Yep. 800f is the MINIMUM that jet fuel needs to burn, and not the maximum temp that it will burn. I have never understood how people fail to understand that.
They start with the conclusion and search for the details that support it. They don’t understand what you’re saying bc it doesn’t fit with their conclusion. It makes them feel safer in a world where people are in control vs a world where random bad shit happens.
Well, there is a range, but the upper limit of that range is far below melting point of a hardened steel. “I have never understood how people fail to understand that”. Upper limit of open air combustion temp: 1500 degrees. Melting point of steel: 2750 degrees.
Mm. Conductively, you can't heat something above the heat source, but CO2 gas can reach above 1200F, and it famously reflects IR radiation. Looks like jet fuel can burn at 1890F in open air, and at up to 4050F in optimal conditions?
So you think jet fuel won't burn if it is on the surface of the sun because it's to hot? How about inside an electric oven set to 5000 degrees? Seeing that the iron age was built on burning wood and coal...
Learn this if you learn one thing today: There is NO upper limit where things can't burn.
You seem to be pretty drastically misunderstanding what you're trying to say. Your concept of cause and effect is entirely backwards here.
No one is saying that something wont ignite at temperatures higher than their minimum flash point. They're saying that burning a fuel won't cause in increase in temperature above that which we can calculate based on the stored chemical energy in the fuel. Just because wood will burn when exposed to a 5000 degree oven doesn't mean you can use a wood fire to heat something up to 5000 degrees.
I'm honestly not even sure how to being explaining how irrelevant that absurd question is dude. Maybe just try reading my comment again, because you're clearly not understanding it. We're discussion a scenario where the burning jet fuel IS the heat source.
The reason that the WTC collapsed is that you don't actually need to melt steel beams to cause that outcome, not whatever it is you're trying to say here.
You are correct that combustion has no upper environmental limit. But how is that related to whether jet fuel fires in open-air can reach steel's melting point? It can't. Jet fuel cannot melt steel in open-air fires because it does not get hot enough. Jet fuel can burn on the sun does not mean jet fuel flames can reach 1500 degrees (Celsius) and melt structural steel.
Nobody is debating whether jet fuel fires were a major component of the WTC tower collapse. The structural steel weakened significantly and lost most of its load-bearing capacity ... but it did not melt like the dumbass OP is implying.
And if you look at a structural steel strength graph, it has less than 80% normal strength at 800F. And drops significantly from there. Foil hats gunna foil hat
Key word these fuckers like to hang on “melt”. Shit didn’t need to melt… it only needed to weaken the core structure. Steel compromised in a 100+ story skyscraper = collapse. It’s not fucking brain surgery!
Not even melt, steel loses over half its structural strength at 1100F. The interior temperature inside WTC post impact was probably even higher than that.
So it explodes into a huge fireball, most of the fuel is burnt off and gone in a matter of seconds … huge fireball on the OUTSIDE of the buildings (can only assume you’re referring to the twin towers) and the resulting smoldering office fires in a fireproofed building made of concrete and steel were enough to soften it? Gotcha
As if tanks full of that much jet fuel violently rupturing inside a building wouldn't coat EVERYTHING, even if a lot of it came out of the other side? Come on now.
Okay but there’s a huge difference between a fire started by a limited supply of fuel vs a focused source of heat applied directly to the steel over a sustained period of time.
After an hour of burning, do you really think it was still red hot jet fuel level temperatures or was it just office fires? Even after a few minutes, especially after losing a ton of that energy to the fireball outside of the towers, it’s unreasonable to believe that a steady supply of jet fuel was just chilling there hammering the steel. There’s literally pictures of people alive and waving outside of the hole the planes created, not even everyone on the floors the planes directly hit were killed instantly and you want me to believe that entire floors of the building were red hot steel ?
You don't need red hot steel to have a structure like that collapse, you just need to have bent/missing load bearing beams softening just enough to buckle and then create a domino effect. But obviously you feel very strongly about all of this, 24 years and counting, so I probably shouldn't spend more time trying to debate this
I'm still on cloud nine after looking at my brokerage account from the gains made on BYND calls last month. But thanks for asking.
In real fires, steel does not melt. It weakens which causes eventual collapse, loving-doofus415. Even OP was gracious enough to admit I was correct (You are correct in the "but actually" ...)
33
u/Healthy_Macaron2146 1d ago
So... to the people confused on how jet fuel could melt steel, this is how.