Since we know that Jet Fuel burns at a maximum temperature of ~260-315°C (500-599°F) in open air, Hydro Carbon fires burn at a maximum of 825ºC (1517ºF), and the melting point of typical structural steel is ~1510ºC (2750ºF). Then what caused the “pools of Molten steel” at the WTC?

Jet Fuel (JET A-1): “Commercial jet fuel is essentially kerosene…”
~260-315°C (500-599°F) – open air burning temperature of JET A-1.
~980°C (1796°F) – maximum burning temperature of JET A-1.
Fuel inside the Towers was not in a pressurized and controlled burn state.



~1535ºC (2795ºF) – melting point of iron.
~1510ºC (2750ºF) – melting point of typical structural steel.
~825ºC (1517ºF) – maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air – blue flame).
Diffuse flames burn far cooler. Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet. The fires in the Towers were diffuse and well below 800ºC.




Kerosene – Hot enough to bring down 3 WTC buildings. Won’t melt $10 camping Lanterns.

‎”Kerosene is widely used to power jet-engined aircraft (jet fuel) and some rockets,”

“Jet fuels are sometimes classified as kerosene or naphtha-type Kerosene-type fuels include Jet A, Jet A-1, JP-5 and JP-8. Naphtha-type jet fuels, sometimes referred to as “wide-cut” jet fuel, include Jet B and JP-4.”

‎”Commercial jet fuel is essentially kerosene that has been hydrotreated to improve its burning properties.”

“Commercial jet fuel is refined kerosene. Airliners use “Jet A” kerosene , also know as fuel oil #1, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel. Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible petroleum distillate liquid. It weighs about 3.1 kg/gal (0.81kg/L). It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 – C17.”

The Differences Between Kerosene & Jet Fuel
Jet Fuel VS Diesel VS Gasoline how they burn and what color are they.


“In this video I discuss and show the differences between Jet-A, Diesel, Heating Oil, Kerosine, Avgas (100LL), and Gasoline. I made this video because many people think Jet fuel is super dangerous when infact regular Gasoline burns easier.”





“It is believed that almost all of the jet fuel that remained on the impact floors was consumed in the first few minutes of the fire.” 2-22
“Our analysis indicated that the biggest problem with an airliner impact would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. However, the building structure would still be there”
John Skilling – Lead Structural Engineer for the WTC, The Seattle Times February 27, 1993.
Peter Tully of Tully Construction was the contractor responsible for the eastern quadrant of the pile– the South Tower, WTC 4 and 5, and the 425,000 square foot underground mall. Tully granted an interview that proved most interesting:
‘Think of the thousands of file cabinets, computers, and telephones in those towers – I never saw one – everything was pulverized,’ he said. ‘Everything that was above grade – above the 6th and 7th floor – disintegrated…it was like an explosion.’ Tully Construction specializes in concrete. I asked Mr. Tully if he had ever seen concrete pulverized as it was at the WTC. ‘No – never,’ he said. Tully said that there were hot spots where he observed ‘literally molten steel.’ Asked about what could have caused such intense heat, Tully said, ‘Think about the jet fuel.’
“The workers go through three pairs of rubber boots a day because they melt in the three-week-old fire of molten metal and jet fuel….The health hazards are everywhere: the fire, molten metal, the lack of breathable air and 3000+ decomposing bodies. And I’m working for these brave souls.” —Ben Johnson, First Responder, aided in cleanup effort.
“NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse.”
“15. Since the melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit) and the temperature of a jet fuel fire does not exceed 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit), how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit).
On Sept. 11, 2001, the jet-fuel-ignited fires quickly spread over most of the 40,000 square feet on several floors in each tower. This created infernos that could not have been suppressed even by an undamaged sprinkler system, much less one that had been appreciably degraded.”
Thomas Eagar, an MIT materials professor, had described the fires as “the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse”. This is because the fires were originally said to have “melted” the floors and columns. As Eagar said, “The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.” Jet fuel is essentially kerosene and would have served mainly to ignite very large, but not unusually hot, hydrocarbon fires.
“The invention of jet engines created another challenge for engine designers. They did not require a fuel that vaporized (turned to a gaseous state) as easily as AvGas, but they did have other requirements. Instead of using gasoline, they chose kerosene or a kerosene-gasoline mix. The first jet fuel was known as JP-1 (for “Jet Propellant”), but the U.S. military soon sought fuels with better qualities. They wanted fuels that did not produce visible smoke and which were also less likely to produce contrails (the visible trail of condensed water vapor or ice crystals caused when water condenses in aircraft exhaust at certain altitudes). But a major requirement was for fuels that did not ignite at low temperatures in order to reduce the chance of fire.”
“But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire.”
– Hyman Brown (quoted by the BBC)
“Fires that kindled from the fuel in the planes were too shortlasting and weak to be able to severely damage the structure of the skyscrapers. Even in the extreme situation, the heat from a kerosene fire cannot threat the durability of a steel trunk. With the temperature of carbohydrate fires that reaches only 825 °C (approx. 1517 °F) steel weakens at 800 °C (approx. 1470 °F) and melts at 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F). In the skyscrapers of the WTC the surroundings were not at all ideal as there were far too many steel columns and they led heat away from the burning area. WTC 1 burned for 102 minutes and WTC 2 for 56 minutes only. A fire burning much longer, from 10 to 20 hours, could slowly increase the burning temperature down to perhaps 1100 °C (approx. 2010 °F). Provided there is more substance to burn, such a fire will damage concrete and irons, but not severely heavy steel constructions.”
Trade Center architect discusses buildings (Aaron Swirski)

