Several years ago on this very forum, myself and one of my nephews (who is a civil structural design engineer) had a debate with a few folks who insisted that "steel does not melt at the temperatures that jet fuel burns." I am too lazy to go find that thread and respond in that thread, so I decided to reply in this one.
You see, the statement above attributed to the people who insisted the US GOV staged 9-11 must always be the starting point for making the "they planted thermite charges" claim for how the twin towers were brought down. They need you to believe that the failure of the load bearing steel beams was not a natural result of the damage and the fire, because that is how they lead you down the false path of "the US GOV planted explosives." There are so many Occam's Razor reasons for why their claims are too complex and too exotic to be considered. For example, you would have to show how and when the US GOV had the time to implant that many charges to ensure the charges that were allegedly blown were in the exact same place as the building damage to make it look like it was failure due to damage and fire. Note the two airplanes did NOT strike the towers at the same elevation.
But forget all those Occam's Razor arguments and let's go with the most basic. Let us destroy the belief that the load bearing beams could not have failed due to the fire. While it is certainly true that steel does not
MELT at the flame temperatures induced by aviation fuel (JP-8), steel does not have to melt to lose load-bearing strength. So they start out making a false argument to draw your attention to the fact that the flame temp did not reach steel melting temp. Steel only needs to be heated to a high enough temperature for its modulus of rigidity to seriously degrade. In fact, it is a simple enough experiment to do with ANY metal to see that you do not have to MELT it to make it malleable to external forces that permit you to shape it.
I knew that it would only be a matter of time before videos would show up on the internet PROVING what all of us in engineering know to be true which falsifies the faux claim about steel melting temperatures not being met. I do not have to state ANY facts... all it takes is the evidence of a real experiment. Because that represents irrefutable facts.
So here you go:
Game, Set, Match. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is the highest likelihood. You don't need thermite, and therefore you do not even need to explain how the GOV orchestrated a massive thermite planting effort to attach thermite to the columns they wanted to blow. What you see above is sufficient evidence to PROVE that the failure of the load bearing members of WTC 1 and 2 were a natural result of the aircraft damage and ensuing fire.
RMT