Jet fuel cannot melt steel beams

It doesn’t have to melt steel into liquid. As steel gets hotter it loses its strength.

Yep another case of someone (perhaps) on the right (proper) side of an issue but using dumb easily disprovable arguments to make their case

! ! ! !

1) There have been numerous reports detailing the cause of the World Trade Center Tower collapse on September 11, 2001. Most have provided qualitative explanations; however, simple quantitative analyses show that some common conclusions are incorrect; for example, the steel could not melt in these flames and there was more structural damage than merely softening of the steel at elevated temperatures.
2) its 244 perimeter columns made it “one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers.
3) when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising.
4) The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.
5) Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.
(To read the full article, refer to https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html )

All that is true. That said one thing we do know is we will likely never know what really happened. Except the "official story" seems highly unlikely at best utter BS at worst. My only point is I believe it was a NWO, /CIA/deep state plan, but the whole Steel couldn't melt and cause the collapse argument, is the kinda argument that makes people who have legitimate questions look stupid.

How so? You gotta remember that people are generally very dumb, by destroying the core lie of the whole thing, they might actually be open to the possibility that the official story is a lie and then start to question what really happened.

Only three skyscrapers have ever collapsed due to fire. All three happened on the same day, and all three happened to have the same owner.

And it wasn't burning in open air, and the steel was encased in concrete, and lots more too.

It was an open air fire, because it was not contained in anything. I gave you some time to figure that out for yourself but you seem to be committed to that b.s theory. 👍🏻 Sheeple.

Didn't know that inside a building equated to open air. Thanks for the correction.

It is with a gaping hole blown out of it. A contained fire is inside a combustion engine.