“The criterion was that if a plane hits, it would go right through it. And nobody could foresee something like that. The tower was protected in such a way that the damage would be limited to one story, but it wouldn’t travel to the other stories.”
“I imagine, when I saw the pictures of the implosion of the building, it looks like the fuel must have leaked right to the core of the building, and from there it was the massive explosion that caused the building to collapse.”

Aaron Swirski, architect, says WTC floors designed to self-seal in case of emergency.
Give truthers a chance?

“9/11 conspiracy theories flow from a scientific fact: whatever the 9/11 Commission Report might claim, fire generated by burning jet fuel is not hot enough to melt steel.”

In a tweet this afternoon, Salon editor Kerry Lauerman wrote, “We re-published a story we shouldn’t have. Apologies for an unfortunate lapse.” He added, “It shouldn’t have slipped through.” Here’s the official statement:

“On Jan. 22, Salon republished an article from one of our content partners, the Weeklings, that was sympathetic to unfounded 9/11 conspiracies. The article slipped through our usual review process, and was clearly not up to our standards; we removed it as soon as it was brought to our attention by readers. Salon has a long history of debunking fringe conspiracists — around Sept. 11, and more recently, Sandy Hook — and are proud of those efforts. We regret this oversight.”
How Much Jet Fuel Actually Remained Within Each of the Twin Towers?
Believed to Be Safe, the Towers Proved Vulnerable to Jet Fuel Fire

“The cause of the twin collapse yesterday of the World Trade Center towers in downtown Manhattan was most likely the intense fire fed by thousands of gallons of jet fuel aboard the two jetliners that crashed into the buildings, experts on skyscraper design said.”


The maximum temperature Jet Fuel (JET A-1) burns at, which requires a controlled, high-pressure burn is: 980°C (1796 °F)

HOWEVER, the OPEN-AIR temperature, also termed ‘dirty burn’, is the temperature a fuel burns at in an unpressurized and uncontrolled burn, and for JET A-1 is: 260-315°C (500-599°F) *
Fuel inside the Towers was not in a pressurized and controlled burn state.

‎”It is believed that almost all of the jet fuel that remained on the impact floors was consumed in the first few minutes of the fire.” 2-22

Commercial jet fuel is basically refined kerosene. Kerosene is the fuel used in many domestic camping stoves.
Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible petroleum distillate liquid.
Jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kg/gal (0.81kg/L).
It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 – C17.
The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.
It has a flash point within the range 42º C – 72º C (110º F – 162º F).
And an autoignition temperature of 210º C (410º F).

Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:
(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O (jet burner) or (pre-mixed flame)
(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O (diffuse flame)
(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O (diffuse flame)

Reaction (1) occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.
Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns.
When reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes the smoke very dark.….ers.pdf
Hot working – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Debunkers will often make the claim that Jet Fuel/Fire did not have to melt the steel, it just had to “weaken” it to the point of structural failure.

“FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength”

“Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F,”


The “weakened” argument is null and void when you have video footage of molten steel coming out of the corner of the tower a minute before it collapsed and the dozens and dozens of witnesses to Molten Steel under the rubble of WTC 1, 2 and 7. Fire fighters and other first responders aren’t talking about “weakening”, they are testifying to the “melting” of steel. It also doesn’t account for the 90 Floors below the impact zone that were untouched and/or undamaged by the fire because there were no fires below the impact points.

These firefighters are not talking about “weakened” steel. They are witnesses to Molten steel.

Show me a single example of a steel framed high rise weakening from fires and then totally collapsing at near free fall acceleration? I’ll wait…..
Debunking the Real 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can’t Face up to Reality – Part 2
Debunkers claim the steel would have lost strength as the temperature increases. Which is true but what they fail to take into consideration is that the towers also had fireproofing, sprinklers, and fire fighting operations going on. Which kept the fires and heat relatively low.

