There is that one pesky physics problem of the fuel fires not approaching the temps necessary to melt steel. ... among a list of problems with that claim.
Did you see the reports of that steel building fire/collapse in Sao Paulo this past week?
A word in your ear.
When steel heats up, does it retain its original stiffness and load-bearing capacity?
Because steel retains its strength and rigidity in high temps.
It easily does it. I examined in person structural pieces from the MacArthur Maze I80 overpass subjected to a gasoline tanker fire and it looked like a giant taffy pull.
Melting is not required to bring down the two towers. Simply heat the steel until the shear strength is exceeded by the load above the fire. Much lower temperature than melting the steel.
That’s a strawman argument, JockoManning. Only the tin foil hat brigade ever postulated that any steel had to melt. . . and it is they who keep bringing it up because it is easy to shoot down. But any one who has done any blavksmithing can tell you, steel bends easily at a far lower temperature than it melts, far lower. . . and THAT temperature, especially when fed by air blowing through the opening the plane made, feeding a fuel load composed of jet-A, paper, and wood products, DOES get hot enough to soften steel to the bending point.
seriously dude? the fire doesn’t need to be hot enough to melt steel it only has to be hot enough to degrade the integrity of the steel, heat a steel beam to the point where it glows red and nothing will happen, put that same piece of steel under a stress load and it fails.
try it at home yourself get your charcoal grill really really hot then start stacking bricks on the food grate and see what happens.
What temperature is reached when you throw several tons of aluminum into that "fuel fire"?