I still have questions about the jet fuel bringing down the towers. In short, yes, the jet fuel burns hot enough to potentially burn the steel in the towers ... but. When the jet hit the towers that fuel was instantly atomized (sprayed). In that state it would be consumed extremely quickly. Once it was gone all you had was what the jet fuel set on fire ... i.e, the burning innards of the building, and even with a lot of plastics ... you might get a temperature in the high 500’s Fahrenheit. Steel melts around 2500 Fahrenheit. I just have a hard time believing that there was an adequate “puddle” of jet fuel big enough to burn long enough in just the right place to melt enough steel to bring the building down ... let alone the buildings that were not directly hit. Keep in mind that just because jet fuel is wet, it is not like Napalm that sticks to one spot and keeps burning. If it still liquid, then it still flows, and with more flow, it becomes more dispersed to be consumed faster.
Generally speaking, I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I try to distinguish between possible and plausible.
So ... yes, I can see the jet fuel starting the fire, and yes, the building burned a long time, but I really don’t think the jet fuel lasted long enough to actually do what they said it did. There was a lot of steel, and for a building that size it had to be pretty high quality. It also would have needed to be treated just for code. The math does not add up.
I want to believe it was just the planes that brought them down ... but I would not bet my life on it.
“Steel melts around 2500 Fahrenheit. “
~~~
Steel doesn’t have to melt. It just has to get hot enough to be “soft” and warp under structural loads.
Let me give you an example. If you have seen houses with basements, many times there are load bearing beams that with some significantly long spans holding up first floor joists. They are usually supported at one or several points by vertical polls or columns. This is to open up the basement space.
Did you know that in most house fires, the steel I-beams fail faster than comparable composite wood beams?
This is because it takes longer for a fire to burn through a wood beam than it takes for a steel I-beam to get soft and cave into the loads it is supporting.
That is why structural steel in sky-scrapers are coated. That coating, however, only prolongs the time it takes for fire to compromise it’s load bearing capacities. Even if those weren’t extra-hot jet-fuel fires, given a long enough time exposed to fire, those buildings would have collapsed.