Since steel is a great conductor of heat, how long do debunkers suppose it would take to heat up all this steel simultaneously to 1000 degrees? Keep in mind that no other High rise fire has ever totally collapsed before and have burned for much longer then on 9/11.

NIST’s own tests FAILED to weaken or melt steel similar to that in the WTC. So how did they come to their conclusions when their tests failed by experiment?

9/11 Skepticism: NIST floor test

NIST FOIA 09-42: Release #15 — 42A0019 — WTC CB P1 T1 NW Camera

In this video, NIST’s test failed to destroy a single cubicle in a blazing 20 minute fire. Thousands like it would have been present in the towers. If Fire can’t destroy a cubicle, how do you expect it to destroy 47 center core columns and 236 perimeter steel columns at the same time?



“The planes were full of Jet Fuel.”


Some debunkers will argue that the 9/11 Planes were full of Jet Fuel but looking at airline industry procedures, planes only use the amount of fuel needed to get to their destination with some in reserve.

A Boeing 757 can fly a maximum range of 3,900 Nautical Miles on a full tank of Jet Fuel (11,400 US Gallons). Boston to LA is only 2611 miles. So it would not make sense for AA or UA to fill up the tank if it was not needed. The airline industry does this to save money on the cost of fuel distribution in comparison to weight, distance and time of flight.

Boeing 757-200

“Departing from John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), the 757-200:
Can fly to Los Angeles – LAX (2144.6 nautical miles away), using 55.0% of its maximum range.
Can fly to London – LHR (2989.4 nautical miles away), using 76.7% of its maximum range.
Cannot fly to Hong Kong – HKG (6999.2 nautical miles away), since its maximum range is 3,900 nautical miles.”
“Aircraft have two major types of weight limits: the maximum takeoff weight and the maximum structural landing weight, with the maximum structural landing weight almost always being the lower of the two. This allows an aircraft on a normal, routine flight to take off at the higher weight, consume fuel en route, and arrive at a lower weight.”

“The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report into collapse of the WTC towers, estimates that about 3,500 gallons of jet fuel burnt within each of the towers. Imagine that this entire quantity of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficiency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.”
“The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel and it is estimated that, at the time of impact, each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board (compiled from Government sources).” – FEMA

“The 767 Freighter carried up to 23,980 Gallons (90,770L) of fuel. Enough to fill 1200 minivans. It only takes 28 minutes to fill the airplane.”
Here is a Jet Fuel scale ratio compared to the WTC. Much of the Jet Fuel burned off in a huge fireball outside of the towers and the Jet fuel remaining on the impact floors “was consumed in the first few minutes.” There were no fires or jet fuel below the impact zones.



Controlled Test Proves Jet Fuel Will Make Steel Beams Fail (Test starts at 5:00)

National Geographic and Conspiracy

Remembering 9/11: 9/11: Science and Conspiracy
National Geographic Debunked
Controlled Test Proves Jet Fuel Will Make Steel Beams Fail (Test starts at 5:00)
Remembering 9/11: 9/11: Science and Conspiracy
NIST & National Geographic – Nano Thermite Hypothesis gets Discredited


What’s wrong with this experiment?

1 – Horizontal orientation of the I-beam vs actual vertical orientation of the exterior perimeter columns and massive center core columns which held up over 60% of the weight load. This test was a single beam, no trusses, no vertical supports and unattached and not bolted to any steel structure.

2 – Dimensions and type of I-beam. The I-beam used was only a scale model. Let’s compare to the WTC steel

I-beam not anywhere near equivalent to a 14″ rectangular, 4″ thick-walled box column with a strength rating of tens of tons psi. They used a single I Beam that was 8″ in height and 18 pounds per foot and loaded it with 3,000 lbs.

3 – Placement and possible ratio as to weight used to simulate load, once again, dead center on the weakest area of the I-beam. I repeat, no vertical supports at all.

4 – No fireproofing on this I-beam because NIST states that the planes impacts knocked it all off. How could a plane knock off fireproofing in an area that wasn’t even struck?

5 – 700 gallons pooled directly below the beam thus far more direct and consistent application of heat. This was also an Oxygen fed fire with 100% jet fuel in a controlled environment.

6 – How did they reach a peak temperature of 2010 degrees Fahrenheit? When the maximum temperature of Jet A-1 is only 500-599°F in open air and a 1796°F maximum burning temperature.

7 – This test failed to melt the steel I-Beam. Many expert witnesses testified to reports of Molten Steel in the rubble and sub levels of Ground Zero.

8 – This I-Beam sagged and warped. It did not explode outwards hurling the I-Beam away from initial point.

9 – Still does not explain WTC 7, since there was no Jet Fuel or plane that crashed into Building 7.

