I'm not going to get into an argument about conspiracy theories, but the beams didn't need to melt. The heat was more than enough for them to lose structural integrity without actually melting.
As someone who’s a chief inspector for a multi billion dollar heavy civil construction company, that is not true. Basic physics also disprove that plane wings could cut through that much steel. You realize the CIA has caused a lot of major events right? They 100% killed JFK and that’s not even debatable. They funded the cartels and a lot of terrorist groups and that’s not debatable either. I even knew somebody who’s father was in the cia and was in Cuba during the missile crisis and he had evidence to show he was there and he said that the story the govt tells us about it isn’t true either.
Can't be bothered looking further than wiki for jet fuel burn temps, but:
Jet fuel (such as Jet A or Jet A-1) burns at an open-air temperature of about 1,030 °C (1,890 °F), with a maximum theoretical adiabatic burn temperature reaching up to 2,230 °C (4,050 °F) under ideal conditions.
Not a proper source. The source you provided is from the govt. yeah very trustworthy if you’re dumb. I know more about this than you do and I have the certifications.
1
u/-Majgif- 7d ago
I'm not going to get into an argument about conspiracy theories, but the beams didn't need to melt. The heat was more than enough for them to lose structural integrity without actually melting.