts below the temperature of burning jet fuel, but the energy released by the building collapse was a major source of heat. A report analyzing the eutectic was produced by the government. I calculated that the potential energy of the building released by the collapse was equivalent to about 5000 tons of TNT. That nearly all ended up as heat.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 9:36:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2014 12:32:22 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
A key argument proposed by people who think 9/11 was an inside job is that a crashing jet is incapable of causing enough heat to melt steel, which is required to take down the buildings in the fashion that they did.

Obviously the implication is that if the crashing jets didn't take down the towers, than something else did, like bombs inside, etc.

It wouldn't necessarily prove that it was an inside job (after all, Islamic terrorists could have planted the bombs inside) but still, I'm interested in investigating this claim.

Does anyone know if burning jet fuel could have melted the steel, or if there are any problems with this argument?

Thanks. By the way, let's try to keep this impersonal and just treat this as a fun, hypothetical discussion.

given enough time a steel structure can be damaged by fire of any form , but I think yo misunderstood things a bit. A burning tower did not collapse because their steel structure is molten into liquid or plastic stage, it collapsed because the steel is losing strength from the increased temperature. Keep in my mind that they bore the weight of the entire tower which is several time of their normal strength, soften by fire or displaced by explosive can very well cause it to collapse.
chui
Posts: 511
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 4:38:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2014 12:32:22 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
A key argument proposed by people who think 9/11 was an inside job is that a crashing jet is incapable of causing enough heat to melt steel, which is required to take down the buildings in the fashion that they did.

Obviously the implication is that if the crashing jets didn't take down the towers, than something else did, like bombs inside, etc.

It wouldn't necessarily prove that it was an inside job (after all, Islamic terrorists could have planted the bombs inside) but still, I'm interested in investigating this claim.

Does anyone know if burning jet fuel could have melted the steel, or if there are any problems with this argument?

Thanks. By the way, let's try to keep this impersonal and just treat this as a fun, hypothetical discussion.

Jet fuel is mostly kerosene. It burns at about 1000 C. But in the right conditions can hit over 2000. So yes it can melt steel. But it has been pointed out that most metals lose structural integrity before melting.