10 – National Geographic forgot to mention that fire fighters were in the towers battling the fires with water hoses. Through fire fighter radio transmissions, it is clear that the fire fighters had the fires under control.
National Geographic Does 9/11: Another Icon Debased in Service of the Big Lie


Disinfo and Pseudo Science used to promote the official story while comparing apples to watermelons.


Here is a video made by a Welder named Trenton Tye. His 2 minute video has gotten over 6 million views and was shared by many alternative mainstream sites. In the video he claims to debunk the claim that “Jet Fuel Can’t Melt Steel Beams”. He Doesn’t use Jet Fuel, Doesn’t Melt Steel. Fail!

For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT

“I’m trying to put to rest one of the more moronic things I have seen on the Internet….Jet fuel only burns at 1500 degrees and since steel melts at 2700 degrees. 9/11 was a conspiracy. I am so sick and tired of this argument.” – Trenton Tye (welder)

Trenton Tye

Purgatory Ironworks
The Blaze (1500 Likes)


1) Half inch rebar is not the same as structural steel used in the Towers or Building 7.
2) The Towers were not forges or a furnace. Not to mention how long was the rebar left in the furnace?
3) The fires burning in the towers were far less than 1500 degrees, let alone 1800 degrees.
4) What “softened or weakened” the 90 floors of the untouched steel under the impact zones?
5) There was no Jet Fuel in Building 7.
6) NIST themselves couldn’t find any samples that were higher than 250 Celsius. NIST’s own tests failed to weaken or melt structural steel comparable to the WTC.
7) Most of the jet fuel was consumed in the impact fireball and what was left was burned in the first couple minutes as stated by FEMA.
8) This does not account for the hundreds of witnesses that saw pools of molten steel. Not “weakened” steel.
9) He admits he is 300 degrees over the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel. ~260-315°C (500-599°F) is the Maximum open air burning temperature of JET A-1.
10) What does the anvil have to do with anything? If he stacked 10 anvils and heated the top two up and dropped them on the remaining 8, does he think the anvils would pulverize themselves at nearly free fall acceleration?
11) “Get a job” has nothing to do with Physics and the laws of motions. Your experiment is invalid.
12) If the rebar bent over like a “noodle”, then why didn’t the Towers tip over like so? Also note, the rebar did not melt.
Purgatory ironworks, youre a FUCKING IMBECILE!
Viral “Undying Moronic Jet Fuel Argument” Video QUESTIONED

1) Jet Fuel was not a factor in the global collapse of World Trade Center 7.
2) Only 1/2″ steel rod was used in this experiment. WTC Steel was as thick as 4 inches.
3) Trenton did not use structural Steel used in skyscrapers in his experiment.
4) Trenton used a furnace/forge for his steel rod but furnace conditions were not present in the Towers.
5) Tye heated the steel rod to 1800 degrees. Thats 300 degrees hotter than Jet Fuel can burn.
6) The Towers did not bend and fall over as was demonstrated in his video with the steel rod.
7) Molten steel seen dripping from the corner of the South Tower just minutes before its collapse. Jet Fuel cannot do this.
Viral 9/11 Truth-Debunking Blacksmith Gets It All Wrong

“In fact, Tye’s attempt to disprove controlled demolition by heating a half-inch piece of steel to 1,800°F and bending it like a “noodle” is way off. He seems to think the controlled demolition argument goes like this, “Fire can’t melt steel, so the buildings couldn’t have collapsed from fire.” He couldn’t be more mistaken.
Propaganda Can’t Melt Steel Beams
AE911 Refutes Trenton Tye

For the undying 9/11 MORONIC STEEL = AIR ARGUMENT (Richard Gage)

For the Undying 9/11 MORONIC Replies (Jon Cole)



This guy uses a non comparable event to debunk the “jet fuel can’t melt steel” argument. Doesn’t use Jet Fuel, Doesn’t Melt Steel. Fail!

The point is this Hillbilly makes a video that says he is sick of the “Jet Fuel Can’t melt Steel Beams” claims but yet he doesn’t use Jet Fuel to prove his point. Instead he uses a forge which he admits is 300 degrees hotter than Jet Fuel. Which in fact only burns at a maximum of 600 degrees in open air.

The fact that this guy can say “If it was a conspiracy, I do not care” tells you the lack of empathy this man has. May as well just call him Welder Chomsky!

Most of us understand the point he was trying to make…. and that is that Jet Fuel indeed cannot melt steel…. but it can weaken it. No one is arguing this point. Heat weakens steel, we all know this. But not to the point of total and symmetrical collapse. So the “weakened” claim is null and void when there is evidence of Molten Steel as witnessed by many first responders and clean up crew.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: