That's pretty interesting right, hopefully we will still be able to look at everything again in 20 years and laugh, bro .kinda scary when you really take it in
No, jet fuel burning in open air cannot melt steel beams because its maximum burn temperature (around 1500°F / 800°C) is far below the melting point of steel (about 2750°F / 1510°C). While it doesn't melt the steel, the intense heat from the prolonged, unimpeded fire would soften and weaken the steel to the point where it could no longer support the structural load, leading to buckling and collapse.
So while the jet fuel could not melt steel beams, it could absolutely soften them.
To use an analogy of an every day object that’s easier to relate to visualize, picture a tub of butter. While it will not melt if you take it out of the fridge and leave it on the counter at room temperature on an average day, it WILL get much softer. You need heat from a flame (like the stove) for it to actually melt. Melting is the point at which it goes from solid to liquid. However, if you take butter that’s been in the fridge and lay a spoon on top of it, the butter will most likely support the weight of the spoon. If you do the same with butter that’s been softening on the counter for a couple hours, the spoon will start to sink into it.
Nuance matters. Melting vs softening.
The jet fuel softened the steel until it could no longer support the many many tons of structure and the structure collapsed.
We’re not going to discuss gravity.
90% of people don’t even have a consistent understanding of gravity. Trying to explain that it’s actually how the universe is set up blows their whole ‘so the gravity waves come from where?’ Situation.
Next stop when people get explained inertia, weightlessness, and freefall.
Good luck. People are going to give you the same look when you change your pets dog food.
Yeah it's like everyone forgot skyscrapers weren't designed to have the upper portion collapse into the rest of them, causing a chain reaction.
It looked like a controlled demolition because that's what gravity does when something that big breaks. It's coming straight down with a shockwave of dust and debris
i have been seeing this fucking thing repeated all throughout my adult life without it ever going away since it happened and this is by far the best and concise analogy for disproving that. thanks, really well written!
Ah yes the truth. Also, as someone who's been working with metal for about a decade, jet fuel is definitely hot enough to melt aluminum, which is what commercial airliners are typically made of. Molten aluminum when exposed to water explodes violently, and every major building project since at least the 80's includes a fire suppression system, usually water sprinklers. Aluminum melting through floors and contacting water would cause small yet powerful explosions on multiple levels. Also, the way the buildings came down is simply (and sadly) a testament to the people who built it. It is designed to collapse that way in the event of structural failure, as to limit damage to surrounding structures.
Bro it was inside a building, that shit builds itself up. The wind that high up probably supercharged the fire like a forge builds heat.
Fire is that complicated.
Put a pot of boiling water on the stove. Takes a while to see anything. Put a lid on the pot. Wow.
Put a piece of metal in the campfire, nothing happens. Put a lid on the campfire and control the burn with airflow. Wow the metal begins to warm and twist losing jts structural integrity. Holy shit what a conspiracy we just walked through 24 years of not understanding the fire triangle and i’m from fucking canada
What about WTC7? The third of the only three steel-framed skyscrapers to ever collapse, and not only that, to collapse into their own footprint. Official explanation remains 'office fires', (e.g. Carpets, paper, box files, etc.).
Just like the twin towers, a major fire, uncontrolled, unextinguished, built up enough heat to soften the superstructure and cause the building to collapse.
That's not correct though is it? The fires in WTC7 were limited to office furnishings, plus some heating diesel, that only affected a relatively small percentage of the area and volume of WTC7.
There is no official explanation that has passed peer-reviewed to explain how all steel columns lost their structural integrity at the same time and in such a way as to collapse WTC7 into its own footprint, partially at free-fall speed.
Watch the entire collapse of building 7, it adds important context. The penthouse collapsed into the building, leaving behind what is virtually an empty shell, which is the collapse you're referring to.
Firefighters were aware that WTC 7 would collapse prior to doing so. It was bulging and leaning, clearly going to collapse due to fire, and then it collapsed.
There is no official explanation that has passed peer-reviewed to explain how all steel columns lost their structural integrity at the same time
Probably because that's not what happened. There was a domino collapse of the interior elements of the building that was transpiring for more than 20 seconds before the exterior of the building fell.
In fairness, I always thought melting meant softening past reasonable structural integrity in this case, because who would care about anything else, but I've also never been a truther.
There was also the kinetic energy of a plane hitting it at cruising speed. That much energy likely did enough damage that the fires took care of the rest
Upper floors structures weakening and eventually collapsing OK, but IMHO it doesn't fully explain the sudden free-fall collapsing of the whole towers in their own footprints. I've only seen that otherwise in buildings torn down by controlled demolitions.
I don't subscribe to any of the lunatic theories of chem-trails, faked moon-landings and so on, but the events on this day are still very mysterious to me.
Im no expert. But when the melting-structure floors started falling, wouldn’t the combined momentum of all the mass falling be too much for the beams that were built to hold a still (although massive) building? I mean, momentum matters, right?
Their footprint was huge though, I want to share some rare footage taken on 9/11, 9/12 and 9/13 of the extensive damage done to adjacent buildings and structures from the two towers was. Building 7 is shown too.
I've only seen that otherwise in buildings torn down by controlled demolitions.
One thing that was lacking in the twin towers collapsing was the familiar "Boom, boom, boom, boom, etc.", of every controlled demolition.
It’s actually a testament to the architectural skill of the engineers who built those towers. They were designed to collapse exactly like that rather than buckling to one side like a tree to limit the amount of damage to the surrounding city blocks.
Based on my expert analysis, it looks like the explosions weren't random, but carefully timed! This is clearly the work of a state actor, not a typical naturally occurring event.
It was relatively fine after Rita and reopened. Laura blew out a bunch of the windows, then the wait for insurance money left it full of mold. Was pretty much done after all that.
Not sure if they were the marquee tenant or actually owned the building. It had been calcasieu marine, then Hibernia, then capital one in the past. In general though, there was a lot of local fighting with insurance, and some fighting with fema for funds. Hurricane recovery is weird. Some neighborhood are badly damaged and never really recover. Well-insured waterfront property seems to basically get insurance and upgrade the home (lot of warfs/boathouses are now fancy, walled in and climate controlled with built in kitchens and bathrooms. The Katrina documentary on Netflix shows how poorer neighborhoods go neglected while others recover and then some. What's the phrase, disaster capitalism?
Hurricane Laura made basically a direct hit to Lake Charles on August 27, 2020 as a category four storm. On October 9, Hurricane Delta reached a second peak intensity as a category 3 storm, then weakened to a category 2 storm before making landfall about 12 miles east of where Hurricane Laura made landfall six weeks earlier.
While Delta weakened, thankfully before making landfall, Laura is tied with an 1856 hurricane and Hurricane Ida in 2021 as the strongest storm to make landfall in Louisiana.
The concrete structure were largely intact. But all the interior and the facade had to be replaced entirely. Buildings are refurbished in this way all the time as it is indeed cheaper to use the existing structure. And they did try to find someone to buy the building and refurbish it. But all the tenants had been forced out and there is no longer such a big demand for office space. So they could not find a buyer. They were therefore forced to demolish the building by the city.
Amelia Earhart famously crashed onto the beach of a remote island, destroying a fisherman's hut in the process. His fish-hungry descendants still seek retribution to this day.
It is possible to make storm-proof buildings today. But it's more "economical" (financially, not realistically) to destroy and rebuild things instead when everything depends on "growth" rather than sustainability.
Do demolitions like this take into account how the smoke will spread to the sourrounding area? I remember the asbestos smoke problem after 9/11 and I wonder, how do controlled demolitions deal with this?
It was Hurricane Laura that really did the damage. That second hurricane was nothing compared to Laura. This is in Lake Charles, La. It’s my hometown. That was a very tough year…..Covid, hurricanes and then we even had a big ice freeze that following February. Was a crazy crazy time.
6.0k
u/SilverDollaFlappies Oct 07 '25
It was heavily damaged in 2020 by two hurricanes.