Can Fire Melt Steel? Investigating the Controversy Surrounding 9/11 Conspiracies

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Liger20
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fire Steel
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether fire, specifically from jet fuel and other materials, can produce enough heat to melt steel, particularly in the context of the 9/11 attacks and related conspiracy theories. Participants explore the thermal properties of steel and the conditions under which it may lose structural integrity, rather than confirming or denying conspiracy claims.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the claim that fire cannot melt steel, asking if jet fuel can generate sufficient heat for this to occur.
  • Another participant asserts that investigations concluded jet fuel burns hot enough to melt steel.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that while steel does not typically melt in fire, it loses significant strength at relatively low temperatures, which can lead to structural failure.
  • One participant emphasizes that jet fuel is not the sole source of heat, noting that other materials in buildings contribute to the fire's intensity.
  • Concerns are raised about misinformation and the motivations behind conspiracy theories, with a warning about the potential for misleading narratives.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the ability of fire to melt steel and the implications of this in the context of the 9/11 attacks. There is no consensus on the interpretations of the evidence or the validity of conspiracy theories.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific temperatures at which steel loses strength and the role of various materials in contributing to fire intensity. The discussion does not resolve the complexities surrounding the thermal properties of steel or the broader implications of the 9/11 events.

Liger20
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
I was recently watching an episode of The View on youtube where they were talking about 9/11 conspiracys. Rosie (I hate that woman) proceeded to tell the audience that it is impossible for fire to melt steel and therefore there were other factors involved that made the towers collapse. I want to make it very clear that I'm not one of those idiots who thinks that 9/11 was done by our own government, but Rosie did bring up an interesting point. Steel is pretty tough. Would the jet fuel create enough combustion to heat the steel to the point to where it would melt? I'm not asking anyone to verify conspiracy theories, I'm just asking this simple question: Can the fire produced by a plane crash produce enough heat to melt steel?
 
Science news on Phys.org
im pretty sure this was the central issue in whichever committee it was that examined the crash, and their conclusion was a resounding yes. Jet fuel does burn hot enough to melt steel.
 
Liger: the answer is generally no. But steel performs very badly in a fire. It loses much of its strength at a surprisingly low temperature, easily achievable in a garden bonfire. This is why a blacksmith can work steel on a forge. If you search the internet for "warehouse fire" or similar, or keep your eye open for news stories, you will see pictures of steel girders lying on the ground because a steel-framed building has collapsed. You can find out more for yourself here:

http://www.corusconstruction.com/en/

Be alert for this conspiracy theory stuff. There are some quite mendacious liars out there with an agitprop agenda and a drip-drip-drip big lie technique devised to sway public opinion, especially amongst the younger generation.
 
Last edited:
I can't stand that wench.

Here are some things that are incredibly incorrect about Fatty-Mcgee's statements:

1) JET-A fuel is not the only source of fire/heat in the event. Therefore it is incorrect to imply that jet fuel does not release enough energy in a fire. There are other items such as carpet, furniture, paper, etc... that all added to the situation. That doesn't even mention the idea of any magnesium components from the aircraft that caught on fire.

2) The yield strength of most ferrous metals does not hold up well under heat. Most steel will have a yield point reduction of around 25% at 600°F. It's not until the addition of nickel and other alloying components which are very expensive, does steel start to do better under high temp conditions.

I'd like to prove that jet fuel has enough energy to melt Rosie O'Donnel.
 
The utter stupidity of these conspiracy theories is why we do not discuss them here...
 

Similar threads

MHB Simple Model of 9/11/2001 World Trade Center Collapse
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Achieving Academic Success After High School Burnout
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K